Gun Control (For Preech)

[mburbank]

So, the constitution says we have a right to bear arms, yes?

But I think we as a people already completely accept gun control. It's just a question of where the line is drawn that we have such disagreement about.

The vast majority of the country would agree that I don't have a right to own my own personal Nuclear weapon or vial of weaponized smallpox. A lot of people would say that I shouldn't be able to have my own tank or a howitzer or even a bazooka. It's right around the level of machine guns and assault rifles that things start to get fuzzy.

So unless you want to argue I should be able to get my own Nuke (and I do want one) what's your point?

[El Blanco]

If you have the funds and equpiment to handle a mininuke, I say go for it. Private citizens already do own bazookas and tanks and shit like that.

[mburbank]

Legally? Like, ready to fire tanks with ammo? There needs to be a law against that shit.

[El Blanco]

For what? Owning something you don't like?

Actually, I can understand laws outlawing nuclear reactors in the basement because of a silly little thing called radiation. That gets in the air or ground and it fucks over everybody.

A tank, on the other hand, is a vehicle. It just happens to have a canon sticking out of it. If I own enough land to keep and maintain a tank, I'm not harming anyone. Only if I rev it up and rampage through town is anyone in danger. It would take a deliberate act to be a danger.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

On a slightly related tangent, the Pentagon spends money every year on research for a nuclear hand grenade. Figure that one out.

I think we should also have state militias, as the amendment reads. With nuclear hand grenades.

Taken literally, it seems like an amendment that sort of lacked vision, which I think is sort of uncharacteristic of the constitution as a whole (if Hamilton wrote it it would've been different >: ).

But to be fair, what about the 1st Amendment? Does the line "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" really mean that kids can't have prayer in school? What about "Under God"??? Is that Congress codifying a specific religion?

[El Blanco]

The Constitution was left a little vague in several areas to allow some wiggle room for changing times.

I think a big problem with these kinds of debates now-a-days is that people think the Founding Fathers were of a single mind. This couldn't be further from the truth.

There was the Great Compromise, 3/5 Compromise (how is that holding up these days?), debates, conventions, arguments, accusations about people's mothers, and even a gun fight between two of the FF.

So, when we argue about what an Ammendment means, we aren't arguing what the FF meant, but what one particular Founder we agree with said.

[ziggytrix]

What about "Under God"??? Is that Congress codifying a specific religion?

I don't have anything to say about gun control, being one of those pesky "undecideds" but on this I have to say that "Under God" codifies theism in general and monotheism specifically. Furthermore, "Under God" was inserted in the pledge to point out that we Americans weren't like those Godless Commies, and such rhetoric is an unnecessary endorsement of religion.

We are not One Nation Under God.

[mburbank]

Balls! May I or may I not have a nuclear weapon?

Don't I need special and difficult to obtain liscences even to have dynamite?

What about flamethrowers? I'm not being flip on that one, I'd seriously like to know, because if I can have one I want one.

[Juttin]

I think a gun that is just enough to shoot someone in the legs/arms to stop them from trying to harm/rob you is good enough.

I know that the amendment called for rifles and muskets and such, but I think police level pistols are where the right to bear arms is kept.

Anything that infringes on someone's rights is contradicting the suspect's rights to do so.

So, no. You shouldn't be allowed to have a weapon that can/will kill or maim someone.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

"Under God" codifies theism in general and monotheism specifically.

Where in the constitution does it say theism or monotheism shall not be said or even implied by ANYTHING public???

Congress can't recognize, codify, or support one particular religion. We know why this was considered to be important back then, and still is today obviously.

"God" is not a religion. Monotheism isn't even a religion. Sure this debate can go back and forth, but if you take away some degree of staunch secularism from the first amendment I think you're reading into it.

[El Blanco]

I think a gun that is just enough to shoot someone in the legs/arms to stop them from trying to harm/rob you is good enough.

Stop watching movies. Thats just not logistically sound. Ask anyone who works with guns. They will tell you that your best bet is three center mass.

I know that the amendment called for rifles and muskets and such,

No it doesn't. I says the people have a right to bear arms.

but I think police level pistols are where the right to bear arms is kept.

Police are issued body armor and automatic weapons.

Anything that infringes on someone's rights is contradicting the suspect's rights to do so.

My owning a .50 caliber Browning M2 has nothing to do with you or your rights. If I decide to spray your living room with it, then its a problem. The same as if I decide to park my car there.

So, no. You shouldn't be allowed to have a weapon that can/will kill or maim someone.

Thats everything. Do you know how many veins and arteries go through your arms and legs? Do you know what it takes for a bullet to actually rip off a limb?

[Juttin]

I'm saying weak pistols.

And you're also more likely to not kill someone by shooting them in the arm, maybe shoulder

A 50 Cal. pistol is one of those guns that can severely injure someone when you shoot them in a trivial place.

A pistol, maybe around .30 cal., wouldn't be too much on a limb (no pun intended)

I'm not saying " I think we should use guns to kill people"

Also, when the amendment was made, we were in a war-bound time
They actually meant for the guns to be used against British soldiers.
And they were generalizing in muskets, and rifles.

[El Blanco]

I'm saying weak pistols.

I now that. Its just not realistic.

And you're also more likely to not kill someone by shooting them in the arm, maybe shoulder

Ever fire a gun? I don't think you have. Again, talk to people that know this sort of stuff and listen to what they tell you about aiming at shoulders.

A 50 Cal. pistol is one of those guns that can severely injure someone when you shoot them in a trivial place.

Any gun will do that.

A pistol, maybe around .30 cal., wouldn't be too much on a limb (no pun intended)

What do you think has to happen for major damage to occur?

I'm not saying " I think we should use guns to kill people"

Well, we certainly can't use them for bottle openers.

Also, when the amendment was made, we were in a war-bound time

Doesn't matter. The Constitution was meant to define the relationship between the government and the people.

They actually meant for the guns to be used against British soldiers.
And they were generalizing in muskets, and rifles.

Then it would have been written that way. The implication is that it was meant to protect the people from any tyrranical government. Foreign or domestic. The words "British" "musket" and "rifle" are nowhere in the Constitution.

[mburbank]

Neither is te word 'death ray' but I want me one.

[El Blanco]

You want a pair of rocket boots thrown in there with your order?

[mburbank]

I'm pretty sure the constitution speciffically prohibits private ownership of rocket boots.

[JMHX]

As a proud gun-owner, here is what disturbs me most about this gun control issue: anti-gun advocates and Democrats (for the purpose of this we will accept that there are few Democrats in the House and Senate who have taken strong stands against gun control legislation) want to interpret the 2nd Amendment's protection of arms very strictly, using original intent and strict constructionism. However, they have no problem expanding the other 9 amendments as "living documents," and have taken wide interpretations of them while essentially refusing to give the 2nd Amendment similar treatment.

It seems an awful double-standard to limit and attempt to restrict one right, setting it aside from the other nine, which are defended tooth-and-nail by countless activist groups. Similarly, punishing those legal gun owners who have never committed crimes, who in some cases have a long family heritage of gun ownership, for the crimes of those who have most likely illegally purchased guns not open for sale in the United States, is ridiculous. Do we ban every driver on the road for the recklessness of one drunken teen? Do we recall kitchen knives because one enraged wife castrates her husband in his sleep?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

That's a great point, which is basically what I was trying to say above.

[maggiekarp]

You can't really compare a gun to a car or a kitchen knife, though. Those things have purposes besides killing.


I'm kind of torn on the gun issue :/

[El Blanco]

You can't accidentaly kill with any of those items. It takes a deliberate, concsious act.

[JMHX]

You can't really compare a gun to a car or a kitchen knife, though. Those things have purposes besides killing.

Plenty of guns have purposes besides killing. Sport rifles are part of the Olympics, and have become such an omnipresent force in gun and sporting stores that it has turned into a multi-billion-dollar industry. Besides, since when is killing a deer a crime?

[maggiekarp]

I'm talking about stuff like handguns with the sole purpose of death to humans. I don't have any problems with sport rifles or hunting guns.

[JMHX]

I'm talking about stuff like handguns with the sole purpose of death to humans. I don't have any problems with sport rifles or hunting guns.

I own a handgun used for hunting small game, as well as one Smith and Wesson sport-shooting handgun. Handguns are hardly people-killers, though they are effective in home defense, which is protected by law.

[CaptainBubba]

Arms = Guns.

No one ever reffered to cannons as Arms. That is Artillery. Tanks are Armoured Artillery. Nukes are bombs, or Nuclear Arms if you must be a penis and I know how you like to pretend.

Machine Guns and automatic weapons are nessecary when dealing with criminals who have obtained body armor or are generally intelligent enough to take cover and have automatic weapons themselves. In addition automatic weapons are used in less than 1% of violent crime.

This really is not an issue. No one in this country but my dad and you wants to privately own a nuke.

[JMHX]

Automatic weapons are also banned in the United States, so no one needs to worry about "assault weapons" falling into the hands of responsible gun owners.

[CaptainBubba]

Noone should worry about responsible gun owners in the first place.

But yunno I hear Marajuana is banned here too so I guess the war on drugs won! WE DID IT!

[JMHX]

But yunno I hear Marajuana is banned here too so I guess the war on drugs won! WE DID IT!

No, I'm simply saying that those who own automatic weapons are illegal, and it's no reason to limit the choices of responsible gun owners because of the crimes of those who have not followed the proper process.

[ziggytrix]

you forgot to use your [sarcasm] tags or an asterisk (*) to indicate that you were not being genuine with your words. :(

[Juttin]

Maybe we misread the constitution.

Perhaps it means we have the right to have bear arms

[JMHX]

The right to arm bears?

[ziggytrix]

http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~tonya/spring/gun/gifs/GUN2.GIFBOH BOH!

[Preechr]

HEY!!

THIS THREAD WAS SUPPOSED TO BE FOR ME!!!

[kahljorn]

"But yunno I hear Marajuana is banned here too so I guess the war on drugs won! WE DID IT!"

Marijuana's legal in many places. I know a ton of people who have cannibus club cards. My suggestion would be to move somewhere it's legal if you want to smoke. If you come to california you can get cannibus club cards for insomnia or muscle cramps, or insomnia caused by muscle cramps, there's a host of legitmate reasons.

[CaptainBubba]

Nah, M.J makes me horribly unexplainably depressed. I'm all about Shrooms lately.

[Preechr]

Last I checked, you can build a flame thrower pretty easily, and it's legal to own (at least in some places, probably not your state where buying a diesel-powered truck is illegal) up until the point at which you use it on someone or something.

Radioactive material and other deadly substances, such as sarin (made from castor beans,) mustard gas (made from French's yellow mustard) and C-4 (made from poop,) requries strict licensing to possess. I'm pretty sure you'd get vetted out of that process, buddy... no offense.

Just as with the War on Some Drugs, I have no problems with you having whatever weapons you wish as long as they are owned and used in a strict licensing and enforcement scenario.

The Second Amendment was ultimately intended to allow for protection of American citizens from their government. It was a given at the time that guns came in handy when the time for protection of one's life and/or property became at stake due to the imposition of another citizen or a group of them, and that's not at all addressed by the amendment. That assertion is easily proven by noting that NONE of the protections in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights restrict interpersonal activity, but rather only the actions of the government upon it's owners.

Let me repeat that in less Preechr-like prose: The Constitution only tells the government what it can and cannot do to you, not what we can and cannot do to each other or to the government. Your actions are restricted by laws passed by Congress, which are checked against Moral and Constitutional authority by the executive and legislative branches, respectively.

Now, if you really want to discuss Gun Control, please reference http://justfacts.com/gun_control.htm first. It's actually a rather boring argument.

[mburbank]

I will only kill myself trying to make a flamethrower. I want a huge ass military surpluss flamethrower.

I'm okay with control in the form of very strict, heavily enforced liscencing. And it doesn't matter what YOU think about me owning a nuke, Preech. You are way the fuck out on the far end of the curve. My point was, the vast majority of people probably accept SOME form of line about what a private citizen can own in the way of weapons, and if any line is accepted, than the argument is about where the line gets drawn.

Personally, I wouldn't trust me with anything that could kill more than ten thousand people at a go. Most days I wouldn't set it off the way the drunks on my street do firecrackers in early July, but it only takes one day. And I'm not an entirely reliable individual.

[Juttin]

Blanco, I've fired a gun before, damnit.

And it's a well known police manuever to shoot to stun.

It doesn't fucking blow your limbs off
I've seen it done

[executioneer]

dude you get more points if you get a headshot don't you know anything

[El Blanco]

Blanco, I've fired a gun before, damnit.

Then you should realize why that Bruckhiemer crap doesn't work in real life.

And it's a well known police manuever to shoot to stun.

"Shoot to stun"? What the fuck is that? Are you refering to a tazer?

The NYPD is instructed to pull their guns only when in a situation that deadly force is nessacery. In others words, only go for their guns when they are willing to kill someone.

It doesn't fucking blow your limbs off

Comes damn near. No matter what the caliber.

I've seen it done

No police force trains their officers to aim for limbs. Its too risky. Modern handbooks instruct officers to put three bullets center mass (chest) if the officer deems it nesseccary to fire.

[Juttin]

Stun as in stop them from moving.

Seriously, no cops want to plant someone in the chest.

[JMHX]

Stun as in stop them from moving.

Seriously, no cops want to plant someone in the chest.

Except the most XTREME cops.

[El Blanco]

Stun as in stop them from moving.

Thats what tazers and choke holds are for. Guns are only drawn when an officer feels the need to use deadly force. And I'm pretty sure blowing out somebody's ventrical

Seriously, no cops want to plant someone in the chest.

Well, most don't. But that doesn't matter. If they pull the gun, they are prepared to kill. Anything else puts themselves and everyone else in danger.

Why isn't this sinking in?

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

On a slightly related tangent, the Pentagon spends money every year on research for a nuclear hand grenade. Figure that one out.

I think we should also have state militias, as the amendment reads. With nuclear hand grenades.

Taken literally, it seems like an amendment that sort of lacked vision, which I think is sort of uncharacteristic of the constitution as a whole (if Hamilton wrote it it would've been different >: ).

But to be fair, what about the 1st Amendment? Does the line "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" really mean that kids can't have prayer in school? What about "Under God"??? Is that Congress codifying a specific religion?

I say you can take out "Under God" if you allow the kids in school to bring Bibles and pray at will. Under God only specifies monothiestic male dieties which is the belief of most of our albeit deistic founding fathers. Now the most popular religion is athiesm. I think the government does infringe on freedom of religion a bit to much like taking away tax exempt status for churches supporting political causes. (after all the bible didn't promise seperation of church and state, the state did, its not an even field and it's not meant to be) The state should not enforce religion but niether should it endorse any of them (and yes athiesm is a religion, hell buddhism has no gods and it's a religion)

As for on the subject. I think you should be able to own something automatic or under but ONLY if you get the gun registered, you get fingerprinted and sample fired bullets are taken. After all most murders don't happen with automatics (outside of gangs), those are usually just for collecting.

I think the laws should be much stronger on buying, selling, owning, and using guns. But I think it's alright to have them in general. But honestly i don't know much on the subject nor do i have any strong stand one way or another outside of that damn gunshow loophole i think needs to stop.

as for the nuclear nades I think they were better in perfect dark

[CaptainBubba]

"Now the most popular religion is athiesm"

-Courage the Cowardly Dog

saved for posterity.



Ok. Now to the point. You are shockingly stupid and should be baned for a week for being so stupid.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

"Now the most popular religion is athiesm"

-Courage the Cowardly Dog

saved for posterity.



Ok. Now to the point. You are shockingly stupid and should be baned for a week for being so stupid.

A religion is a deeply held belief of the meaning of life and doesn't have to involve a God. Ie: Buddism, Confuscusim, Scientology.

The lack of a philosophy in and of itself IS a philosophy. Religion isn't always about churches and rituals. It's about why you exist.

[CaptainBubba]

Athiesm is by definition simply a lack of religion. It has no inherint ties into any philosophy or way of thinking and merely states one doesn't believe in a practicing faith.

Also your definition of religion is very obviously self fabricated and using it in any other context than your own fanciful thoughts will get you laughed at for being such a pompous faggot.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

Athiesm is by definition simply a lack of religion. It has no inherint ties into any philosophy or way of thinking and merely states one doesn't believe in a practicing faith.

Also your definition of religion is very obviously self fabricated and using it in any other context than your own fanciful thoughts will get you laughed at for being such a pompous faggot.

Encarta defines it as: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by.

the belief: there is no God
values: pleasing myself and if I'm a nice guy advancing the gene pool
attitudes: being an asshole

The lack of religion has it's own beliefs IE there is no God and no afterlife. Athiesm by defintion is the BELIEF that there is no God. Buddism has no gods either and it's still a religion. How about nihilism the belief that God is dead?

It affects your inner most morals and belief of the how the world came to be. It seems to me that is exactly what a religion does. Scientology doesn't call itself a religion either but I think we can all agree that it IS a religion.

Your arrogance in feeling that your belief is beyond any religion because it rejects all other religions is assanine and you need to be attacked with a pair of bear arms befor you reproduce.

http://www.adventuresinthewild.com/Bear/alaska-bear-paw.jpg

[kahljorn]

I don't know, I wouldn't call atheism a religion.

"Buddism has no gods either and it's still a religion"

Actually it does have some gods ;(

I don't think nihilism has anything to do with God being dead, per se, as existence being bullshit ;(

"It affects your inner most morals and belief of the how the world came to be."

It doesn't effect your morals to say there's no god. There is no atheistic creation story.

"The lack of religion has it's own beliefs IE there is no God and no afterlife."

I don't think atheists believe it so much as they have no evidence to the contrary.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

come on guys don't fight ok

Atheism by definition wouldn't necessarily be a religion, but it can be very dogmatic.

I've heard "secular humanism" referred to as a religion, or a cult. Or whatever.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

I don't know, I wouldn't call atheism a religion.

"Buddism has no gods either and it's still a religion"

Actually it does have some gods ;(

I don't think nihilism has anything to do with God being dead, per se, as existence being bullshit ;(

"It affects your inner most morals and belief of the how the world came to be."

It doesn't effect your morals to say there's no god. There is no atheistic creation story.

"The lack of religion has it's own beliefs IE there is no God and no afterlife."

I don't think atheists believe it so much as they have no evidence to the contrary.

If buddhism has a god name one.

If there is no Karma and no afterlife, how does it not affect your morals? It means youhave no retribution outside of concience and getting caught therefor that affects how you act.

If athiesm has no creation story what is evolution?

Don't most other religions believe it because they have no evidence to the contrary?

So what's the difference between secular humanism and athiesm?

[Preechr]

Since this was my thread and the turn it has taken makes me feel sad, could someone please split this up and stick the retarded crap over in the gay and illiterate forum?

I mean, this tangent makes me want to shoot people, but it's not really topical.

[CaptainBubba]

"If there is no Karma and no afterlife, how does it not affect your morals? It means youhave no retribution outside of concience and getting caught therefor that affects how you act.

If athiesm has no creation story what is evolution?
"

None of this is inherint to athiesm. You are making broad wide sweeping assumptions about athiesm based on your personal opinion, and just to make it absolutely clear, are an idiot.

If we must continue this I agree it should be put in another thread.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

"If there is no Karma and no afterlife, how does it not affect your morals? It means youhave no retribution outside of concience and getting caught therefor that affects how you act.

If athiesm has no creation story what is evolution?
"

None of this is inherint to athiesm. You are making broad wide sweeping assumptions about athiesm based on your personal opinion, and just to make it absolutely clear, are an idiot.

If we must continue this I agree it should be put in another thread.

I guess our right. I'm confusing athiesm with humanism or evolution or something. In reality athiesm can be a part of a religion i was thinking of it in and of itself. Athiesm can go with polytheism, monotheism, and the rest of the lot as a part of a religion.

Anyway, back to bear arms.

You know You can make napalm with froaen OJ concentrate and diesel fuel?

[Preechr]

Don't forget about the part where you confused nihilism with Nietzsche...

[kahljorn]

"If there is no Karma and no afterlife"

The word karma means action and has to do with how the actions of you and others in your lifetime effect your future. The word literally means action, and the philosophical principles connected to it all have to with action. Therefore being a prickish asshole now is likely to effect your morals by making you a prickish asshole in the future, and in life you will encounter the things prickish assholes will likely encounter.
"getting caught therefor that affects how you act. "
Yep that's karma for ya! "Act" lol ;( Hindiusm is pretty literal at core(karma is a sanskirt word).

"if buddhism has a god name one"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Aakra ;(

Buddhism like hinduism often has many Gods are emanations or whatever you may call them them, but buddhism, much like hinduism, considers every god within it to be an aspect of the ULTIMATE EXISTANCE, brahman. They all come from there, and they all return to there. They are just aspects, facets, of the divine. ;/
A pretty common philosophic idea, the above, obviously lesser existences come from greater existeces, and are thus a part of the overall, great existence..

Evolution isn't an atheistic creation story. It's a scientific theory.

I'm done with this topic, so don't worry ;/