Gun Control (For Preech)

[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]

Originally Posted by CaptainBubba

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]

BOH 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]

Originally Posted by juttin

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]

Originally Posted by juttin

Stun as in stop them from moving.

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

Except the most XTREME cops.

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by juttin

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?