You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Assualt weapons ban expires
- Thread starter Xavier
- Start date
Not to mention we can land planes anywhere, and you could never take out all our landing fields. They're called interstate highways, and there are actually requirements for them to have straight stretches at least every so often, for just that purpose. There are a number of things that make life hard for anyone attempting to take and hold US soil by force.
Anyway, I'd like a better paid and equipped police force (they pay these poor guys peanuts here), but its really just not feasible for them to protect people no matter what. They just can not physically have the presence required to do anything other than punish criminals afterwards, respond to calls, and maybe deter a little crime. On top of that, some people just don't like cops, even though they're (for the most part) just doing their job. So it makes it hard to get funding, especially when people prioritize other things first in the budgets. Government just isn't that great with money, ever.
Anyway, I'd like a better paid and equipped police force (they pay these poor guys peanuts here), but its really just not feasible for them to protect people no matter what. They just can not physically have the presence required to do anything other than punish criminals afterwards, respond to calls, and maybe deter a little crime. On top of that, some people just don't like cops, even though they're (for the most part) just doing their job. So it makes it hard to get funding, especially when people prioritize other things first in the budgets. Government just isn't that great with money, ever.
Some people have tried to detract from my statement that guns help keep america in our hands let me remind you all that even in the last 50 years many countries have been over taken by small bands of armed guerillas and are still lead by these "freedom fighters today" .
A fighter jet is really cool but has little use agaiasnt a group of twenty people who have spread out and taken key location and started to gain steam in thier "revolution" by by smuggling in thier friends and geting locals to join thier side .
A fighter jet is really cool but has little use agaiasnt a group of twenty people who have spread out and taken key location and started to gain steam in thier "revolution" by by smuggling in thier friends and geting locals to join thier side .
Let me remind you that you're talking about third world nations that never possessed the most powerful military on the planet and were (for the most part) practically torn apart by social or economic issues. Also, let me remind you that the idea behind the right to bear arms is to give the people the ability to start such a revolution if the government is deemed tyrannical, not that the former has any possibility of actually happening at the present time.
Originally posted by it290@Sep 14, 2004 @ 10:02 PM
Let me remind you that you're talking about third world nations that never possessed the most powerful military on the planet and were (for the most part) practically torn apart by social or economic issues. Also, let me remind you that the idea behind the right to bear arms is to give the people the ability to start such a revolution if the government is deemed tyrannical, not that the former has any possibility of actually happening at the present time.
ok close enough id say we agree .
you see my point .
BTW was thinking of Cuba but im sure I could think of more if I thought about it for awhile , Cuba at the time was a pretty nice place before there was Las Vegas rich Americans prefered to take thier money and have fun in the tropical paradise .
Originally posted by it290@Sep 13, 2004 @ 11:56 PM
It's people with cowardly attitudes like yours that make the police feel justified when they shoot and kill unarmed drunks, mentally retarded kids, etc. I feel sorry for anyone who's fearful enough to think that it's better to shoot first and ask questions later.
There is no need for the name calling. It is just my observation. Perhaps you are comfortable with someone breaking into your home and killing your family. Someone that breaks into my home is fair game for target practice. It is either them or me.
This has nothing to do with "shooting people first and asking questions later". If I think my life is in danger, I have to act in defense. I don't know what the other person is thinking. I don't know if they are unarmed drunks, or mentally retarded kids.
Dammit! First they ban corpse-sex, now this. I'm cancelling my trip to California.
Originally posted by mountaindud@Sep 15, 2004 @ 02:47 AM
Dammit! First they ban corpse-sex, now this. I'm cancelling my trip to California.
What were you planning to do? How do those two laws relate--- AWW GEEZ! Mountaindud, that's not right at ALL!
Seriously though, I'm perfectly happy with individual states (not feds) choosing to prohibit stuff like this. As long as they don't go wild. It does piss me off that many states don't have reciprocity with their sister states when it comes to gun permits. Marriage licenses, sure, driver's licenses, sure. But they don't like the rules when it comes to gun permits.
Edit: That means I can get thrown in the slammer for having a handgun even though I have a permit from my home state. I can just be visiting/driving through the state, and it can even be locked away in a box in my trunk. They don't give a shit.
There is no need for the name calling. It is just my observation. Perhaps you are comfortable with someone breaking into your home and killing your family. Someone that breaks into my home is fair game for target practice. It is either them or me.
This has nothing to do with "shooting people first and asking questions later". If I think my life is in danger, I have to act in defense. I don't know what the other person is thinking. I don't know if they are unarmed drunks, or mentally retarded kids.
You don't see any correlation between 'someone that breaks into my home is fair game for target practice' and 'shoot first, ask questions later'? It certainly seems like what you're saying is that you automatically assume that anyone who breaks into your home intends to kill you and your family. I would call that jumping the gun. You're right; you don't know what they're thinking, however, personally I wouldn't make that assumption. I can see the argument for making it, obviously- self-preservation is pretty important to just about everybody. And you most definitely have the legal right to do it - here in Colorado, it's legal to shoot somebody who breaks into your home even if you don't think your life is in danger. I simply believe it's immoral to act in that fashion. It's not name-calling; I really do think that behaving in the manner you're describing is cowardly. I'm not saying that as an attack against you or your argument - it's just a big part of the point I'm trying to make, generally. I think guns are a large contributor to the general craven fear that seems to pervade many aspects of our society.
lordofduct
Established Member
i dont know, i look at the law on guns and that whole bill made back when america was founded this way. We made that up in an age when WAR was in our front yard and in our streets. It also was when we mainly lived off of hunted animal and our own personal live stock. We now live in a day when hunting is sport and farms are corporate. War is not in our streets and we have no need for these weapons except to fend off others who also have these weapons. Nevermind the fact NO ONE is taught the ways to handle or respect a gun anymore. People hand it off to there children as if its cool and fun. My father taught me to use a gun, but not in this macho way, he first off started me with a bow and taught me you eat what you kill. I had to eat a squirrel once because of it. next you NEVER pointed it at any living creature especially human if your not intending to shoot. Not even a fuckin' stick that looks like a gun. I went through a many walls and teeth that way. And that long heard phrase... a gun is always loaded.
surprisingly with a heavy up bringing on a farm around guns... i even slaughtered a good deal of pig, cow, goat, and chicken with my own bare hands. I have grown to despise and see no use for a gun. None whats so ever.... the only use i see it for is down my throat.
so i do not own a gun, never will, and will never allow one in my house... i have banned 2 very close friends from my house for bringing them in... it also came along with a hefty ass whooping.
oh and tara if you bring up brian and his shotgun... NO, he left that at his parents.
surprisingly with a heavy up bringing on a farm around guns... i even slaughtered a good deal of pig, cow, goat, and chicken with my own bare hands. I have grown to despise and see no use for a gun. None whats so ever.... the only use i see it for is down my throat.
so i do not own a gun, never will, and will never allow one in my house... i have banned 2 very close friends from my house for bringing them in... it also came along with a hefty ass whooping.
oh and tara if you bring up brian and his shotgun... NO, he left that at his parents.
Originally posted by it290@Sep 15, 2004 @ 06:01 AM
I simply believe it's immoral to act in that fashion. It's not name-calling; I really do think that behaving in the manner you're describing is cowardly. I'm not saying that as an attack against you or your argument - it's just a big part of the point I'm trying to make, generally.
Fair enough. Though, I don't think you are being realistic. You make it seem like these people that break into your home are victims. What I consider cowardy is someone that does not act. It only takes that to be at the mercy of robbers. Anything can happen after that... and there will be nothing you can do.
I don't think they're victims by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just saying that I would avoid killing them if at all possible, and that's part of the reason I don't have a gun. I would still confront someon breaking into my house, though - just not with a firearm.
Lordofduct: If you look back just a few decades, guns have been everywhere, and yet there weren't many crimes involving firearms. When my father was growing up, he and my grandfather both had rifles. They didn't even need to keep them locked up, and it wasn't a big deal (granted, today that is never a good idea. Big safes are important). People were taught to properly handle firearms, to respect them. Now many are taught to fear and revile them. Of course, again I'd welcome changes here too. You can't trust people to be educated on the proper use of firearms on their own, so mandatory classes/testing should be in place before you can get a permit.
Not that I think it is that simple, but it's a piece of the puzzle. Lots of kids are barely raised at all these days, they have no respect. When I was growing up, if a car was coming, you got out of the road. Not because you were afraid of getting hit on purpose, but because it was the right thing to do. When I drive out of my subdivision, the stupid kids just walk/bike/skate around in the street and practically ignore cars. I shouldn't have to sit and stare at them to get them to slink off the road like rats. Their parents must have falsely assumed their kids had the brainpower to move out of the way.
No respect. No respect at all.
Not that I think it is that simple, but it's a piece of the puzzle. Lots of kids are barely raised at all these days, they have no respect. When I was growing up, if a car was coming, you got out of the road. Not because you were afraid of getting hit on purpose, but because it was the right thing to do. When I drive out of my subdivision, the stupid kids just walk/bike/skate around in the street and practically ignore cars. I shouldn't have to sit and stare at them to get them to slink off the road like rats. Their parents must have falsely assumed their kids had the brainpower to move out of the way.
No respect. No respect at all.
lordofduct
Established Member
thats exactly what i mean... they need to be taught a lesson better. I was raised around guns, never were they even locked up. i was taught to respect guns and other rules of the house. We need to beat our kids, that right beat em'.
I think the fundamental ideological conflict here is between those who believe in "better safe than sorry," and "better to risk one's life, rather than take an innocent life."
Both are valid viewpoints, in my humble opinion. However, I think a lot of it depends on who exactly you're protecting. If for example, I was the last line of defense between someone who's broken into my house and my wife/children, then I'd be much more inclined to lean towards the first option.
Example: Pulling a gun on this person and telling them to freeze, getting shot, and dying with the knowledge that your family is defenseless would suck.
However, not everyone has to worry about a family or such. And if you can see this break-in is just a twelve year old, I can easily see how someone would not shoot first.
I don't say this to prove one method of thinking superior to the other. I'm just trying to get people to see it from both sides.
It290, if you would risk your life for a stranger, you should be proud. That's very noble.
In closing, I'd like to throw in another quote I happen to like that concerns gun control: "Better to have a gun and not use it, than to need a gun and not have it." I know that doesn't really fit in with this discussion, but I thought it was a good quote.
Both are valid viewpoints, in my humble opinion. However, I think a lot of it depends on who exactly you're protecting. If for example, I was the last line of defense between someone who's broken into my house and my wife/children, then I'd be much more inclined to lean towards the first option.
Example: Pulling a gun on this person and telling them to freeze, getting shot, and dying with the knowledge that your family is defenseless would suck.
However, not everyone has to worry about a family or such. And if you can see this break-in is just a twelve year old, I can easily see how someone would not shoot first.
I don't say this to prove one method of thinking superior to the other. I'm just trying to get people to see it from both sides.
It290, if you would risk your life for a stranger, you should be proud. That's very noble.
In closing, I'd like to throw in another quote I happen to like that concerns gun control: "Better to have a gun and not use it, than to need a gun and not have it." I know that doesn't really fit in with this discussion, but I thought it was a good quote.
lordofduct
Established Member
i do find guns annoying and may not own one myself and dont plan on it, but i have no problem in those using it.... just respect it. my whole idea of how guns should be dealt with is a bit foolish and fundamental. its basically if everyone treated them that way we wouldnt have armed robberies to deal with. but thats foolish, that called utopia (impossible). So in this world today i decide i will defend beyond all measure preemptively. live in a decent but not to nice neighborhood, lock my doors, one big thing when moving in a place is a check out architecture to see how vulnerable someone would be asleep in the individual rooms. but the actual action of owning a gun is not me, i suffer from serious spats of blind rage, i dont keep many weapons around, i may cause damage to my self or others, that gun may become my last dinner. So, this is mainly im not in the i hate guns group. im the i hate morons with guns including myself even with the respect i was taught for them.
Lordofduct, at least you recognize your limits and know you shouldn't have a gun.
Anyway, while I fall into the "Better safe than sorry" view, I would still prefer not to kill someone. So what I would do depends entirely on the situation. But that does not mean I would hesitate to shoot what appears to be an armed intruder. I just might not load them up like swiss cheese, if I can avoid it.
Anyway, while I fall into the "Better safe than sorry" view, I would still prefer not to kill someone. So what I would do depends entirely on the situation. But that does not mean I would hesitate to shoot what appears to be an armed intruder. I just might not load them up like swiss cheese, if I can avoid it.
Well, I don't want to make it sound like I would risk my life in every case.. I'm arguing this thing from a moral point of view, and perhaps I have gone too far in saying how I would behave. I think it's very difficult for most people to know how they would act in situations like that; that's just as true for people who say they would pull the trigger, as I really believe most people would hesitate before doing that. I'm just saying what I would do if my actions matched up to my ideals with 100% accuracy, which, obviously, they don't.
Originally posted by it290@Sep 15, 2004 @ 03:26 PM
I would still confront someon breaking into my house, though - just not with a firearm.
Goodluck