First  Prev  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  Next  Last
Post Reply Should people be allowed to own guns?
18469 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
15 / F
Offline
Posted 1/24/13

moneygrip3030 wrote:


Angryelfwise wrote:

Citizens in the US are already allowed to own guns. It's part of our constitution, and I have family members who own guns and use them for sport and home defense. They need better gun control laws here, however and I believe some types of guns need to be banned for the average citizen and depending on the job for some officials as well. I just spent part of my evening letting my voice be heard on the fact that they rid the schools in our area of much needed counselors claiming that the district didn't have enough money, but announced that they are arming school police with automatic rifles. Needless to say, I and many other parents spoke out in opposition of this. My son was beaten by school police. It was a mistake on the part of the police. We are going through the courts right now for this. When I spoke to the school police chief about what happened he claimed that it was due to lack of training on their part. Now with them armed with assault rifles my fear is that if a mistake is made again, it won't be a beating that a parent will be facing but a death. Did I mention, I'm the mother of a dead child too. No parent should have to outlive their children, but it seems like that's going to be the future all over the country here. Where does the madness end? I would never own a gun, I don't like them, and have been robbed at gunpoint, kidnapped at gunpoint, and neither time did police do their job with their guns and catch the bad guys. F*ck guns...nuff said.


Now they want to arm the janitors and have them defend our children. Can you think of anything more frightening then a minimum wage custodian with a 5hr training course roaming the halls armed? Not to mention studies have shown that armed guards in schools aren't effective. I'm sorry about your son and I hope the "authorities" are punished accordingly. This guns issue is so divisive and it really shouldn't be. It's a common sense issue IMO. I'm seriously considering moving to Denmark. Mainly for work, but also to get away from this wacka-doodle society we've become here in the states....



Actually what's been proven ineffective has been making schools "Gun Free Zones" because that guarantees that the only armed person on the school grounds is the criminal.
Posted 1/24/13 , edited 1/24/13

snottyenglishgirl wrote:


DRO1 wrote:

YES Its in the constitution!!! Do you want the king of England to come into your house and start pushing you around? HUH?!



well we have a queen in england at the moment.
but in the US constitution the right is to bear arms, not specifically guns. this would constitutionally give you the right to carry around a nuclear weapon.


Back in the olden days when that was written no nuclear weapons existed lol. I'm pretty sure they just meant guns or more specifically muskets.

And yes but only if it becomes harder to get a gun. I've never personally purchased/gotten a license for a gun but from what I've heard on the news and from people I know, it is very easy to obtain both. There should be a lot more background checking when dealing with these things. If the U.S. can can do this, then heck yea guns should still be allowed!

316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / my mother's womb
Offline
Posted 1/24/13

SupersunZeratul wrote:


that's the saying everyone is naive for opting for a crime-free world by creating laws that prevent crimes.
"There will always be criminals, so what's the point of laws?" <- exactly what you are inferring


What is the point of a law who's target doesn't follow the law anyway.

I mean the complaint isn't against legal gun use. It's against those using them illegally (aka murder).

If someone's already determined to go on a killing spree do you really think that he's going to suddenly stop because guns are illegal?

It's one thing to make a law against a reckless behavior that you want law abiding citizens to stop such as talking on a cell phone while driving, but it's pointless to make a law to try to make a lawbreaker avoid an action when he's already planning on breaking ove of those very laws in the first place.


I'm just saying laws are made to minimize the numbers. Everyone knows crimes will never be 100% eliminated. So, rather than letting everyone own a gun that has the potential of harming others anytime with ease, why not limit the amount of harm that could be unleashed? It is still farm more effective to control the damage when the weapon does not bring havoc on masses of people in seconds.
With a law in place, it is easier to restrain the number of firearms in our society. Either way you did not tackle the question: "There will always be criminals, so what's the point of laws?"
What's the point of making a law that forbids citizens from hurting others or murdering others? People always hurt each other yet we still have those laws to prevent as much damage as possible, not to expect that no one will do it anymore. Like anti-bullying law, it's there, but guess what? Bullying still happens all the time.
316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / my mother's womb
Offline
Posted 1/24/13

ksiri wrote:

"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."
- 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

Where is self defense, personal protection, hunting, or sporting mentioned in this line?

The founding fathers of the US understood the context of their times, but also were planning the foundation of a government for future generations. They wanted the final and absolute check on government to be the people themselves. Just like they overthrew the British, they wanted the people to overthrow even them if necessary. And the people needed the right to use power for that purpose. As previously ruled in Supreme Court case Miller vs United States, weapons that should be protected are those that serve a purpose for defense of the nation. These are weapons used by the "militia" or the military itself. Meaning the average citizen could rise up and either join to fight on equal terms, or fight our own government with equal weaponry.

This is why the founding fathers would want us to have these so called "assault weapons" because these are close analogues to weapons our own government uses.

Oh yeah I forgot about the tanks and drones and helicopters. Of course we can't fight our government head on with all that hardware, but we at least need to be put up a stiff resistance as possible. And do you really think ALL of the military will fight its own people? It didn't happen during the Arab spring. That's how the Syrian rebels started getting tanks and artillery, from military units that changed sides.

Some would call us paranoid and delusional. And that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply anymore.

I agree, right now it doesn't.

But those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. And we need to respect the 2nd Amendment for future generations to be free from persecution, if not by outsiders, than by our own people.


Unfortunately, whether you ignore history or not, history will still be repeated. That's the nature of man at work. No one can help themselves.
Banned
31571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / The Void.
Offline
Posted 1/24/13

Pi3volution wrote:


ksiri wrote:

"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."
- 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

Where is self defense, personal protection, hunting, or sporting mentioned in this line?

The founding fathers of the US understood the context of their times, but also were planning the foundation of a government for future generations. They wanted the final and absolute check on government to be the people themselves. Just like they overthrew the British, they wanted the people to overthrow even them if necessary. And the people needed the right to use power for that purpose. As previously ruled in Supreme Court case Miller vs United States, weapons that should be protected are those that serve a purpose for defense of the nation. These are weapons used by the "militia" or the military itself. Meaning the average citizen could rise up and either join to fight on equal terms, or fight our own government with equal weaponry.

This is why the founding fathers would want us to have these so called "assault weapons" because these are close analogues to weapons our own government uses.

Oh yeah I forgot about the tanks and drones and helicopters. Of course we can't fight our government head on with all that hardware, but we at least need to be put up a stiff resistance as possible. And do you really think ALL of the military will fight its own people? It didn't happen during the Arab spring. That's how the Syrian rebels started getting tanks and artillery, from military units that changed sides.

Some would call us paranoid and delusional. And that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply anymore.

I agree, right now it doesn't.

But those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. And we need to respect the 2nd Amendment for future generations to be free from persecution, if not by outsiders, than by our own people.


Unfortunately, whether you ignore history or not, history will still be repeated. That's the nature of man at work. No one can help themselves.


So, you are saying that man has no free will?

58923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / Right behind you.
Offline
Posted 1/24/13



-Vega- wrote:



So, you are saying that man has no free will?



I dont believe that is what he is saying at all, man does have free will, however, we are still driven and limited by human nature, and natural instinct overall. People up top that direct society have always been educated, and have studied history for thousands of years. Survival and maintaining your people's style of life will always take precedence. That is why human history will keep repeating itself, while time changes, what drives people hasn't changed, leading to people in power and people in general to make the same mistakes people decades before them made.
That is just my take on the subject, Pi3volution might have a completely different perspective though.
316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / my mother's womb
Offline
Posted 1/24/13

-Vega- wrote:


Pi3volution wrote:


ksiri wrote:

"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."
- 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

Where is self defense, personal protection, hunting, or sporting mentioned in this line?

The founding fathers of the US understood the context of their times, but also were planning the foundation of a government for future generations. They wanted the final and absolute check on government to be the people themselves. Just like they overthrew the British, they wanted the people to overthrow even them if necessary. And the people needed the right to use power for that purpose. As previously ruled in Supreme Court case Miller vs United States, weapons that should be protected are those that serve a purpose for defense of the nation. These are weapons used by the "militia" or the military itself. Meaning the average citizen could rise up and either join to fight on equal terms, or fight our own government with equal weaponry.

This is why the founding fathers would want us to have these so called "assault weapons" because these are close analogues to weapons our own government uses.

Oh yeah I forgot about the tanks and drones and helicopters. Of course we can't fight our government head on with all that hardware, but we at least need to be put up a stiff resistance as possible. And do you really think ALL of the military will fight its own people? It didn't happen during the Arab spring. That's how the Syrian rebels started getting tanks and artillery, from military units that changed sides.

Some would call us paranoid and delusional. And that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply anymore.

I agree, right now it doesn't.

But those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. And we need to respect the 2nd Amendment for future generations to be free from persecution, if not by outsiders, than by our own people.


Unfortunately, whether you ignore history or not, history will still be repeated. That's the nature of man at work. No one can help themselves.


So, you are saying that man has no free will?



I'm saying that no matter who you are, humans will always be selfish and greedy in some way which makes us do things against our own morals. It's an unavoidable fact.
Banned
31571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / The Void.
Offline
Posted 1/24/13 , edited 1/24/13

Pi3volution wrote:


-Vega- wrote:


Pi3volution wrote:


ksiri wrote:

"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."
- 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

Where is self defense, personal protection, hunting, or sporting mentioned in this line?

The founding fathers of the US understood the context of their times, but also were planning the foundation of a government for future generations. They wanted the final and absolute check on government to be the people themselves. Just like they overthrew the British, they wanted the people to overthrow even them if necessary. And the people needed the right to use power for that purpose. As previously ruled in Supreme Court case Miller vs United States, weapons that should be protected are those that serve a purpose for defense of the nation. These are weapons used by the "militia" or the military itself. Meaning the average citizen could rise up and either join to fight on equal terms, or fight our own government with equal weaponry.

This is why the founding fathers would want us to have these so called "assault weapons" because these are close analogues to weapons our own government uses.

Oh yeah I forgot about the tanks and drones and helicopters. Of course we can't fight our government head on with all that hardware, but we at least need to be put up a stiff resistance as possible. And do you really think ALL of the military will fight its own people? It didn't happen during the Arab spring. That's how the Syrian rebels started getting tanks and artillery, from military units that changed sides.

Some would call us paranoid and delusional. And that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply anymore.

I agree, right now it doesn't.

But those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. And we need to respect the 2nd Amendment for future generations to be free from persecution, if not by outsiders, than by our own people.


Unfortunately, whether you ignore history or not, history will still be repeated. That's the nature of man at work. No one can help themselves.


So, you are saying that man has no free will?



I'm saying that no matter who you are, humans will always be selfish and greedy in some way which makes us do things against our own morals. It's an unavoidable fact.


You are still saying you have no free will. Everything is a choice. You choose to be greedy, you choose to be selfish. Wake up.


316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / my mother's womb
Offline
Posted 1/24/13 , edited 1/24/13






I don't think you understand that humans have the tendency to center on themselves sometimes. It is how it is. You would, of course, naturally work to maximize your own opportunity cost. I'm not talking about your character being selfish and greedy. I think you need to wake up if you do not think you are at least a tiny bit greedy. Everyone has greed; that is how humans advanced to this information age we are in now. If we are not naturally greedy, we wouldn't be dominating the planet and driving animals extinct; there wouldn't be as much man-made catastrophes. Greed drives your motivation. It is a matter of the degree to which you take your greed. That is what you are referring to. I am talking about how humans are. Would you gladly volunteer yourself to die to prevent overpopulation of the world? Very few would offer themselves, because you have a want to survive. But to survive, you must sacrifice. "There is no free lunch."

As quikbeam explained above, human nature is what it is. You can't change that.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/24/13

-Vega- wrote:


You are still saying you have no free will. Everything is a choice. You choose to be greedy, you choose to be selfish. Wake up.





Free Will does not exist. There is no possible way for Free Will to exist.

There is no choice, it is simply an illusion.


Philosophically considered-

Based on what we know of the universe, on a macro-scale, it is mostly determined, it is only within a quantum level that there is any form of indeterminacy. Considering this, Neuro-science has yet to find any sign of quatum indeterminancy within the human brain, so, I shall break this argument into two parts.

1. Suppose that quatum indeterminacy does exist within the brain, it would mean that our choices are completely random, and that we do not choose it, rather, it comes to us from randomness, therefore, we are not free, but only a slave to chance.

2. Suppose that it does not exist, then our brain would be deterministic, and respond only to antecedent and stimulus. Thus, when we think we choose something, that choice is not really a 'choice', in that there is no exercise of free will, because we do not freely choose to do that, that choice is already determined by outside stimulus and antecedents which can ultimately be traced to something that is not within yourself, therefore, everything occurs from necessity rather than choice.
316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / my mother's womb
Offline
Posted 1/24/13

longfenglim wrote:


-Vega- wrote:


You are still saying you have no free will. Everything is a choice. You choose to be greedy, you choose to be selfish. Wake up.





Free Will does not exist. There is no possible way for Free Will to exist.

There is no choice, it is simply an illusion.


Philosophically considered-

Based on what we know of the universe, on a macro-scale, it is mostly determined, it is only within a quantum level that there is any form of indeterminacy. Considering this, Neuro-science has yet to find any sign of quatum indeterminancy within the human brain, so, I shall break this argument into two parts.

1. Suppose that quatum indeterminacy does exist within the brain, it would mean that our choices are completely random, and that we do not choose it, rather, it comes to us from randomness, therefore, we are not free, but only a slave to chance.

2. Suppose that it does not exist, then our brain would be deterministic, and respond only to antecedent and stimulus. Thus, when we think we choose something, that choice is not really a 'choice', in that there is no exercise of free will, because we do not freely choose to do that, that choice is already determined by outside stimulus and antecedents which can ultimately be traced to something that is not within yourself, therefore, everything occurs from necessity rather than choice.


LOL that's is the perfect computational explanation of a human mind xD
thank you for the enlightenment
65265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / N.C.
Offline
Posted 1/24/13

trinkit wrote:


moneygrip3030 wrote:


Angryelfwise wrote:

Citizens in the US are already allowed to own guns. It's part of our constitution, and I have family members who own guns and use them for sport and home defense. They need better gun control laws here, however and I believe some types of guns need to be banned for the average citizen and depending on the job for some officials as well. I just spent part of my evening letting my voice be heard on the fact that they rid the schools in our area of much needed counselors claiming that the district didn't have enough money, but announced that they are arming school police with automatic rifles. Needless to say, I and many other parents spoke out in opposition of this. My son was beaten by school police. It was a mistake on the part of the police. We are going through the courts right now for this. When I spoke to the school police chief about what happened he claimed that it was due to lack of training on their part. Now with them armed with assault rifles my fear is that if a mistake is made again, it won't be a beating that a parent will be facing but a death. Did I mention, I'm the mother of a dead child too. No parent should have to outlive their children, but it seems like that's going to be the future all over the country here. Where does the madness end? I would never own a gun, I don't like them, and have been robbed at gunpoint, kidnapped at gunpoint, and neither time did police do their job with their guns and catch the bad guys. F*ck guns...nuff said.


Now they want to arm the janitors and have them defend our children. Can you think of anything more frightening then a minimum wage custodian with a 5hr training course roaming the halls armed? Not to mention studies have shown that armed guards in schools aren't effective. I'm sorry about your son and I hope the "authorities" are punished accordingly. This guns issue is so divisive and it really shouldn't be. It's a common sense issue IMO. I'm seriously considering moving to Denmark. Mainly for work, but also to get away from this wacka-doodle society we've become here in the states....



Actually what's been proven ineffective has been making schools "Gun Free Zones" because that guarantees that the only armed person on the school grounds is the criminal.


So you would feel comfortable with your school janitor packing heat? How hard do you think it would be to grab that weapon off of them when they're mopping up the bathroom floor? Also, consider this: an armed student walks into class and opens fire, how long will it take for the janitor to drop his mop and run to said class and take out the mostly likely better armed gunman? That's if he even feels like risking his life for the kids who shit he cleans up everyday. You are right though, making schools gun free zones are as effective as making them drug free zones. When I was in high school drugs were everywhere and that was a long time ago. I can only imagine how much worse it is now.... The point is there no easy solutions...
15027 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / New York City
Offline
Posted 1/24/13


I was but for my own self enjoyment :D

anyways if not gun people will still have other means to kill. Without guns the death rate would be lower. Police and other proper authority would probably still have the rights to use fire arms in there end there will always be crooked cops etc who'd try to sell guns illegally. It's a cycle, can we really keep guns away ?
21064 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Vancouver
Offline
Posted 1/24/13
You know the saying " It's not guns that kill people but people.......". I say it's access to guns that encourages people to kill people.

Reduce the access to guns and you reduce the murder rate. Period!

I like that joke about the king of England.......totally works.

Maybe if you give guns to all Americans they'll just all kill each other........that is just sarcasm and I hate the idea but that is what
the NRA seems to want! Guns in school, guns for everyone.

I'm from Canada BTW. but have American friends.
ksiri 
63058 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Orlando, FL
Offline
Posted 1/24/13


anyways if not gun people will still have other means to kill. Without guns the death rate would be lower. Police and other proper authority would probably still have the rights to use fire arms in there end there will always be crooked cops etc who'd try to sell guns illegally. It's a cycle, can we really keep guns away ?


And this is where the cultural divide lies. There are those who see no point to firearms. To them they are just tools for killing and mass-murder. If not for murdering other humans than defenseless animals. There is no tangible benefit to society and all they can see are the risks and the consequences of further existence of guns.

But there are those who understand firearms. We own usually more than one and practice with them regularly. We study, teach and promote safe practices. We understand these are deadly instruments and respect that. You can not help but appreciate the responsibility and privilege of being able to hold a tool that can both end a life and save one. Ownership of a firearm when used lawfully in no way infringes on the rights of another. This is what irritates most gun owners from the anti-gun party. Because we never tell others how to live but keep having other people tell us otherwise or what we "need". If I don't have the right to tell you what YOU "NEED" then you should not have the right tell me what I need. My rights end where yours begin.

At the end of the day though it's ironic that both parties understand that fundamentally, mankind is capable of terrible acts of violence against each other.

Will removing guns lower gun crime and deaths? Absolutely. It would take one hell of a magic wand (or a boatload of more national debt) to do it. But mankind has always looked for tools and weapons to assert power over one another ever since the first primitive man picked up a stone to throw at another. And unless we can somehow culturally change ourselves for the better, violent crime will not end.

Guns are here to stay, it's part of modern life. Until we can develop a Star Trek phaser gun with stun capabilities there will always be gun deaths. We need to work on controlling the problem without denying the rights of a vast majority of people. Because if the majority of gun owners are punished for the actions of a few then we really have lost liberty.
49152 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Oslo, Norway
Offline
Posted 1/24/13
Pistols and revolvers for protection, hunting rifles for hunting. A man who hunts with a semi or fully automatic rifle is no hunter.
First  Prev  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.