I hate guns.

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: the unknown

Excuse me?! Of what? Name one thing I said that I should be "ashamed" about. This isn't some bs "pro-america" crap you're trying to pull on me is it?

You're recklessly suggesting that people rights be trampled. You really should be ashamed of that.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: the unknown
Because of the guns around? Or despite them being around.
If noone had guns, what would you lose, besides a hobby?

Your right to defend yourself? Your second amendment right in the Constitution? Your liberty?

If noone had guns, what right of defending yourself would you lose sir? You'd all be on equal ground.

How is a 5'3" woman on "equal grounds" with a 6'0" man?

How am I, at 6'0" and 160 pounds, on "equal grounds" with a 6'2" 220 pound weightlifter?

If both the 5'3" woman and the 6'0" man have a firearm, then they are indeed on "equal grounds", but without it, the woman is at a severe disadvantage. The same goes for me against the body-builder.

Sorry, but without firearms people are decidedly unequal.

ZV

Right. When's the last time you saw a 6'0'' 160lb man fighting a 5'3'' woman? And more importantly, that was to the death. With guns, it most certainly would be. "Don't disarm your firearm unless you're prepared to kill" right? Minor scuffles would turn into open firefights in your everyone has a gun world.

Google "rape statistics" and get back with us.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: the unknown
Because of the guns around? Or despite them being around.
If noone had guns, what would you lose, besides a hobby?

Your right to defend yourself? Your second amendment right in the Constitution? Your liberty?

If noone had guns, what right of defending yourself would you lose sir? You'd all be on equal ground. You are still perfectly able to defend yourself, just without a gun.

Your second amendment. Maybe so. But the Constitution was made to be Amended, and even Amendments can be amended. I believe the second amendment was to protect the the rights of the people to overthrow the government if the government ceased to protect the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all. Even at the cost of armed uprising, as we did to Britian. But this is no longer feasible. Citizens couldn't band together and fight the government or the military with guns. Times change, and amendments and the Constitution does with it. I don't see why an Amendment is some infallible piece of work.

Your liberty? No. We are free to do many things. But having a gun for the sake of having one is not good enough justification for me, and neither is it "because its a fun hobby".

I seriously hope that you're not an American. If you are, you should be ashamed.

Excuse me?! Of what? Name one thing I said that I should be "ashamed" about. This isn't some bs "pro-america" crap you're trying to pull on me is it?

GTFO. Mexico is ------> way if you want a nation where only criminals own guns.

Edit: Also, your opinion is meaningless thankfully. Maybe Dennis Kucinich has your back, but thats probably it.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: the unknown

Right. When's the last time you saw a 6'0'' 160lb man fighting a 5'3'' woman? And more importantly, that was to the death. With guns, it most certainly would be. \

Right. It wouldn't be a fight. The 6' intruder would simply beat the shit out of the woman and there's nothing she could do about it.

But who cares about that? As long as the intruder isn't killed by a homeowner with a gun everything is just peachy.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: the unknown
Because of the guns around? Or despite them being around.
If noone had guns, what would you lose, besides a hobby?

Your right to defend yourself? Your second amendment right in the Constitution? Your liberty?

If noone had guns, what right of defending yourself would you lose sir? You'd all be on equal ground. You are still perfectly able to defend yourself, just without a gun.

Your second amendment. Maybe so. But the Constitution was made to be Amended, and even Amendments can be amended. I believe the second amendment was to protect the the rights of the people to overthrow the government if the government ceased to protect the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all. Even at the cost of armed uprising, as we did to Britian. But this is no longer feasible. Citizens couldn't band together and fight the government or the military with guns. Times change, and amendments and the Constitution does with it. I don't see why an Amendment is some infallible piece of work.

Your liberty? No. We are free to do many things. But having a gun for the sake of having one is not good enough justification for me, and neither is it "because its a fun hobby".

I seriously hope that you're not an American. If you are, you should be ashamed.

Excuse me?! Of what? Name one thing I said that I should be "ashamed" about. This isn't some bs "pro-america" crap you're trying to pull on me is it?

The Bill of Rights should never be amended. Fucking Period.

And fuck you for thinking that you have a god damn say in what my liberties are.

And last time I checked, "noone" isn't a word.

The right to bear arms in the United States in enshrined in the ammended Constitution, not the Bill of Rights, as I'm sure you know. Your bill of rights is inspired by the older English bill of rights and says nothing about guns.

Also, assuming he is a voting American citizen, he *does* very much have a say in what your liberties are.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: the unknown
Because of the guns around? Or despite them being around.
If noone had guns, what would you lose, besides a hobby?

Your right to defend yourself? Your second amendment right in the Constitution? Your liberty?

If noone had guns, what right of defending yourself would you lose sir? You'd all be on equal ground.

How is a 5'3" woman on "equal grounds" with a 6'0" man?

How am I, at 6'0" and 160 pounds, on "equal grounds" with a 6'2" 220 pound weightlifter?

If both the 5'3" woman and the 6'0" man have a firearm, then they are indeed on "equal grounds", but without it, the woman is at a severe disadvantage. The same goes for me against the body-builder.

Sorry, but without firearms people are decidedly unequal.

ZV

Right. When's the last time you saw a 6'0'' 160lb man fighting a 5'3'' woman? And more importantly, that was to the death. With guns, it most certainly would be. "Don't disarm your firearm unless you're prepared to kill" right? Minor scuffles would turn into open firefights in your everyone has a gun world.

a fight? thats not a fight. thats a fuckign beat down. the 5'3 women would have no chance. the guy would beat her and have good chance of real permanant damage or worse.

at least with a gun she has a chance.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Also, assuming he is a voting American citizen, he *does* very much have a say in what your liberties are.

And since his opinions are very much in the minority, those opinions are wisely thrown out.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: the unknown
If noone had guns, what right of defending yourself would you lose sir? You'd all be on equal ground.

How is a 5'3" woman on "equal grounds" with a 6'0" man?

How am I, at 6'0" and 160 pounds, on "equal grounds" with a 6'2" 220 pound weightlifter?

If both the 5'3" woman and the 6'0" man have a firearm, then they are indeed on "equal grounds", but without it, the woman is at a severe disadvantage. The same goes for me against the body-builder.

Sorry, but without firearms people are decidedly unequal.

ZV

Right. When's the last time you saw a 6'0'' 160lb man fighting a 5'3'' woman? And more importantly, that was to the death.

*blows whistle* Illegal shifting of arguments. 15 yard penalty and loss of down.

Second time today, interesting.

- You argue that without guns, we're all equal.
- I demonstrate that your argument is patently false.
- You reply by changing your argument rather than admitting that your original argument was ridiculous.

Criminals choose victims who are likely to be physically weaker than they are. That's a fact. If you're 6'6" and built like a tank, you're not a likely target. If you're a 5'3" 100 pound woman, you're a far more likely target.

I've also never seen anyone get shot. By the logic you are using in the post I've just quoted, that must mean you will admit that being shot is not a risk.

Are you implying that it is better for a woman to be raped than for her to be able to shoot the attacker?

Originally posted by: the unknown
With guns, it most certainly would be. "Don't disarm your firearm unless you're prepared to kill" right? Minor scuffles would turn into open firefights in your everyone has a gun world.

Except that they don't.

The state of Washington has had CCW since the 1960's. Minor scuffles have not turned into "open firefights". In fact, this has never happened anywhere that CCW laws have been passed. It just plain does not happen in reality. Nor do crime rates reflect it in areas without CCW but where gun ownership is high. Your opinion is 180 degrees from reality.

ZV

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: Atheus
The right to bear arms in the United States in enshrined in the ammended Constitution, not the Bill of Rights, as I'm sure you know. Your bill of rights is inspired by the older English bill of rights and says nothing about guns.

Also, assuming he is a voting American citizen, he *does* very much have a say in what your liberties are.

The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution is the "2nd Amendment" in the Bill of Rights. Who gives a shit what the English Bill of Rights are?

As a citizen, he has no right to trample any of my rights.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Atheus
The right to bear arms in the United States in enshrined in the ammended Constitution, not the Bill of Rights, as I'm sure you know. Your bill of rights is inspired by the older English bill of rights and says nothing about guns.

Wrong. The "Bill of Rights" refers, collectively, to the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution. Brush up on your history.

EDIT: I am well aware of the pre-existing British bill of rights and the fact that it did inspire parts of the US Constitution. However, any person with half a brain knows that, for the purposes of this thread, the phrase "Bill of Rights" refers to the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution.

ZV

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: Atheus
I do not hate guns. Would you like to hear about someone I know who does hate guns? She grew up in Sierra Leone in west Africa - she remembers hiding under her school desk while AK-47 rounds smashed the classroom windows and whistled overhead. If those guys only had sharp sticks and shields like they did 100 years ago there would have been a few skirmishes and nothing more. Now look at Africa... just look at the place...

I really feel for your friend, but this statement is far from accurate. Consider the Rwandan Genocide. One of the main weapons was the machete, and it was brutally effective.

Some people will kill others by whatever means available. Unfortunately this is the way the world is...

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: JDub02
Armed people prevent crimes.

lol

Why are you are six times more likely to be mugged in London than in NY City? Why is the burglary rate greater in the UK than it is in the US? Why do criminals surveyed in prisons routinely list armed citizens as a much greater worry than the police?

ZV

NY does not allow CCW.

NY does allow CCW, just doesn't grant it very often.

 

[the unknown]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: the unknown
Because of the guns around? Or despite them being around.
If noone had guns, what would you lose, besides a hobby?

Your right to defend yourself? Your second amendment right in the Constitution? Your liberty?

If noone had guns, what right of defending yourself would you lose sir? You'd all be on equal ground. You are still perfectly able to defend yourself, just without a gun.

Your second amendment. Maybe so. But the Constitution was made to be Amended, and even Amendments can be amended. I believe the second amendment was to protect the the rights of the people to overthrow the government if the government ceased to protect the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all. Even at the cost of armed uprising, as we did to Britian. But this is no longer feasible. Citizens couldn't band together and fight the government or the military with guns. Times change, and amendments and the Constitution does with it. I don't see why an Amendment is some infallible piece of work.

Your liberty? No. We are free to do many things. But having a gun for the sake of having one is not good enough justification for me, and neither is it "because its a fun hobby".

I seriously hope that you're not an American. If you are, you should be ashamed.

Excuse me?! Of what? Name one thing I said that I should be "ashamed" about. This isn't some bs "pro-america" crap you're trying to pull on me is it?

The Bill of Rights should never be amended. Fucking Period.

And fuck you for thinking that you have a god damn say in what my liberties are.

And last time I checked, "noone" isn't a word.

You unfortunately missed the point I was making entirely. I seemed to have touched a nerve. I asked him what he was losing, he said his liberty. What I replied was to say that we don't have liberty to do whatever we want. We can't steal, kill, ect. We can't own assualt rifles, fully automatic, ect. What liberty would you lose not owning a gun? Just the sake of owning a gun? Because I was saying you certainly don't lose your ability to defend yourself, ect.

Sadly, it seems a lot of the "people clinging to guns and religion" seek only to call others un-American for not agreeing with thier "pro-America" views. Shame on Palin for saying that, and shame on you for thinking that it is un-American to think that this country is not capable of change and amending the Constitution.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: the unknown
Because I was saying you certainly don't lose your ability to defend yourself, ect.

And you have been proven wrong on that count already.

ZV

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Atheus
The right to bear arms in the United States in enshrined in the ammended Constitution, not the Bill of Rights, as I'm sure you know. Your bill of rights is inspired by the older English bill of rights and says nothing about guns.

Wrong. The "Bill of Rights" refers, collectively, to the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution. Brush up on your history.

EDIT: I am well aware of the pre-existing British bill of rights and the fact that it did inspire parts of the US Constitution. However, any person with half a brain knows that, for the purposes of this thread, the phrase "Bill of Rights" refers to the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution.

ZV

Beat me to it..

This comes to mind:
"It's better to stay silent and look a fool, rather than speak and remove all doubt." - Mark Twain

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: the unknown
Because of the guns around? Or despite them being around.
If noone had guns, what would you lose, besides a hobby?

Your right to defend yourself? Your second amendment right in the Constitution? Your liberty?

If noone had guns, what right of defending yourself would you lose sir? You'd all be on equal ground. You are still perfectly able to defend yourself, just without a gun.

Your second amendment. Maybe so. But the Constitution was made to be Amended, and even Amendments can be amended. I believe the second amendment was to protect the the rights of the people to overthrow the government if the government ceased to protect the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all. Even at the cost of armed uprising, as we did to Britian. But this is no longer feasible. Citizens couldn't band together and fight the government or the military with guns. Times change, and amendments and the Constitution does with it. I don't see why an Amendment is some infallible piece of work.

Your liberty? No. We are free to do many things. But having a gun for the sake of having one is not good enough justification for me, and neither is it "because its a fun hobby".

Can a 60yr old defend herself from 2 20yr olds with bats? Can an unarmed man defend himself from someone with a knife?

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: the unknown
Because I was saying you certainly don't lose your ability to defend yourself, ect.

And you have been proven wrong on that count already.

ZV

It's not the first thing he's been wrong on. :disgust:

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Can a 60yr old defend herself from 2 20yr olds with bats? Can an unarmed man defend himself from someone with a knife?

Oh come on. When was the last time you saw something like that happen.

ZV

 

[the unknown]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: the unknown

Excuse me?! Of what? Name one thing I said that I should be "ashamed" about. This isn't some bs "pro-america" crap you're trying to pull on me is it?

You're recklessly suggesting that people rights be trampled. You really should be ashamed of that.

You act like I'm advocating to take away basic human rights. Overreact much? All I said was the right to bears arms as listed in the Amendments can't be re-amended. Apparently the two are equal in your eyes.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: the unknown
Because of the guns around? Or despite them being around.
If noone had guns, what would you lose, besides a hobby?

Your right to defend yourself? Your second amendment right in the Constitution? Your liberty?

If noone had guns, what right of defending yourself would you lose sir? You'd all be on equal ground.

How is a 5'3" woman on "equal grounds" with a 6'0" man?

How am I, at 6'0" and 160 pounds, on "equal grounds" with a 6'2" 220 pound weightlifter?

If both the 5'3" woman and the 6'0" man have a firearm, then they are indeed on "equal grounds", but without it, the woman is at a severe disadvantage. The same goes for me against the body-builder.

Sorry, but without firearms people are decidedly unequal.

ZV

Right. When's the last time you saw a 6'0'' 160lb man fighting a 5'3'' woman? And more importantly, that was to the death. With guns, it most certainly would be. "Don't discharge your firearm unless you're prepared to kill" right? Minor scuffles would turn into open firefights in your everyone has a gun world.

Every few seconds, when one is raped.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: the unknown

Excuse me?! Of what? Name one thing I said that I should be "ashamed" about. This isn't some bs "pro-america" crap you're trying to pull on me is it?

You're recklessly suggesting that people rights be trampled. You really should be ashamed of that.

You act like I'm advocating to take away basic human rights. Overreact much? All I said was the right to bears arms as listed in the Amendments can't be re-amended. Apparently the two are equal in your eyes.

Is freedom of speech a basic human right? What about religion? Cruel and unusual punishment?

Gun rights apply to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: the unknown
Because of the guns around? Or despite them being around.
If noone had guns, what would you lose, besides a hobby?

Your right to defend yourself? Your second amendment right in the Constitution? Your liberty?

If noone had guns, what right of defending yourself would you lose sir? You'd all be on equal ground. You are still perfectly able to defend yourself, just without a gun.

Your second amendment. Maybe so. But the Constitution was made to be Amended, and even Amendments can be amended. I believe the second amendment was to protect the the rights of the people to overthrow the government if the government ceased to protect the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all. Even at the cost of armed uprising, as we did to Britian. But this is no longer feasible. Citizens couldn't band together and fight the government or the military with guns. Times change, and amendments and the Constitution does with it. I don't see why an Amendment is some infallible piece of work.

Your liberty? No. We are free to do many things. But having a gun for the sake of having one is not good enough justification for me, and neither is it "because its a fun hobby".

I seriously hope that you're not an American. If you are, you should be ashamed.

Excuse me?! Of what? Name one thing I said that I should be "ashamed" about. This isn't some bs "pro-america" crap you're trying to pull on me is it?

The Bill of Rights should never be amended. Fucking Period.

And fuck you for thinking that you have a god damn say in what my liberties are.

And last time I checked, "noone" isn't a word.

The right to bear arms in the United States in enshrined in the ammended Constitution, not the Bill of Rights, as I'm sure you know. Your bill of rights is inspired by the older English bill of rights and says nothing about guns.

Also, assuming he is a voting American citizen, he *does* very much have a say in what your liberties are.

Ummm dude, the Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.

And our 2nd is taken directly from discussions on English common law, which presumed the absolute right of the people to be armed.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: MrPickins

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Atheus
The right to bear arms in the United States in enshrined in the ammended Constitution, not the Bill of Rights, as I'm sure you know. Your bill of rights is inspired by the older English bill of rights and says nothing about guns.

Wrong. The "Bill of Rights" refers, collectively, to the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution. Brush up on your history.

EDIT: I am well aware of the pre-existing British bill of rights and the fact that it did inspire parts of the US Constitution. However, any person with half a brain knows that, for the purposes of this thread, the phrase "Bill of Rights" refers to the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution.

ZV

Beat me to it..

This comes to mind:
"It's better to stay silent and look a fool, rather than speak and remove all doubt." - Mark Twain

I gneuinely did not know that.

Of course that makes the statemant I was argueing with - "The Bill of Rights should never be amended" - even dumber due to the fact it's already an ammendment...

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Can a 60yr old defend herself from 2 20yr olds with bats? Can an unarmed man defend himself from someone with a knife?

Oh come on. When was the last time you saw something like that happen.

ZV

You're right. It was only 1 guy.

My bad.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
And our 2nd is taken directly from discussions on English common law, which presumed the absolute right of the people to be armed.

This dates back to a time when battle tanks had four legs and the king wore steel. Firearms were not an issue.