[QUOTE=Bruce E Kinesis;17908433]my right to use guns means more to me than my quality of living[/QUOTE]

/fixed,

If you're ripping on americans, that is.

Yeah but you don't [I]have [/I]a right to own a gun

well we have the right to bear arms but people take it so far and make it like they should be able to have any weapon they want.

[QUOTE=Bruce E Kinesis;17908585]Yeah but you don't [I]have [/I]a right to own a gun[/QUOTE]

I don't.

But americans do.

[QUOTE=rrl;17908594]well we have the right to bear arms but people take it so far and make it like they should be able to have any weapon they want.[/QUOTE]

The idea is that you have the right to bear arms against the government

what good is a handgun, it should be Apaches or nothing

Isn't it meant to be like the right to bare arms against the king of England and his redcoat chums?

Nicely relevant guys.

That was probably the motivation, yeah.

Fair's fair, we were giving out monopolies like nobody's business

My interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that you have a right to own weapons that would be appropriate in the defense of the 2nd amendment.

Actually hang on...


hurr durr.

"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."


Sounds to me like the people in charge have weapons so the people ruled should be able to have weapons as well. So as to keep a some what balance of power if you will.

To be fair the whole d0cument is a waste of time. They should just write a new one, that actually has some sort of relevance to modern issues, but then, they wouldn't be able to interpret it to mean pretty much anything they wanted.

yeah after all this time it is kind of old and dusty and does need a change











the government that is

lol

[QUOTE=Sad But True;17909143]To be fair the whole d0cument is a waste of time. They should just write a new one, that actually has some sort of relevance to modern issues, but then, they wouldn't be able to interpret it to mean pretty much anything they wanted.[/QUOTE]

BUT THE CONSTITUTION IS THE REASON AMERICA IS SO GREAT AND NOT HAVING A CONSTITUTION IS WHY THE REST OF THE WORLD SUCKS



YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

but seriously

it's all or nothing

Sociopaths should be allowed helicopter gunships [I]it's their right to fight against the oppressive government[/I]

yeah cos someone seriously said that sociopaths should be able to have gunships thanks for the exaggeration

I would like a gun

no al, you're a sociopath

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU :mad:

where's my helicopter gunship

[QUOTE=Left Face Down;17909083]"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."


Sounds to me like the people in charge have weapons so the people ruled should be able to have weapons as well. So as to keep a some what balance of power if you will.[/QUOTE]

It sounds like to me that the state should be able to draft up a militia to represent the people and fight for them in the occasion that it is needed. I don't think private citizens should be able to own weapons.

your representative has spoken

[QUOTE=mnemonic;17909217]yeah cos someone seriously said that sociopaths should be able to have gunships thanks for the exaggeration[/QUOTE]

No *I* said that

I do not see why, if the purpose of that bit of the constitution is allow people to take a stand against the government,
a) why this would allow the state to decide who does and doesn't get guns (ie what if COMMUNISTS weren't allowed guns)

b) why you shouldn't be allowed any military equipment in order to put up a fight to the government if thats who these weapons are for fighting against

[QUOTE=Bruce E Kinesis;17909324]No *I* said that

I do not see why, if the purpose of that bit of the constitution is allow people to take a stand against the government,
a) why this would allow the state to decide who does and doesn't get guns (ie what if COMMUNISTS weren't allowed guns)

b) why you shouldn't be allowed any military equipment in order to put up a fight to the government if thats who these weapons are for fighting against[/QUOTE]

the state already decides who does and doesn't get lots of things, but to my knowledge, doesn't specifically limit it to people of a particular religion or political ideology, etc. To be honest, i think it would be fairly logical if it went about the same as getting a drivers license. if you're not retarded and you're a competent person who can show proper safety, then you're allowed. if you abuse it, it gets taken away.

as for owning tanks and whatnot, thats kind of a whole 'nother can of worms than owning a handgun or a rifle, and one that i'd rather not argue about, as personally I think owning a tank or SAM site is a bit ridiculous.


i guess one really has to remember that this was written back when the pinnacle of modern weaponry was a musket with a bayonet on the end, tanks weren't really around. I think these rights can and should be applied to our modern society, but how, and where the line is drawn, i dunno.


in b4 more josh trollan

While I do not support the idea of private citizenry owning weapons, I can see the desire that people have to at least defend themselves if they see fit to. The problem is that people use this as an excuse to purchase assault rifles with absurd killing power and then claim that any attempt to take away or delay their ownership of these weapons an affront of their second amendment right. Of course not everyone who owns these weapons is going to be some fringe fanatic who is a source of danger and harm to those around him, but this country has a "wait and see" mentality about those things. If a lunatic gets his hands on a weapon and shoots up a bunch of people, somehow people in this country see that as a supportive argument for the anti-gun control crowd.

I say preempt the risk and simply remove weapons from the market. It would probably be better for our country in the long run if access to weaponry was limited to our citizenry and the world as a whole if we stopped being the world's largest arms dealer.

also max likes dix

wow i totally agree with josh

i think i just had an out of body experience



lol i'm j/k man

[QUOTE=JoshIsNumber3;17909572]While I do not support the idea of private citizenry owning weapons, I can see the desire that people have to at least defend themselves if they see fit to. The problem is that people use this as an excuse to purchase assault rifles with absurd killing power and then claim that any attempt to take away or delay their ownership of these weapons an affront of their second amendment right. Of course not everyone who owns these weapons is going to be some fringe fanatic who is a source of danger and harm to those around him, but this country has a "wait and see" mentality about those things. If a lunatic gets his hands on a weapon and shoots up a bunch of people, somehow people in this country see that as a supportive argument for the anti-gun control crowd.

I say preempt the risk and simply remove weapons from the market. It would probably be better for our country in the long run if access to weaponry was limited to our citizenry and the world as a whole if we stopped being the world's largest arms dealer.

also max likes dix[/QUOTE]

what about guns that are possessed illegally, people aren't just going to hand those over because now they're more illegal than they were before.

from what i've read, it seems like gun control stops law abiding citizens from owning guns, yet does nothing to stop criminals from illegally acquiring guns.



also josh is ghey


also josh to college here

[IMG]http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/9448/rollinscollege.jpg[/IMG]


i'm so good at mspaint

I laughed.

I'm saying that if that if the need presented itself to make guns illegal, like some sort of marshal law across the country, you can promise that the process would be dedicated enough to take guns out of anyone's hands, whether they were gained legally or not. If someone wants to look at it at a purely LOL FREE MARKET way, take away the demand for firearms and the market presence will diminish as well.

Ireland may not be the best example due to their high rate of knife violence as a result of gun control, but how often do you hear of someone shooting up 18 people in Ireland or Canada or any of those places? Besides, the demand for guns in this country isn't as a result, "I need a weapon to make sure I am safe," it is a result of the rampant gun culture that regards weapon usage as a necessity of being a HUR DUR HOT BLOODED AMERIKKKAN. That more than anything else needs to be tempered, but we're are a gluttonous and slothful people who are drunk and lazy on democracy. There'll have to be something drastic that changes anything.

[QUOTE=JoshIsNumber3;17909883]I laughed.

I'm saying that if that if the need presented itself to make guns illegal, like some sort of marshal law across the country, you can promise that the process would be dedicated enough to take guns out of anyone's hands, whether they were gained legally or not. If someone wants to look at it at a purely LOL FREE MARKET way, take away the demand for firearms and the market presence will diminish as well.

Ireland may not be the best example due to their high rate of knife violence as a result of gun control, but how often do you hear of someone shooting up 18 people in Ireland or Canada or any of those places? Besides, the demand for guns in this country isn't as a result, "I need a weapon to make sure I am safe," it is a result of the rampant gun culture that regards weapon usage as a necessity of being a HUR DUR HOT BLOODED AMERIKKKAN. That more than anything else needs to be tempered, but we're are a gluttonous and slothful people who are drunk and lazy on democracy. There'll have to be something drastic that changes anything.[/QUOTE]

if there was some way to also take them out of the hands of criminals, then it starts to be a much better sounding plan, but i dont really think thats all that possible.

then there's the knive crime like you said, they just start using other weapons.

I'm sure its a political climate thing too, like you said, i mean, gun control was pretty much non existent way back in the day, but were schools shot up back in the 1960's by angry students?

also, this

[IMG]http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1337/1262769499657.jpg[/IMG]

lets direct our rage toward things that are actually higher hazards, such as heart disease, cancer, and pedestrian accidents. pedestrian right-of-way in the middle of a crowded road is stupid

Hala barÇa!!!!!!!

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4LTTmRa698[/url]

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdX5PVRB9II&feature=player_embedded[/url]

Mine is more important than Aes'

[QUOTE=mnemonic;17909377]the state already decides who does and doesn't get lots of things, but to my knowledge, doesn't specifically limit it to people of a particular religion or political ideology, etc. To be honest, i think it would be fairly logical if it went about the same as getting a drivers license. if you're not retarded and you're a competent person who can show proper safety, then you're allowed. if you abuse it, it gets taken away.[/QUOTE]

No, that would be [B]sensible[/B], not [B]logical[/B].
[QUOTE]
as for owning tanks and whatnot, thats kind of a whole 'nother can of worms than owning a handgun or a rifle, and one that i'd rather not argue about, as personally I think owning a tank or SAM site is a bit ridiculous. [/QUOTE]

How is it a whole different can of worms if the purpose of being allowed to own weapons is to bare them against the government?

to be honest, i'm more concerned with protection in general. not really concerned with going up against the government.

a handgun or rifle sounds fine for personal defense, or for fun or sport shooting, but heavy weaponry is a bit out there for that.

a little drunk right now though, will pick back up tomorrrowish

the constitution doesn't say anything about your right to bear arms against eachother

[QUOTE=JoshIsNumber3;17909572]The problem is that people use this as an excuse to purchase assault rifles with absurd killing power[/QUOTE]


Assault rifles have no more killan powar than handguns or an axe. Only humans have killin powar, based on the situation they put themselves in.

Before you can argue against weapons of [I]any[/I] sort, you have to understand/concede that;

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE DO.

:thumb:

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Stgw_90.jpg[/IMG]

My country forces every man to keep one of these at home and there's been like 3 shootings using assault rifles in the last 10 years.

It can't be the guns alone, it's also the state of mind.

EDIT: BTW you can take one home and take shooting courses from the age of 16, and drive a car from the age of 18. Weird country huh? :lol:

[QUOTE=mnemonic;17909932]if there was some way to also take them out of the hands of criminals, then it starts to be a much better sounding plan, but i dont really think thats all that possible.[/QUOTE]

And that's my stance as well. If [b]no[/b] one had guns, I wouldn't miss them. If there was no legal process to acquire a gun, then I would be terrified of the punks who are picking up theirs out of the back of some dudes trunk in a dimly lit alley.

[QUOTE=mnemonic;17909932]
then there's the knive crime like you said, they just start using other weapons.
[/QUOTE]

And that's sad... The real weapon is the person who's decided to move up in life at the expense of another's. A gun or a knife is merely a tool.

I agree with the reasoning behind gun control, but it's a sweet hypothetical ideal at best, and in real application would bad for the common law abiding citizen.

And if you remove the tool from being available to that person, even for a bit, there can be a significant impact on what that person is capable of doing.

As I mentioned, the problem isn't necessarily the existence of weapons themselves but the entire hur dur culture that the united states as a whole. couple this with the unwarranted necessity of owning weapons in the culture and the promotion of a weaponized culture, well, you get the point.

This is deep.

[QUOTE=JoshIsNumber3;17910986]And if you remove the tool from being available to that person, even for a bit, there can be a significant impact on what that person is capable of doing.[/QUOTE]

Mankind is great at creating new tools and uses. For every couple thousand policy writers/legislators, and enforcers, there's a couple million resourceful crooks creating solutions that meet their own ends.

If we took away guns, knifes, bats, sharp sticks, and put all of the world into a giant padded cell, you'd just get people beating each other to get what they want. The problem is [i]people[/i], it's been around longer than a weapon.

[IMG]http://i40.tinypic.com/25usmtv.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=El-Ahrairah;17910561][IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Stgw_90.jpg[/IMG]

My country forces every man to keep one of these at home and there's been like 3 shootings using assault rifles in the last 10 years.

It can't be the guns alone, it's also the state of mind.

EDIT: BTW you can take one home and take shooting courses from the age of 16, and drive a car from the age of 18. Weird country huh? :lol:[/QUOTE]

wtf where do you live, switzerland?

i'm moving there



also i remember seeing some statistic somewhere, the states (in the US) with the lowest gun control also had the lowest amount of burglaries, I think it may have had something to do with criminals not wanting to break into a house if there was a certainty the person inside had a gun and was well within their rights to use it.

[QUOTE=viciouscycle;17911202][IMGhttp://i40.tinypic.com/25usmtv.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]

what is funny about this, is it the batman joker comic thing? or am i missing something funnier (and probably more obvious)

I thought it was the colours section with the brown guy in it.