I hate guns.

[the unknown]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

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.

There are limits to even things like freedom of speech. You can't yell fire in a movie theater. Regardless, you just equated gun rights on the same level as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not very reasonable.

 

[ElFenix]

the 27th amendment was proposed as one of the 12 amendments making up the bill of rights, but for some reason a bunch of states didn't bother voting on it way back in the day. it was ratified 202 1/2 years after submission, and was the 2nd article proposed for submission as an amendment. the 1st article proposed as an amendment was about the number of representatives in the house. had it passed and never been amended, there would be over 6000 members of the house.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: 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.

It dealt with the right of person to be able to defend themselves using equal arms; equal to their attacker and equal to unfriendly nations. If you want to claim the standing army replaced the need for military grade weapons it still leaves me the other half (not to mention that America respecified it as having the absolute right to be able to confront and overthrow the government).

 

[the unknown]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: 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.

It dealt with the right of person to be able to defend themselves using equal arms; equal to their attacker and equal to unfriendly nations. If you want to claim the standing army replaced the need for military grade weapons it still leaves me the other half (not to mention that America respecified it as having the absolute right to be able to confront and overthrow the government).

On that I totally agree. But in that, I was saying that it was just simply no longer a feasible option. ffs most Americans wouldn't even think about standing up to their own tax money being thrown around and unchecked (save the bailout arguments for another thread ). If there's one thing people like more than guns, its money . And yet I don't even see as much as a uniting of voters to stop what they think are wrong-doings of the government. Instead of what the second amendment is supposed to protect, it acts as a curtain all gun owner associations can hide behind.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: 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.

It dealt with the right of person to be able to defend themselves using equal arms; equal to their attacker and equal to unfriendly nations. If you want to claim the standing army replaced the need for military grade weapons it still leaves me the other half (not to mention that America respecified it as having the absolute right to be able to confront and overthrow the government).

Leaves you with the other half of what? Weapons? You're welcome to them, but why do you talk as if you want as many weapons as you can get?

Look, as I said earlier I'm not arguing that all guns be banned, just that people shouldn't talk about them as if they are somehow a good and glorious thing. I mean look at this:

Originally posted by: nkgreen
Gun rights apply to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Like... what does that even mean? It's like brainwashed rhetoric. Like something out of 1984 - WAR IS PEACE WAR IS PEACE.

 

[Atheus]

I just find it very sad that so much anger is directed towards those who advocate a world without guns. Naive and idealistic they may be, but their ideals are peaceful, and they are met only with hate. How can you be so twisted as to insult and deride someone for believing humans should not be hurting eachother? It it wrong to strive for a world like this, regardless of how unrealistic you think it might be? In fact, is not not honorable to do so?

"Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. "

Mahatma Gandhi

I'm out of this thread.

/edit: not directed at anyone in particular.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: 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.

It dealt with the right of person to be able to defend themselves using equal arms; equal to their attacker and equal to unfriendly nations. If you want to claim the standing army replaced the need for military grade weapons it still leaves me the other half (not to mention that America respecified it as having the absolute right to be able to confront and overthrow the government).

Leaves you with the other half of what? Weapons? You're welcome to them, but why do you talk as if you want as many weapons as you can get?

Look, as I said earlier I'm not arguing that all guns be banned, just that people shouldn't talk about them as if they are somehow a good and glorious thing. I mean look at this:

Originally posted by: nkgreen
Gun rights apply to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Like... what does that even mean? It's like brainwashed rhetoric. Like something out of 1984 - WAR IS PEACE WAR IS PEACE.

Fair enough. I personally hate firearms...they're the weapons of cowards and old women (no offense to old women). But so long as I may face them, I demand one for myself.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: 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.

It dealt with the right of person to be able to defend themselves using equal arms; equal to their attacker and equal to unfriendly nations. If you want to claim the standing army replaced the need for military grade weapons it still leaves me the other half (not to mention that America respecified it as having the absolute right to be able to confront and overthrow the government).

Leaves you with the other half of what? Weapons? You're welcome to them, but why do you talk as if you want as many weapons as you can get?

Look, as I said earlier I'm not arguing that all guns be banned, just that people shouldn't talk about them as if they are somehow a good and glorious thing. I mean look at this:

Originally posted by: nkgreen
Gun rights apply to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Like... what does that even mean? It's like brainwashed rhetoric. Like something out of 1984 - WAR IS PEACE WAR IS PEACE.

Fair enough. I personally hate firearms...they're the weapons of cowards and old women (no offense to old women). But so long as I may face them, I demand one for myself.

how are the the weapons of cowards or old women? should someone smaller or with disablities get a ass kicking because its manly? should they risk there wifes or daughters getting raped because they didnt want to look like a coward and use a gun?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Atheus
I just find it very sad that so much anger is directed towards those who advocate a world without guns. Naive and idealistic they may be, but their ideals are peaceful, and they are met only with hate. How can you be so twisted as to insult and deride someone for believing humans should not be hurting eachother? [/i]

Because often, the worst ideas start off as good intentions. This example is someone advocating that one of my Constitutional rights be taken away. I will not stand for that.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: SpunkyJones

Originally posted by: Mr Pickles
So my good buddy just got his gun stolen out of his car, along with other stuff. It was his carry weapon. Another gun on the street. This is why I hate guns.

You hate guns because you buddy screwed up and left his in his car??

Unfortunately with our laws it's impossible to both carry and 'always' carry. Personally I think guns should be allowed everywhere. I personally do not carry nor currently own a gun.

I used to go and shoot regularly though and try a lot of weapons. I believe basic gun training should be part of our education.

Many think in "today's" America guns are no longer needed, I beg to differ. Somalia is a proven area that shows how powerful having armed citizens are even versus a much more powerful military.

I do agree there are a ton of stupid/lazy gun owners though, but I don't think their actions should dictate outlawing guns.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: 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.

It dealt with the right of person to be able to defend themselves using equal arms; equal to their attacker and equal to unfriendly nations. If you want to claim the standing army replaced the need for military grade weapons it still leaves me the other half (not to mention that America respecified it as having the absolute right to be able to confront and overthrow the government).

Leaves you with the other half of what? Weapons? You're welcome to them, but why do you talk as if you want as many weapons as you can get?

Look, as I said earlier I'm not arguing that all guns be banned, just that people shouldn't talk about them as if they are somehow a good and glorious thing. I mean look at this:

Originally posted by: nkgreen
Gun rights apply to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Like... what does that even mean? It's like brainwashed rhetoric. Like something out of 1984 - WAR IS PEACE WAR IS PEACE.

Fair enough. I personally hate firearms...they're the weapons of cowards and old women (no offense to old women). But so long as I may face them, I demand one for myself.

how are the the weapons of cowards or old women? should someone smaller or with disablities get a ass kicking because its manly? should they risk there wifes or daughters getting raped because they didnt want to look like a coward and use a gun?

Everything is subjective. I'd just rather face someone where skill is the decider, not firepower. Well in truth I'd rather just take them out for a beer, but that seldom works.

Firearms make crime (and more broadly death) to easy and impersonal.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWandsEverything is subjective. I'd just rather face someone where skill is the decider, not firepower. Well in truth I'd rather just take them out for a beer, but that seldom works.

Firearms make crime (and more broadly death) to easy and impersonal.

no its not. if someone is trying to get into my house or trying to attack me i sure in the hell am not going to ask if they want to go for a beer and while i would do everything i can to not be in that situation the world is not perfect or safe.

IF I ever feel my family is in danger i will do everything i can to protect them. To say its cowardice to use a gun in that situation is nieve. I am not a 6'6 200 lb master in martial arts. i ama short small guy. But i will be damned if someone is going to harm my family without me doing whatever i can.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Atheus
I just find it very sad that so much anger is directed towards those who advocate a world without guns. Naive and idealistic they may be, but their ideals are peaceful, and they are met only with hate. How can you be so twisted as to insult and deride someone for believing humans should not be hurting eachother? It it wrong to strive for a world like this, regardless of how unrealistic you think it might be? In fact, is not not honorable to do so?

"Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. "

Mahatma Gandhi

I'm out of this thread.

/edit: not directed at anyone in particular.

"'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

Mahatma Gandhi



ZV

 

[Paladin3]

Originally posted by: Atheus
I just find it very sad that so much anger is directed towards those who advocate a world without guns. Naive and idealistic they may be, but their ideals are peaceful, and they are met only with hate. How can you be so twisted as to insult and deride someone for believing humans should not be hurting eachother? It it wrong to strive for a world like this, regardless of how unrealistic you think it might be? In fact, is not not honorable to do so?

"Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. "

Mahatma Gandhi

I'm out of this thread.

/edit: not directed at anyone in particular.

You may advocate a world without guns, weapons and violence but it will sadly never happen. Man has been killing man since the dawn of time. No law has or ever will disarm evil men with evil intentions. All you will accomplish is making sure that I, and all other law abiding citizen, will be disarmed and unable to fight back when it becomes necessary.

Evil will always exist and those who choose to ignore that fact are just helping evil flourish. We need to work against evil in all its forms through education, social outreach and, yes, if necessary, with force. The gun is just a tool in all of this. Stop demonizing a tool when the real evil is in the hearts of evil men.

And the day will come when you yell ?Help! Police!? and nobody is around to rescue you. Maybe the day after that, if you still live, you will assume a bit more responsibility for your own safety and stop telling me I don?t have the right to protect me and mine.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Paladin3

Originally posted by: Atheus
I just find it very sad that so much anger is directed towards those who advocate a world without guns. Naive and idealistic they may be, but their ideals are peaceful, and they are met only with hate. How can you be so twisted as to insult and deride someone for believing humans should not be hurting eachother? It it wrong to strive for a world like this, regardless of how unrealistic you think it might be? In fact, is not not honorable to do so?

"Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. "

Mahatma Gandhi

I'm out of this thread.

/edit: not directed at anyone in particular.

You may advocate a world without guns, weapons and violence but it will sadly never happen. Man has been killing man since the dawn of time. No law has or ever will disarm evil men with evil intentions. All you will accomplish is making sure that I, and all other law abiding citizen, will be disarmed and unable to fight back when it becomes necessary.

Evil will always exist and those who choose to ignore that fact are just helping evil flourish. We need to work against evil in all its forms through education, social outreach and, yes, if necessary, with force. The gun is just a tool in all of this. Stop demonizing a tool when the real evil is in the hearts of evil men.

And the day will come when you yell ?Help! Police!? and nobody is around to rescue you. Maybe the day after that, if you still live, you will assume a bit more responsibility for your own safety and stop telling me I don?t have the right to protect me and mine.

Why do poeple on this forum insist on agrueing with me on completely invented points? How many times do I have to post I'm not against guns? I'm against this gun fetish some people have. Read what I said and you'll notice the words 'those who' and 'naive' and 'idealistic' which indicate I do not believe this pacifist world will exist in the near future either, but no, you're just going to skim over it and assume a stereotype. And BTW I would never yell ?Help! Police!?.

Honestly I have better arguements with my dog - and he's fucking dead.

*now* I'm out.

/edit: must...not check.. thread... again...

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Atheus
Why do poeple on this forum insist on agrueing with me on completely invented points?

Because your point is completely invalid? One can advocate a Utopian world without guns as much as you want (regardless of how naive it is), but as soon as one steps in and actively calls for the disarming of people, the game changes and he/she deserve to be called out.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: PrinceofWandsEverything is subjective. I'd just rather face someone where skill is the decider, not firepower. Well in truth I'd rather just take them out for a beer, but that seldom works.

Firearms make crime (and more broadly death) to easy and impersonal.

no its not. if someone is trying to get into my house or trying to attack me i sure in the hell am not going to ask if they want to go for a beer and while i would do everything i can to not be in that situation the world is not perfect or safe.

IF I ever feel my family is in danger i will do everything i can to protect them. To say its cowardice to use a gun in that situation is nieve. I am not a 6'6 200 lb master in martial arts. i ama short small guy. But i will be damned if someone is going to harm my family without me doing whatever i can.

And you have that right...like I said, it's all subjective. I'm not worried about facing someone hand to hand, or even in equally armed melee. I just don't want to face them when they have a gun and I don't.

 

[LS8]

Originally posted by: Mr Pickles
So my good buddy just got his gun stolen out of his car, along with other stuff. It was his carry weapon. Another gun on the street. This is why I hate guns.

Hate yourself instead, I'm sure you could apply the same logic as to why (IE - none at all).

 

[Atheus]

/ edit before ban

 

[LS8]

Bah!

 

[Uncle T]

This is another reason why I always carry my gun (CCW) on me and never let it leave my side except for when I sleep in my house. If I sleep somewhere else then I leave it on my side without a bullet in the chamber, so I don?t shot myself. This is also why I carry my gun because stupid people let the wrong people have the guns.

No one is really mad at guns they are mad at stupid people with guns.


==============================
MNI

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Uncle T
This is another reason why I always carry my gun (CCW) on me and never let it leave my side except for when I sleep in my house. If I sleep somewhere else then I leave it on my side without a bullet in the chamber, so I don?t shot myself. This is also why I carry my gun because stupid people let the wrong people have the guns.

No one is really mad at guns they are mad at stupid people with guns.


==============================
MNI

So, you never go the post office?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Uncle T
This is another reason why I always carry my gun (CCW) on me and never let it leave my side except for when I sleep in my house. If I sleep somewhere else then I leave it on my side without a bullet in the chamber, so I don?t shot myself. This is also why I carry my gun because stupid people let the wrong people have the guns.

No one is really mad at guns they are mad at stupid people with guns.


==============================
MNI

So, you never go the post office?

I don't.

When I have to go to court I lock it in the lockbox at the courthouse.

I carry absolutely everywhere it's legal to do so, and do my best to avoid anywhere it's prohibited.

 

[Paladin3]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Paladin3

Originally posted by: Atheus
I just find it very sad that so much anger is directed towards those who advocate a world without guns. Naive and idealistic they may be, but their ideals are peaceful, and they are met only with hate. How can you be so twisted as to insult and deride someone for believing humans should not be hurting eachother? It it wrong to strive for a world like this, regardless of how unrealistic you think it might be? In fact, is not not honorable to do so?

"Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. "

Mahatma Gandhi

I'm out of this thread.

/edit: not directed at anyone in particular.

You may advocate a world without guns, weapons and violence but it will sadly never happen. Man has been killing man since the dawn of time. No law has or ever will disarm evil men with evil intentions. All you will accomplish is making sure that I, and all other law abiding citizen, will be disarmed and unable to fight back when it becomes necessary.

Evil will always exist and those who choose to ignore that fact are just helping evil flourish. We need to work against evil in all its forms through education, social outreach and, yes, if necessary, with force. The gun is just a tool in all of this. Stop demonizing a tool when the real evil is in the hearts of evil men.

And the day will come when you yell ?Help! Police!? and nobody is around to rescue you. Maybe the day after that, if you still live, you will assume a bit more responsibility for your own safety and stop telling me I don?t have the right to protect me and mine.

Why do poeple on this forum insist on agrueing with me on completely invented points? How many times do I have to post I'm not against guns? I'm against this gun fetish some people have. Read what I said and you'll notice the words 'those who' and 'naive' and 'idealistic' which indicate I do not believe this pacifist world will exist in the near future either, but no, you're just going to skim over it and assume a stereotype. And BTW I would never yell ?Help! Police!?.

Honestly I have better arguements with my dog - and he's fucking dead.

*now* I'm out.

/edit: must...not check.. thread... again...

I directly replied to your question about it being honorable to strive for a world without violence, one with peaceful ideals. The answer is NO when all those efforts will only result in you disarming the good guys.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Uncle T
This is another reason why I always carry my gun (CCW) on me and never let it leave my side except for when I sleep in my house. If I sleep somewhere else then I leave it on my side without a bullet in the chamber, so I don?t shot myself. This is also why I carry my gun because stupid people let the wrong people have the guns.

No one is really mad at guns they are mad at stupid people with guns.


==============================
MNI

So, you never go the post office?

I don't.

When I have to go to court I lock it in the lockbox at the courthouse.

I carry absolutely everywhere it's legal to do so, and do my best to avoid anywhere it's prohibited.

How is that any better/worse than locking a gun in one's car?