Author Topic: ISideWith 2016 US President Election  (Read 29910 times)

I agree if you totally outlaw guns, crime rate may even go higher (i mean look at what happened when prohibition happened).

but the only possible way i could really see a better way to stop the terrorist is by working a a grander scale. its hard to find who is the terrorist and who is not

thats not going to help,
you can still by a assault rifle, and hide it in your house until the day you shoot people
Terrorism and domestic shootings usually don't coincide. The point is being missed here, if you have to go through a few more hoops to purchase a firearm and that keeps some hooligan from buying one and using it to shoot-up a kindergarten, family member, or anyone else. Isn't it maybe worth losing just a little bit of your freedom for the possibility to save another's life? We all have the same end goal here do we not? So if it's a possibility, why not do it. Deterring violence and the death of another human being is all we (should) want. I would miss that little bit of freedom a lot less to not ever have to see a gun massacre headline in a newspaper or online article anymore.


Tell me where the second amendment says the word "muskets," please. The second amendment was created so that, in effect, the people could mount some form of resistance.

You're clearly asking the wrong questions. You're assessing on the basis of "need." "Why would you NEED that?" Need is completely irrelevant. Why do you "need" to express your opinion? You don't, but you have the right to do it. Same applies here. We have the right to bear arms, and that should not be assessed on the basis of need.
I don't think you're understanding my point.
Again, if you think you can go toe-to-toe against a drone to overthrow a tyrannical government, please be my guest.

Terrorism and domestic shootings usually don't coincide. The point is being missed here, if you have to go through a few more hoops to purchase a firearm and that keeps some hooligan from buying one and using it to shoot-up a kindergarten, family member, or anyone else. Isn't it maybe worth losing just a little bit of your freedom for the possibility to save another's life? We all have the same end goal here do we not? So if it's a possibility, why not do it. Deterring violence and the death of another human being is all we (should) want. I would miss that little bit of freedom a lot less to not ever have to see a gun massacre headline in a newspaper or online article anymore.

I don't think you're understanding my point.
Again, if you think you can go toe-to-toe against a drone to overthrow a tyrannical government, please be my guest.
I don't understand why you keep going back to drones in an attempt to deflect what I'm saying. You're asking the wrong questions. It was never about need, it's about what we are entitled to.

i also don't get why people become so attached to guns, besides the fact it can provide security, and has a proving of social status, its nothing but a few metal stampings clamped together. if i had control, i wouldn't let some peoples love for firearms stop me from preventing deaths

I think someone is trying to summon me
We must walk as slow as our slower member to move forward. The reason we have laws in place is because of the few who forget up so badly they ruin it for everyone else. The reason we have laws for automobiles is because a forget up wrecked into another. Yet when we have a mass shooting every few weeks some believe the answer is more guns. If you own a gun and are responsible with it, you are fine. However, some boob decides to take it to a school and shoot another; thats when stricter laws must be in place that reduce the chances of another maniac acquiring a weapon.

If you have guns lying about around your home; they are a danger to yourself and others especially with children around.
If you have guns locked in a safe and think yourself a responsible gun owner; what use are those guns if someone breaks in your home and threatens your family; are you going to ask the guy to hold on a minute while you unlock your safe?
If you feel in constant danger of someone harming your family, how many enemies do you have?
You are statistically more likely to use a firearm on yourself than another person.

Most gun owners are responsible, but its not the responsible ones that are causing the problems.
Again, people forget things up for the majority and thats why stricter laws must be in place. It's unpleasant that your freedom to do as you please must be tightened; but thats how life works.
Where to begin.

Well there is gun control, most states usually have some sort of waiting period. There is also an age limit for purchases handguns and long guns. In most states you have to be 21 to purchase a handgun and 18 for long guns. Most states also require some form registration for long guns, and that paperwork is usually destroyed after a few weeks. Handguns are usually logged for life.

Guns, Children and family. Guns and inanimate, they aren't going to jump out you. If I were to say load a pistol, rooster and it drop/throw it, then yeah that is dangerous. However unloaded just sitting there, it's about a dangerous as your tv or a parked car. States like California have laws for storage, for example it is a crime for a firearms to be left unlocked in the presence of children, it is also a crime should a child take a firearm that has not been locked down off the property.

Damp please stop. You know nothing about guns nor do you know anything about firearms procurement. Fire arms are divided into classes.

AR15 does not mean Assault Rifle 15, it means Armalite Rifle 15. A normal AR15 functions just like any semi automatic rifle like say a .22 caliber Ruger 10/22 or a Mini-14.

As long as you have a legal barrel length and features on your AR meet state and federal law you are fine. If you want a super short barrel that does not meet the law or if you want to have full auto you are going to need to buy a tax stamp and register from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives(as of 9/11). Just because it looks like a scary military gun, does not mean its a scary military gun.

i also don't get why people become so attached to guns, besides the fact it can provide security, and has a proving of social status, its nothing but a few metal stampings clamped together. if i had control, i wouldn't let some peoples love for firearms stop me from preventing deaths
Then go after the gangs that are shooting each other in the street. They're shooting more people than your local gun club, after all, and they aren't known for acquiring things legally.

Again, if you think you can go toe-to-toe against a drone to overthrow a tyrannical government, please be my guest.
We used drones heavily in Iraq and Afghanistan and there are still bad guys with guns. Applying conventional force to a assyemtric conflict isn't going to get you very far.

We used drones heavily in Iraq and Afghanistan and there are still bad guys with guns. Applying conventional force to a assyemtric conflict isn't going to get you very far.
Thank you for finding the words that I couldn't seem to find. Did we "win" the war on terror? No. I may not be the most eloquent speaker or the greatest debater, but I know that my statements are being deflected/taken out of context.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2015, 03:56:34 PM by Cappytaino »

i also don't get why people become so attached to guns, besides the fact it can provide security, and has a proving of social status, its nothing but a few metal stampings clamped together. if i had control, i wouldn't let some peoples love for firearms stop me from preventing deaths
the same reason people get attached to anything

You're clearly asking the wrong questions. You're assessing on the basis of "need." "Why would you NEED that?" Need is completely irrelevant. Why do you "need" to express your opinion? You don't, but you have the right to do it. Same applies here. We have the right to bear arms, and that should not be assessed on the basis of need.
This.

You don't have to go toe to toe with a drone to make a difference.  It only takes one very determined person to make a difference, especially if they're prepared to die as a result of their actions.  Lee Harvey Oswald.  Sirhan Sirhan.  James Earl Ray.  Now these aren't examples of people overthrowing tyrants, and taking out political leaders is obviously not a simple task, but the point remains.

This same determination is ultimately what has to be overcome if you want to prevent things like school shootings; it's not the gun, it's not the bullet, it's the mindset.



i don't stand with rand on a few social issues but as long as he transfers the right to govern those to the state level then we good

I think a lost a few brain cells listening to you guys (except for Harm) discussing gun control. Also Damp you're ignorant and i recommend advance classes in the study of firearms before you try to become politically relevant in that area.

I think a lost a few brain cells listening to you guys (except for Harm) discussing gun control. Also Damp you're ignorant and i recommend advance classes in the study of firearms before you try to become politically relevant in that area.
Where in particular did I go wrong? I believe I was trying to say the same thing that Harm said, but I'm just not great at putting what's in my head down in writing, as it's not my strong suit.


Where in particular did I go wrong? I believe I was trying to say the same thing that Harm said, but I'm just not great at putting what's in my head down in writing, as it's not my strong suit.
Nah you're fine i just didn't feel like listing all of the names. Personally though some of the things you've said could have been put out in better detail but its mostly minor.

Nah you're fine i just didn't feel like listing all of the names. Personally though some of the things you've said could have been put out in better detail but its mostly minor.
Alright, cool. I'm seeking out constructive criticism because I know I'm not the best at expressing my views.