Yup, I'm Going There
- Thread starter mantisman51
- Start date
theclemsonkid
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///forum/thread/383860/yup-i-m-going-there#post_3360079
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_stabbing_spree
I think all reasonable people can agree that we need a 5 day waiting period and a 3" maximum length for knives. I know all you right-wing foodies will disagree 'cause you can't stand the thought of not having a complete knife set, but this is more important than your right to own a butcher knife. Also, all knives should have serial #'s and unique blade "prints". I know all you right-wingers need a guillotine, right?
First of all, if nothing else, that was an entertaining little rant you went on! So kudos for that!
But come on, there is nothing you can compare to a hand gun or assault rifle that makes any kind of argument make sense. It's not apples and apples, it's always going to be apples and oranges. Sure a 3" knife can kill a guy, but it can also make me dinner, cut about 500,000,000 things, whittle wood, etc, etc. Heck my 3 wood could kill a guy, but I also use it for recreation every week.
A gun is meant to kill. Period.
Let me repeat that. The sole purpose of a gun, is TO KILL.
How is that like any other "thing" that you "could" kill with?
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///forum/thread/383860/yup-i-m-going-there#post_3360079
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_stabbing_spree
I think all reasonable people can agree that we need a 5 day waiting period and a 3" maximum length for knives. I know all you right-wing foodies will disagree 'cause you can't stand the thought of not having a complete knife set, but this is more important than your right to own a butcher knife. Also, all knives should have serial #'s and unique blade "prints". I know all you right-wingers need a guillotine, right?
First of all, if nothing else, that was an entertaining little rant you went on! So kudos for that!
But come on, there is nothing you can compare to a hand gun or assault rifle that makes any kind of argument make sense. It's not apples and apples, it's always going to be apples and oranges. Sure a 3" knife can kill a guy, but it can also make me dinner, cut about 500,000,000 things, whittle wood, etc, etc. Heck my 3 wood could kill a guy, but I also use it for recreation every week.
A gun is meant to kill. Period.
Let me repeat that. The sole purpose of a gun, is TO KILL.
How is that like any other "thing" that you "could" kill with?
scsinet
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383860/yup-i-m-going-there/20#post_3361259
First of all, if nothing else, that was an entertaining little rant you went on! So kudos for that!
But come on, there is nothing you can compare to a hand gun or assault rifle that makes any kind of argument make sense. It's not apples and apples, it's always going to be apples and oranges. Sure a 3" knife can kill a guy, but it can also make me dinner, cut about 500,000,000 things, whittle wood, etc, etc. Heck my 3 wood could kill a guy, but I also use it for recreation every week.
A gun is meant to kill. Period.
Let me repeat that. The sole purpose of a gun, is TO KILL.
How is that like any other "thing" that you "could" kill with?
I've fired countless thousands of rounds of ammunition in my time. I've got a whole safe full of guns at home.
Exactly ONE of those guns has ever killed anything (besides maybe leaves), and that's my hunting rifle. My hunting rifle has only killed ONE species of animal, and that is whitetail deer. Let me repeat that. My hunting rifle has killed ZERO humans. It's also perhaps worth mentioning that I have fired many rounds though my hunting rifle with neither the intent nor the consequence of killing anything. In fact, of all the boxes of cartridges that I have put through that weapon, the number of them that have actually been fired with the intent (and consequence) of killing wouldn't add up to even one box.
So... if guns are only for killing, what did I fire all those other rounds for?
Guns have uses beyond killing. It's just that you discount those uses as unnecessary, and therefore have no problem with affecting other's rights to partake.
If you dumb the issue down to simply killing vs. not killing, I suppose I can see where your argument becomes so easy.
By the way, I like your golf club analogy. You're quite right that knives have other, necessary uses besides killing. However, I'm not a golfer. I have no interest or desire to ever play the game again. I think anyone would agree that nobody NEEDS to play golf in order to carry out their lives effectively. Therefore, is it right for me to support a ban on your 3 wood? After all... nobody NEEDS one, right? If nobody NEEDs one (according to ME, and MY opinon is all that matters, right?), then why take chances? We need to keep society safe from all those killing golfers!
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383860/yup-i-m-going-there/20#post_3361259
First of all, if nothing else, that was an entertaining little rant you went on! So kudos for that!
But come on, there is nothing you can compare to a hand gun or assault rifle that makes any kind of argument make sense. It's not apples and apples, it's always going to be apples and oranges. Sure a 3" knife can kill a guy, but it can also make me dinner, cut about 500,000,000 things, whittle wood, etc, etc. Heck my 3 wood could kill a guy, but I also use it for recreation every week.
A gun is meant to kill. Period.
Let me repeat that. The sole purpose of a gun, is TO KILL.
How is that like any other "thing" that you "could" kill with?
I've fired countless thousands of rounds of ammunition in my time. I've got a whole safe full of guns at home.
Exactly ONE of those guns has ever killed anything (besides maybe leaves), and that's my hunting rifle. My hunting rifle has only killed ONE species of animal, and that is whitetail deer. Let me repeat that. My hunting rifle has killed ZERO humans. It's also perhaps worth mentioning that I have fired many rounds though my hunting rifle with neither the intent nor the consequence of killing anything. In fact, of all the boxes of cartridges that I have put through that weapon, the number of them that have actually been fired with the intent (and consequence) of killing wouldn't add up to even one box.
So... if guns are only for killing, what did I fire all those other rounds for?
Guns have uses beyond killing. It's just that you discount those uses as unnecessary, and therefore have no problem with affecting other's rights to partake.
If you dumb the issue down to simply killing vs. not killing, I suppose I can see where your argument becomes so easy.
By the way, I like your golf club analogy. You're quite right that knives have other, necessary uses besides killing. However, I'm not a golfer. I have no interest or desire to ever play the game again. I think anyone would agree that nobody NEEDS to play golf in order to carry out their lives effectively. Therefore, is it right for me to support a ban on your 3 wood? After all... nobody NEEDS one, right? If nobody NEEDs one (according to ME, and MY opinon is all that matters, right?), then why take chances? We need to keep society safe from all those killing golfers!
theclemsonkid
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCSInet http:///forum/thread/383860/yup-i-m-going-there/20#post_3361264
I've fired countless thousands of rounds of ammunition in my time. I've got a whole safe full of guns at home.
Exactly ONE of those guns has ever killed anything (besides maybe leaves), and that's my hunting rifle. My hunting rifle has only killed ONE species of animal, and that is whitetail deer. Let me repeat that. My hunting rifle has killed ZERO humans. It's also perhaps worth mentioning that I have fired many rounds though my hunting rifle with neither the intent nor the consequence of killing anything. In fact, of all the boxes of cartridges that I have put through that weapon, the number of them that have actually been fired with the intent (and consequence) of killing wouldn't add up to even one box.
So... if guns are only for killing, what did I fire all those other rounds for?
Guns have uses beyond killing. It's just that you discount those uses as unnecessary, and therefore have no problem with affecting other's rights to partake.
If you dumb the issue down to simply killing vs. not killing, I suppose I can see where your argument becomes so easy.
By the way, I like your golf club analogy. You're quite right that knives have other, necessary uses besides killing. However, I'm not a golfer. I have no interest or desire to ever play the game again. I think anyone would agree that nobody NEEDS to play golf in order to carry out their lives effectively. Therefore, is it right for me to support a ban on your 3 wood? After all... nobody NEEDS one, right? If nobody NEEDs one (according to ME, and MY opinon is all that matters, right?), then why take chances? We need to keep society safe from all those killing golfers!
Look, I'm just saying the SOLE PURPOSE of a gun is to kill. That is what it was created for. When the first gun was engineered, it was done so to kill and kill only. Now you may use it for shooting at a piece of paper 100 yards out, which is fine, but that is not it's intended purpose. A golf club is intended to hit a golf ball, not smash some guys skull.
I'm not saying what you use a gun for is right or wrong, I just hate when people make the argument that anything that could EVER possibly kill should be outlawed blah blah blah.
Originally Posted by SCSInet http:///forum/thread/383860/yup-i-m-going-there/20#post_3361264
I've fired countless thousands of rounds of ammunition in my time. I've got a whole safe full of guns at home.
Exactly ONE of those guns has ever killed anything (besides maybe leaves), and that's my hunting rifle. My hunting rifle has only killed ONE species of animal, and that is whitetail deer. Let me repeat that. My hunting rifle has killed ZERO humans. It's also perhaps worth mentioning that I have fired many rounds though my hunting rifle with neither the intent nor the consequence of killing anything. In fact, of all the boxes of cartridges that I have put through that weapon, the number of them that have actually been fired with the intent (and consequence) of killing wouldn't add up to even one box.
So... if guns are only for killing, what did I fire all those other rounds for?
Guns have uses beyond killing. It's just that you discount those uses as unnecessary, and therefore have no problem with affecting other's rights to partake.
If you dumb the issue down to simply killing vs. not killing, I suppose I can see where your argument becomes so easy.
By the way, I like your golf club analogy. You're quite right that knives have other, necessary uses besides killing. However, I'm not a golfer. I have no interest or desire to ever play the game again. I think anyone would agree that nobody NEEDS to play golf in order to carry out their lives effectively. Therefore, is it right for me to support a ban on your 3 wood? After all... nobody NEEDS one, right? If nobody NEEDs one (according to ME, and MY opinon is all that matters, right?), then why take chances? We need to keep society safe from all those killing golfers!
Look, I'm just saying the SOLE PURPOSE of a gun is to kill. That is what it was created for. When the first gun was engineered, it was done so to kill and kill only. Now you may use it for shooting at a piece of paper 100 yards out, which is fine, but that is not it's intended purpose. A golf club is intended to hit a golf ball, not smash some guys skull.
I'm not saying what you use a gun for is right or wrong, I just hate when people make the argument that anything that could EVER possibly kill should be outlawed blah blah blah.
bang guy
Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383860/yup-i-m-going-there/20#post_3361275
Look, I'm just saying the SOLE PURPOSE of a gun is to kill. That is what it was created for. When the first gun was engineered, it was done so to kill and kill only. Now you may use it for shooting at a piece of paper 100 yards out, which is fine, but that is not it's intended purpose. A golf club is intended to hit a golf ball, not smash some guys skull.
I'm not saying what you use a gun for is right or wrong, I just hate when people make the argument that anything that could EVER possibly kill should be outlawed blah blah blah.
Clubs were invented to smash someone's head in, not to hit balls around. You may use them to hit balls but they were originally invented for the sole purpose of killing.
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383860/yup-i-m-going-there/20#post_3361275
Look, I'm just saying the SOLE PURPOSE of a gun is to kill. That is what it was created for. When the first gun was engineered, it was done so to kill and kill only. Now you may use it for shooting at a piece of paper 100 yards out, which is fine, but that is not it's intended purpose. A golf club is intended to hit a golf ball, not smash some guys skull.
I'm not saying what you use a gun for is right or wrong, I just hate when people make the argument that anything that could EVER possibly kill should be outlawed blah blah blah.
Clubs were invented to smash someone's head in, not to hit balls around. You may use them to hit balls but they were originally invented for the sole purpose of killing.
scsinet
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383860/yup-i-m-going-there/20#post_3361275
Look, I'm just saying the SOLE PURPOSE of a gun is to kill. That is what it was created for. When the first gun was engineered, it was done so to kill and kill only. Now you may use it for shooting at a piece of paper 100 yards out, which is fine, but that is not it's intended purpose. A golf club is intended to hit a golf ball, not smash some guys skull.
I'm not saying what you use a gun for is right or wrong, I just hate when people make the argument that anything that could EVER possibly kill should be outlawed blah blah blah.
I know we're arguing semantecs here, but nonetheless it's an interesting discussion.
You are arguing that since guns were created with the sole purpose of killing, that that is the only "real" purpose of them. If I have that wrong, then I'm wondering why you're making the point at all. By your logic, any subsequent uses for an item that are different than it's original purpose are invalid. Velcro was created for the space agency. Today, it's used for countless other things. Are all of those subsequent uses invalid? Of course not.
Regardless of what guns were designed for when they were originally created, today, guns are used recreationally by countless people in safe, responsible ways. As I hinted at earlier, I hunt. I do so as part of a hunting club. During the off season, a lot of us congregate there on a weekend to do recreational shooting. We shoot clay pigeons, targets, whatever. At no time do I ever feel less safe than I do doing countless other daily activities. I don't feel less safe because the people I am with at the club are using their firearms in a safe, responsible manner.
People who use firearms in a safe, responsible manner are taken aback by those that trivialize their interests and activites with little or no consideration of their rights to partake in them. Although there are those who use guns recklessly or criminally, I don't know anyone like that. Who I do know are individual who stand to have their rights diminished because:
- Some want to lump these individuals into a generic group of "gun owners" who to them are nothing more than either current criminals or eventual ones.
- Some do not feel that the safe, responsible uses of firearms, even the enjoyment of them with no intent to ever kill anything with them, is not important of enough of a right to protect
- Some dislike guns (their reasons are their own and valid), yet wish to take it a step further by using the police power of government to impart those principles on everyone
- Some are so disrespectful towards those with feelings other than their own that they consider it their "enlightened" role to force them into a behavior that they consider to be "right"
- Some are ignorant to safe, responsible use and see guns as nothing more than a throwback to 200 years ago that needs to be eliminated due to a perceived lack of applicability to modern times
- et al
Now, seriously doubt that the day will come when I need to take up my guns and repel an attack on our own citizens by our government or any of the other things the framers put in place the 2nd amendment for - such as a check to the governement's power - but, as long as I have the guns for other uses, I why shouldn't I have that ability to do so if necessary? Above all else, I respect the constitution and it's enumeration of rights protected by the government. Laying down and giving up our rights under pressure from alternative interests goes against everything that generations of men fought and died for. It's so easy to justify giving these rights up by trivializing your need for the rights. Even the most hardened gun control advocate has the right to bear arms, whether he/she exercised it or not - equal protection under the law - but they need to realize that even the rights that you disagree with are worth fighting for. This is a great nation, built by addressing and improving on the mistakes of the past. Rights are rights, and the right of every individual in this country is worth fighting for, whether you exercise those rights or not.
I'm not against sensible gun laws. Frankly, a 5 day waiting period is not something I'd have an issue with. I've never had to wait, but I can't think of any of my weapons purchases being deal-breakers if I had to wait. However, until I see some sort of concrete evidence that shows how the benefit outweighs the restriction on my rights, then sorry, but in spite of the fact that it's not a big deal, rights are rights, and I'll be fighting for them. The 5 day waiting period is more of a reactive guess than anything else. If a shooter in some horrible, tragic shooting bought the gun a day earlier, then everyone things that a 5 day waiting period would have stopped it. Of course, we don't really know that, do we? When in doubt, all Americans should err on the side of rights, liberty, and general and personal freedoms than throw away their rights willy-nilly at some reactive and hypotheitical "solution."
I need a Mountain Dew and a new keyboard. By the way... pecking out a 3 page diatribe is part of the fight.
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383860/yup-i-m-going-there/20#post_3361275
Look, I'm just saying the SOLE PURPOSE of a gun is to kill. That is what it was created for. When the first gun was engineered, it was done so to kill and kill only. Now you may use it for shooting at a piece of paper 100 yards out, which is fine, but that is not it's intended purpose. A golf club is intended to hit a golf ball, not smash some guys skull.
I'm not saying what you use a gun for is right or wrong, I just hate when people make the argument that anything that could EVER possibly kill should be outlawed blah blah blah.
I know we're arguing semantecs here, but nonetheless it's an interesting discussion.
You are arguing that since guns were created with the sole purpose of killing, that that is the only "real" purpose of them. If I have that wrong, then I'm wondering why you're making the point at all. By your logic, any subsequent uses for an item that are different than it's original purpose are invalid. Velcro was created for the space agency. Today, it's used for countless other things. Are all of those subsequent uses invalid? Of course not.
Regardless of what guns were designed for when they were originally created, today, guns are used recreationally by countless people in safe, responsible ways. As I hinted at earlier, I hunt. I do so as part of a hunting club. During the off season, a lot of us congregate there on a weekend to do recreational shooting. We shoot clay pigeons, targets, whatever. At no time do I ever feel less safe than I do doing countless other daily activities. I don't feel less safe because the people I am with at the club are using their firearms in a safe, responsible manner.
People who use firearms in a safe, responsible manner are taken aback by those that trivialize their interests and activites with little or no consideration of their rights to partake in them. Although there are those who use guns recklessly or criminally, I don't know anyone like that. Who I do know are individual who stand to have their rights diminished because:
- Some want to lump these individuals into a generic group of "gun owners" who to them are nothing more than either current criminals or eventual ones.
- Some do not feel that the safe, responsible uses of firearms, even the enjoyment of them with no intent to ever kill anything with them, is not important of enough of a right to protect
- Some dislike guns (their reasons are their own and valid), yet wish to take it a step further by using the police power of government to impart those principles on everyone
- Some are so disrespectful towards those with feelings other than their own that they consider it their "enlightened" role to force them into a behavior that they consider to be "right"
- Some are ignorant to safe, responsible use and see guns as nothing more than a throwback to 200 years ago that needs to be eliminated due to a perceived lack of applicability to modern times
- et al
Now, seriously doubt that the day will come when I need to take up my guns and repel an attack on our own citizens by our government or any of the other things the framers put in place the 2nd amendment for - such as a check to the governement's power - but, as long as I have the guns for other uses, I why shouldn't I have that ability to do so if necessary? Above all else, I respect the constitution and it's enumeration of rights protected by the government. Laying down and giving up our rights under pressure from alternative interests goes against everything that generations of men fought and died for. It's so easy to justify giving these rights up by trivializing your need for the rights. Even the most hardened gun control advocate has the right to bear arms, whether he/she exercised it or not - equal protection under the law - but they need to realize that even the rights that you disagree with are worth fighting for. This is a great nation, built by addressing and improving on the mistakes of the past. Rights are rights, and the right of every individual in this country is worth fighting for, whether you exercise those rights or not.
I'm not against sensible gun laws. Frankly, a 5 day waiting period is not something I'd have an issue with. I've never had to wait, but I can't think of any of my weapons purchases being deal-breakers if I had to wait. However, until I see some sort of concrete evidence that shows how the benefit outweighs the restriction on my rights, then sorry, but in spite of the fact that it's not a big deal, rights are rights, and I'll be fighting for them. The 5 day waiting period is more of a reactive guess than anything else. If a shooter in some horrible, tragic shooting bought the gun a day earlier, then everyone things that a 5 day waiting period would have stopped it. Of course, we don't really know that, do we? When in doubt, all Americans should err on the side of rights, liberty, and general and personal freedoms than throw away their rights willy-nilly at some reactive and hypotheitical "solution."
I need a Mountain Dew and a new keyboard. By the way... pecking out a 3 page diatribe is part of the fight.
theclemsonkid
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCSInet http:///forum/thread/383860/yup-i-m-going-there/20#post_3361333
I know we're arguing semantecs here, but nonetheless it's an interesting discussion.
You are arguing that since guns were created with the sole purpose of killing, that that is the only "real" purpose of them. If I have that wrong, then I'm wondering why you're making the point at all. By your logic, any subsequent uses for an item that are different than it's original purpose are invalid. Velcro was created for the space agency. Today, it's used for countless other things. Are all of those subsequent uses invalid? Of course not.
Regardless of what guns were designed for when they were originally created, today, guns are used recreationally by countless people in safe, responsible ways. As I hinted at earlier, I hunt. I do so as part of a hunting club. During the off season, a lot of us congregate there on a weekend to do recreational shooting. We shoot clay pigeons, targets, whatever. At no time do I ever feel less safe than I do doing countless other daily activities. I don't feel less safe because the people I am with at the club are using their firearms in a safe, responsible manner.
People who use firearms in a safe, responsible manner are taken aback by those that trivialize their interests and activites with little or no consideration of their rights to partake in them. Although there are those who use guns recklessly or criminally, I don't know anyone like that. Who I do know are individual who stand to have their rights diminished because:
- Some want to lump these individuals into a generic group of "gun owners" who to them are nothing more than either current criminals or eventual ones.
- Some do not feel that the safe, responsible uses of firearms, even the enjoyment of them with no intent to ever kill anything with them, is not important of enough of a right to protect
- Some dislike guns (their reasons are their own and valid), yet wish to take it a step further by using the police power of government to impart those principles on everyone
- Some are so disrespectful towards those with feelings other than their own that they consider it their "enlightened" role to force them into a behavior that they consider to be "right"
- Some are ignorant to safe, responsible use and see guns as nothing more than a throwback to 200 years ago that needs to be eliminated due to a perceived lack of applicability to modern times
- et al
Now, seriously doubt that the day will come when I need to take up my guns and repel an attack on our own citizens by our government or any of the other things the framers put in place the 2nd amendment for - such as a check to the governement's power - but, as long as I have the guns for other uses, I why shouldn't I have that ability to do so if necessary? Above all else, I respect the constitution and it's enumeration of rights protected by the government. Laying down and giving up our rights under pressure from alternative interests goes against everything that generations of men fought and died for. It's so easy to justify giving these rights up by trivializing your need for the rights. Even the most hardened gun control advocate has the right to bear arms, whether he/she exercised it or not - equal protection under the law - but they need to realize that even the rights that you disagree with are worth fighting for. This is a great nation, built by addressing and improving on the mistakes of the past. Rights are rights, and the right of every individual in this country is worth fighting for, whether you exercise those rights or not.
I'm not against sensible gun laws. Frankly, a 5 day waiting period is not something I'd have an issue with. I've never had to wait, but I can't think of any of my weapons purchases being deal-breakers if I had to wait. However, until I see some sort of concrete evidence that shows how the benefit outweighs the restriction on my rights, then sorry, but in spite of the fact that it's not a big deal, rights are rights, and I'll be fighting for them. The 5 day waiting period is more of a reactive guess than anything else. If a shooter in some horrible, tragic shooting bought the gun a day earlier, then everyone things that a 5 day waiting period would have stopped it. Of course, we don't really know that, do we? When in doubt, all Americans should err on the side of rights, liberty, and general and personal freedoms than throw away their rights willy-nilly at some reactive and hypotheitical "solution."
I need a Mountain Dew and a new keyboard. By the way... pecking out a 3 page diatribe is part of the fight.
Look man I'm on your side! I own a gun! My whole thing was just that I think it's silly that every time something other than a gun ends up in the news for killing people (in this instance, a knife) you have the NRA crowd sarcastically chiming in with the whole "Well if you want to ban guns, than you should want to ban knives/clubs/birdhouses/ice et al. Comparing a gun to pretty much anything else as needing "banned" because it killed someone is a stretch to me, because even though as you listed, there are some very real, and non lethal reasons and uses for a gun, it's major purpose, or sole purpose, or intended purpose, or whatever you would like to call it, is to kill.
It's kind of like saying I feel I should be able to have weapons grade plutonium if I like, because I want to use it for supplying energy lets say. Now obviously I could be using that for something much worse, which is why even though I COULD use it for peaceful energy production, I am not allowed to have it because of the bad things that could happen with it.
Obviously that's a crazy example, very similar to saying we should ban knives because of the current incident...
Also, like I always ask, if there are oh so many law abiding citizens who carry weapons for protection and such... Why does it seem like they are never around when something like a knife welding idiot comes along?
Originally Posted by SCSInet http:///forum/thread/383860/yup-i-m-going-there/20#post_3361333
I know we're arguing semantecs here, but nonetheless it's an interesting discussion.
You are arguing that since guns were created with the sole purpose of killing, that that is the only "real" purpose of them. If I have that wrong, then I'm wondering why you're making the point at all. By your logic, any subsequent uses for an item that are different than it's original purpose are invalid. Velcro was created for the space agency. Today, it's used for countless other things. Are all of those subsequent uses invalid? Of course not.
Regardless of what guns were designed for when they were originally created, today, guns are used recreationally by countless people in safe, responsible ways. As I hinted at earlier, I hunt. I do so as part of a hunting club. During the off season, a lot of us congregate there on a weekend to do recreational shooting. We shoot clay pigeons, targets, whatever. At no time do I ever feel less safe than I do doing countless other daily activities. I don't feel less safe because the people I am with at the club are using their firearms in a safe, responsible manner.
People who use firearms in a safe, responsible manner are taken aback by those that trivialize their interests and activites with little or no consideration of their rights to partake in them. Although there are those who use guns recklessly or criminally, I don't know anyone like that. Who I do know are individual who stand to have their rights diminished because:
- Some want to lump these individuals into a generic group of "gun owners" who to them are nothing more than either current criminals or eventual ones.
- Some do not feel that the safe, responsible uses of firearms, even the enjoyment of them with no intent to ever kill anything with them, is not important of enough of a right to protect
- Some dislike guns (their reasons are their own and valid), yet wish to take it a step further by using the police power of government to impart those principles on everyone
- Some are so disrespectful towards those with feelings other than their own that they consider it their "enlightened" role to force them into a behavior that they consider to be "right"
- Some are ignorant to safe, responsible use and see guns as nothing more than a throwback to 200 years ago that needs to be eliminated due to a perceived lack of applicability to modern times
- et al
Now, seriously doubt that the day will come when I need to take up my guns and repel an attack on our own citizens by our government or any of the other things the framers put in place the 2nd amendment for - such as a check to the governement's power - but, as long as I have the guns for other uses, I why shouldn't I have that ability to do so if necessary? Above all else, I respect the constitution and it's enumeration of rights protected by the government. Laying down and giving up our rights under pressure from alternative interests goes against everything that generations of men fought and died for. It's so easy to justify giving these rights up by trivializing your need for the rights. Even the most hardened gun control advocate has the right to bear arms, whether he/she exercised it or not - equal protection under the law - but they need to realize that even the rights that you disagree with are worth fighting for. This is a great nation, built by addressing and improving on the mistakes of the past. Rights are rights, and the right of every individual in this country is worth fighting for, whether you exercise those rights or not.
I'm not against sensible gun laws. Frankly, a 5 day waiting period is not something I'd have an issue with. I've never had to wait, but I can't think of any of my weapons purchases being deal-breakers if I had to wait. However, until I see some sort of concrete evidence that shows how the benefit outweighs the restriction on my rights, then sorry, but in spite of the fact that it's not a big deal, rights are rights, and I'll be fighting for them. The 5 day waiting period is more of a reactive guess than anything else. If a shooter in some horrible, tragic shooting bought the gun a day earlier, then everyone things that a 5 day waiting period would have stopped it. Of course, we don't really know that, do we? When in doubt, all Americans should err on the side of rights, liberty, and general and personal freedoms than throw away their rights willy-nilly at some reactive and hypotheitical "solution."
I need a Mountain Dew and a new keyboard. By the way... pecking out a 3 page diatribe is part of the fight.
Look man I'm on your side! I own a gun! My whole thing was just that I think it's silly that every time something other than a gun ends up in the news for killing people (in this instance, a knife) you have the NRA crowd sarcastically chiming in with the whole "Well if you want to ban guns, than you should want to ban knives/clubs/birdhouses/ice et al. Comparing a gun to pretty much anything else as needing "banned" because it killed someone is a stretch to me, because even though as you listed, there are some very real, and non lethal reasons and uses for a gun, it's major purpose, or sole purpose, or intended purpose, or whatever you would like to call it, is to kill.
It's kind of like saying I feel I should be able to have weapons grade plutonium if I like, because I want to use it for supplying energy lets say. Now obviously I could be using that for something much worse, which is why even though I COULD use it for peaceful energy production, I am not allowed to have it because of the bad things that could happen with it.
Obviously that's a crazy example, very similar to saying we should ban knives because of the current incident...
Also, like I always ask, if there are oh so many law abiding citizens who carry weapons for protection and such... Why does it seem like they are never around when something like a knife welding idiot comes along?
B
brandonsivek
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383860/yup-i-m-going-there/20#post_3361344
Look man I'm on your side! I own a gun! My whole thing was just that I think it's silly that every time something other than a gun ends up in the news for killing people (in this instance, a knife) you have the NRA crowd sarcastically chiming in with the whole "Well if you want to ban guns, than you should want to ban knives/clubs/birdhouses/ice et al. Comparing a gun to pretty much anything else as needing "banned" because it killed someone is a stretch to me, because even though as you listed, there are some very real, and non lethal reasons and uses for a gun, it's major purpose, or sole purpose, or intended purpose, or whatever you would like to call it, is to kill.
It's kind of like saying I feel I should be able to have weapons grade plutonium if I like, because I want to use it for supplying energy lets say. Now obviously I could be using that for something much worse, which is why even though I COULD use it for peaceful energy production, I am not allowed to have it because of the bad things that could happen with it.
Obviously that's a crazy example, very similar to saying we should ban knives because of the current incident...
Also, like I always ask, if there are oh so many law abiding citizens who carry weapons for protection and such... Why does it seem like they are never around when something like a knife welding idiot comes along?
Because most law abiding gun owners, such as myself would do just that, abide by the law. Most responsible gun owners do not have CHL's (concealed handgun licenses), we only have them for home protection. Most of the time, when there is a crazy person, causing harm to others, it is in a public place or behind closed doors. Hence, needing a CHL to stop the crazy person in the open or a public place, if that person that stops them is a law abiding gun owner.
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383860/yup-i-m-going-there/20#post_3361344
Look man I'm on your side! I own a gun! My whole thing was just that I think it's silly that every time something other than a gun ends up in the news for killing people (in this instance, a knife) you have the NRA crowd sarcastically chiming in with the whole "Well if you want to ban guns, than you should want to ban knives/clubs/birdhouses/ice et al. Comparing a gun to pretty much anything else as needing "banned" because it killed someone is a stretch to me, because even though as you listed, there are some very real, and non lethal reasons and uses for a gun, it's major purpose, or sole purpose, or intended purpose, or whatever you would like to call it, is to kill.
It's kind of like saying I feel I should be able to have weapons grade plutonium if I like, because I want to use it for supplying energy lets say. Now obviously I could be using that for something much worse, which is why even though I COULD use it for peaceful energy production, I am not allowed to have it because of the bad things that could happen with it.
Obviously that's a crazy example, very similar to saying we should ban knives because of the current incident...
Also, like I always ask, if there are oh so many law abiding citizens who carry weapons for protection and such... Why does it seem like they are never around when something like a knife welding idiot comes along?
Because most law abiding gun owners, such as myself would do just that, abide by the law. Most responsible gun owners do not have CHL's (concealed handgun licenses), we only have them for home protection. Most of the time, when there is a crazy person, causing harm to others, it is in a public place or behind closed doors. Hence, needing a CHL to stop the crazy person in the open or a public place, if that person that stops them is a law abiding gun owner.
scsinet
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383860/yup-i-m-going-there/20#post_3361344
Also, like I always ask, if there are oh so many law abiding citizens who carry weapons for protection and such... Why does it seem like they are never around when something like a knife welding idiot comes along?
There are a couple factors...
The biggest that I can think of is that regardless of how lax the gun laws are, they still limit law abiding citizens. NY and Chicago come as obvious examples, where gun rights are so restricted that you pretty much can't carry, or you flat out can't carry. Needless to say, the criminal element is emboldened in those areas because they know that you aren't armed yada yada you've heard that before I know.
But, more importantly, even in areas with much more relaxed regulation, the various restrictions are hard to keep up wtih because it's so granular, and the pentalties for violating the laws, even accidentally, mean total loss of gun rights. Take Atlanta for example. Although Georgia has some pretty relaxed gun laws, there are so many here and theres that you can't carry, that it makes it difficult for a law abiding individual to make sure they are really abiding the law.
No, this is not a veiled argument for even less restrictions, I'm just sayin'.
Additionally, it may come as a surprise to many gun control advocates, but those of us with concealed carry permits are not just twitching our trigger finger waiting for the opportunity to draw and start throwing lead everywhere at the first sign of a "shoot-scuse." Take that Arizona shooting for example... no doubt panic ensued as soon as he started shooting. A law abiding individual, exercising safe, responsible firearm use, would evaluate that situation before shooting - or even drawing his weapon and potentially causing even more panic and chaos. There may have been someone there, but any number of variables that we don't know because we were not there, prevented that person from being able to invervene. Safe, responsible firearms usage is a lot more of knowing when not to shoot than knowing when to shoot.
Finally, the media, being the ratings driven bunch that they are, are more likely IMO to report on a gun crime event than a gun defense event, and it's also the gun crime events that everyone talks about, that raise issues, that get posted on message boards, that generate discussion. When the system "works," nobody listens.
Those are just some ideas that come to mind.
Keep in mind that law abiding citizens, using or carrying guns in safe, responsible manners, are going to be the ones you hardly ever hear about.
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383860/yup-i-m-going-there/20#post_3361344
Also, like I always ask, if there are oh so many law abiding citizens who carry weapons for protection and such... Why does it seem like they are never around when something like a knife welding idiot comes along?
There are a couple factors...
The biggest that I can think of is that regardless of how lax the gun laws are, they still limit law abiding citizens. NY and Chicago come as obvious examples, where gun rights are so restricted that you pretty much can't carry, or you flat out can't carry. Needless to say, the criminal element is emboldened in those areas because they know that you aren't armed yada yada you've heard that before I know.
But, more importantly, even in areas with much more relaxed regulation, the various restrictions are hard to keep up wtih because it's so granular, and the pentalties for violating the laws, even accidentally, mean total loss of gun rights. Take Atlanta for example. Although Georgia has some pretty relaxed gun laws, there are so many here and theres that you can't carry, that it makes it difficult for a law abiding individual to make sure they are really abiding the law.
No, this is not a veiled argument for even less restrictions, I'm just sayin'.
Additionally, it may come as a surprise to many gun control advocates, but those of us with concealed carry permits are not just twitching our trigger finger waiting for the opportunity to draw and start throwing lead everywhere at the first sign of a "shoot-scuse." Take that Arizona shooting for example... no doubt panic ensued as soon as he started shooting. A law abiding individual, exercising safe, responsible firearm use, would evaluate that situation before shooting - or even drawing his weapon and potentially causing even more panic and chaos. There may have been someone there, but any number of variables that we don't know because we were not there, prevented that person from being able to invervene. Safe, responsible firearms usage is a lot more of knowing when not to shoot than knowing when to shoot.
Finally, the media, being the ratings driven bunch that they are, are more likely IMO to report on a gun crime event than a gun defense event, and it's also the gun crime events that everyone talks about, that raise issues, that get posted on message boards, that generate discussion. When the system "works," nobody listens.
Those are just some ideas that come to mind.
Keep in mind that law abiding citizens, using or carrying guns in safe, responsible manners, are going to be the ones you hardly ever hear about.
bang guy
Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383860/yup-i-m-going-there/20#post_3361397
As a matter of fact one of the witnesses to the Az shooting was a man who came out of Walgreens with his hand on his gun. He assessed the situation and determined he shouldn't take it out of the holster. Sounds like Arizona's CCW program is teaching their people right.
Contrary to the NRA stance, I would not object to mandatory firearm safety training... in school, for everyone.
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383860/yup-i-m-going-there/20#post_3361397
As a matter of fact one of the witnesses to the Az shooting was a man who came out of Walgreens with his hand on his gun. He assessed the situation and determined he shouldn't take it out of the holster. Sounds like Arizona's CCW program is teaching their people right.
Contrary to the NRA stance, I would not object to mandatory firearm safety training... in school, for everyone.
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///forum/thread/383860/yup-i-m-going-there/20#post_3361406
Contrary to the NRA stance, I would not object to mandatory firearm safety training... in school, for everyone.
My buddy in Phoenix tried to get the NRA Eddy Eagle program in his kid's school and they wouldn't allow it for some stupid reason. It's a pretty good program but they heard NRA and wouldn't consider it.
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///forum/thread/383860/yup-i-m-going-there/20#post_3361406
Contrary to the NRA stance, I would not object to mandatory firearm safety training... in school, for everyone.
My buddy in Phoenix tried to get the NRA Eddy Eagle program in his kid's school and they wouldn't allow it for some stupid reason. It's a pretty good program but they heard NRA and wouldn't consider it.
tangs rule
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383860/yup-i-m-going-there/20#post_3361275
Look, I'm just saying the SOLE PURPOSE of a gun is to kill. That is what it was created for. When the first gun was engineered, it was done so to kill and kill only. Now you may use it for shooting at a piece of paper 100 yards out, which is fine, but that is not it's intended purpose. A golf club is intended to hit a golf ball, not smash some guys skull.
I'm not saying what you use a gun for is right or wrong, I just hate when people make the argument that anything that could EVER possibly kill should be outlawed blah blah blah.
Yes, to KILL KILL KILL - that is the sole purpose of the GUN (as u like to put it) AND I DO TOO! !
So without the GUN, we have the knife.........ever seen MAN kill an animal by the knife? ? ?....it can be a long process, cutting arteries/slashing veins or stabbing repeatedly till death succumbs......takes time...one of the two involved suffers a while....sometimes a long while...........life does struggle...
So without the GUN, we have the arrow......ever seen a wounded animal trod for miles, bleeding to death - leaving a blood trail after being mortally wounded, by said arrow, only to fall down, miles form where it was initially shot.......that takes allot of time as well - much suffering to be had here too - but it's a storybook (acceptable) way to die - {regardless of the time involved}.....as Hollywood sees it......it's an early American / Frontier way to go........Yep per!
Go back further in history, you have the spear.....A fantastically inaccurate weapon, likely taking longer to demise from than the arrow...
And yes, without the nasty GUN - we have the trap....now lets not mince semantics, but the trap is a terribly cruel design that snares or binds some animal - usually in horrid bone crunching manner, till the trap layer arrives hours/days later to dispatch said suffering animal with GUN.....so he can pick it's hide and wear it's fur -and possibly eat said carcass..but allot of time may pass between the point the animal was trapped and finally dispatched.....But I'd guess U never came across a trap with just a foot in it.....darn, I figure the creature chewed it's leg off to get away......That's so humane.......
And then there's the poison technique, regarded for acceptable use on rodentra only - of course....... Begast that NASTY GUN - that's not right - rodents should suffer the affects of hours/days of hell only to die, when a simple bullet could have reached the same goal in seconds...that damn GUN...better outlaw them!
Going back MUCH further in history, we (man) had our bare hands - but we (man) likely would have disappeared long ago if we had to survive by eating only what our hands could catch....BUT>>>God gave us BRAINS to use those hands to create the poisons, traps, spears, arrows, knives, and you-betcha, the GUN to KILL, KILL, KILL! ! !
Naturally, PBS, Discovery, and Nat Geo channel are always dedicating hours of programming primarily showing how "natural" and "selective" ways in nature where one creature consumes another alive, usually whilst the victim is still fully aware that it's being eaten (or gonna be PDQ)......but that's just nature - and if it takes hours to die and be ingested - so be it, those are the ways of earth....don't wanna interfere here!
Mother Earth is so good & fair! !
By the way, that killer whale is just playing a little rough with that seal pup.......surely he won't actually eat it......I'll keep my guns, just the same though,,,,
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///forum/thread/383860/yup-i-m-going-there/20#post_3361275
Look, I'm just saying the SOLE PURPOSE of a gun is to kill. That is what it was created for. When the first gun was engineered, it was done so to kill and kill only. Now you may use it for shooting at a piece of paper 100 yards out, which is fine, but that is not it's intended purpose. A golf club is intended to hit a golf ball, not smash some guys skull.
I'm not saying what you use a gun for is right or wrong, I just hate when people make the argument that anything that could EVER possibly kill should be outlawed blah blah blah.
Yes, to KILL KILL KILL - that is the sole purpose of the GUN (as u like to put it) AND I DO TOO! !
So without the GUN, we have the knife.........ever seen MAN kill an animal by the knife? ? ?....it can be a long process, cutting arteries/slashing veins or stabbing repeatedly till death succumbs......takes time...one of the two involved suffers a while....sometimes a long while...........life does struggle...
So without the GUN, we have the arrow......ever seen a wounded animal trod for miles, bleeding to death - leaving a blood trail after being mortally wounded, by said arrow, only to fall down, miles form where it was initially shot.......that takes allot of time as well - much suffering to be had here too - but it's a storybook (acceptable) way to die - {regardless of the time involved}.....as Hollywood sees it......it's an early American / Frontier way to go........Yep per!
Go back further in history, you have the spear.....A fantastically inaccurate weapon, likely taking longer to demise from than the arrow...
And yes, without the nasty GUN - we have the trap....now lets not mince semantics, but the trap is a terribly cruel design that snares or binds some animal - usually in horrid bone crunching manner, till the trap layer arrives hours/days later to dispatch said suffering animal with GUN.....so he can pick it's hide and wear it's fur -and possibly eat said carcass..but allot of time may pass between the point the animal was trapped and finally dispatched.....But I'd guess U never came across a trap with just a foot in it.....darn, I figure the creature chewed it's leg off to get away......That's so humane.......
And then there's the poison technique, regarded for acceptable use on rodentra only - of course....... Begast that NASTY GUN - that's not right - rodents should suffer the affects of hours/days of hell only to die, when a simple bullet could have reached the same goal in seconds...that damn GUN...better outlaw them!
Going back MUCH further in history, we (man) had our bare hands - but we (man) likely would have disappeared long ago if we had to survive by eating only what our hands could catch....BUT>>>God gave us BRAINS to use those hands to create the poisons, traps, spears, arrows, knives, and you-betcha, the GUN to KILL, KILL, KILL! ! !
Naturally, PBS, Discovery, and Nat Geo channel are always dedicating hours of programming primarily showing how "natural" and "selective" ways in nature where one creature consumes another alive, usually whilst the victim is still fully aware that it's being eaten (or gonna be PDQ)......but that's just nature - and if it takes hours to die and be ingested - so be it, those are the ways of earth....don't wanna interfere here!
Mother Earth is so good & fair! !
By the way, that killer whale is just playing a little rough with that seal pup.......surely he won't actually eat it......I'll keep my guns, just the same though,,,,
mantisman51
Active Member
Let's see, both are used to kill people but there is no correlation? Both weapons usually are used for single murders at a time, but as demonstrated by this story, can be used for spree killing. While the ease of use makes firearms more likely to be used, there is nothing inherently evil about firearms. As was so well written (and thought out) by Tangs Rule, they are the most efficient at killing. Which is why they are important for hunting and self-protection. Now a compact crossbow, that's a far more dangerous weapon. At night, in a secluded parking lot, a person can shoot, kill and escape before anyone knows anything has happened. Point is that guns, knives and pretty much any other weapon have their evil purposes. Let's say firearms are banned, do you really think murderers are going to suddenly stop murdering? Of course not, they'll find another tool.
tangs rule
Active Member
darthtang 2
Member
Guns weren't created to kill. Bullets were. Think of a gun as a bug spray can...
Darth (Raaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiid) Tang
Darth (Raaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiid) Tang
tangs rule
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by darthtang 2 http:///forum/thread/383860/yup-i-m-going-there/20#post_3361774
Guns weren't created to kill. Bullets were. Think of a gun as a bug spray can...
Darth (Raaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiid) Tang
When I see lead spew from a bug spray can - I'll buy cases of 'em! ;-)
Originally Posted by darthtang 2 http:///forum/thread/383860/yup-i-m-going-there/20#post_3361774
Guns weren't created to kill. Bullets were. Think of a gun as a bug spray can...
Darth (Raaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiid) Tang
When I see lead spew from a bug spray can - I'll buy cases of 'em! ;-)