abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
It also correlates with dinner.
Guns don't kill people, gun owners kill people.
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
Balzac89
Undercover Mod
haha
The payload on this baby is equivalent to 10-20 tons of tnt. I'm not to sure about range. I'd hate to get the dud.
[video=youtube;E--pKPfi8XM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E--pKPfi8XM[/video]
Doer
Well-Known Member
Yes, you need it bad.
And it isn't very long. 157 pages in close column. I can help. This is the law of the land and the rest is lies. It just goes on and on like this, chapter and verse. I've posted it before. And here you just said that I was being lazy to say that People Kill People. Lazy what? You won't even read the Manual.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way.
Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 3536 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
And dinner corrolates with "delicious" so...cannabalism?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I don't think that writing laws ever leads to increased justice. In fact if I have ever suggested such a thing, it would have been a very long time ago.
Let me restate, I do not seek bans.
However, gun culture is a regrettable thing. Why must people glamorize ownership of guns? Why is there cultural currency to be derived from it? I do not begrudge scared people their defense. I begrudge them the right to make everyone feel like they need a gun. I wouldn't suggest the gov't as a solution to that either, but I'm definitely free to argue against them.
justanotherbozo
Well-Known Member
...you're looking at this thing backwards, gun owners aren't the ones trying to force their way of thinking on others so you're only hearing from pro-gun rights folk because we refuse to quietly surrender our rights.
...and it's the anti gun rights assholes who make everyone feel unsafe so your argument is spurious at best.
...and that 'study' you posted at the start of this thread isn't worth shit, statistics can be used to prove whatever you want them to prove.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
To the blue: I don't think that people must. I do not.
However a championing of guns and gun ownership is imo an expected response to the pressure to do away with them in a dishonest way. Either we all (with moderate restrictions) get'em, or none of us do. The ugliest false dichotomy is between police and other civilians. I'll be more relaxed about gun restrictions if they're truly across the board. No bodyguards and other protected classes.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
The study was fucking ironclad. A four year old could tell you that more guns = more shootings. You're the one with some irrational fear born out of the Turner Diaries and your argument reveals that quite plainly.
Jimdamick
Well-Known Member
You live in Canada, right? How many murders were committed by handgun in that country last year" 200, maybe? That is the body count in NYC ALONE. Do you think it has something to do with ease of access to handguns, or are the people in your country just nicer?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I live in the USA.
What does that number actually mean?
Consider that folks in the country are very probably not nicer. In fact they are hard targets; they're likely to be packin. That is to me the #1 reason why inhabitants of the "maximum gun control" cities get shot so much. The ones who have the guns have already rejected the social contract and have less to lose. I think it has to do with difficulty of legal access to handguns. The guns go to the thugs in and out of uniform.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Why would I need a gun?
Jimdamick
Well-Known Member
Your kidding right?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Why would that be the question?
I hold the right to not own a gun in as high a regard as the right to own one.
As for need ... there is much violent crime being committed, incl. where I live. i have the option of protecting myself with a variety of ways, from martial arts to a carried gun. That is assuming I do not choose to hide in my house the whole time. I reject the idea that the police
a) can
b) should
be Our Total Security Solution™.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
There can never be such a thing.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I agree. ..
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Then you admit, you own a gun simply because you like guns.
Just ponder the above suggestion for half a second before you reject it, and acknowledge that while it may not be true for you, it is for some.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
No.
I agree that there is no total security solution, or total security. No "deciphering" please.
Of course I agree and admit that many own guns because they like'm. However liking them and worshipping them, as you implied before with your mention of Gun Culture (whose existence i also admit), are distinct.
And to be honest, most of my guns I own simply because I like them. But for a few others it isn't so pure. I bought a gun I don't like as much as my "shooting toys" because I bought it, and treat it, as a tool.
It s that gun's utility as a tool in an unsafe society that stays me from entirely going with your argument. I see legitimate need.
Jimdamick
Well-Known Member
Florida and Texas are #2 and #3 in murders by handgun. So apparently the states allowing more people to carry hand guns legally, kill more people than your average bear (pun), meaning Texas and Florida in particular, where the right to carry is not to be infringed upon like to shoot people But I guess all those death's were just citizens protecting their homes and families, etc.