11-12-2003, 07:44 PM | #1 |
Ra
Join Date: May 19, 2002
Location: The US of A
Age: 35
Posts: 2,365
|
What do you think about the issue of gun control.
I say there should be more restrictions such as a longer waiting day period and ban some weapons. Rifles mostly that are not really used for sport. And a more through backround check.
__________________
Slythe is back! Back again! Haha! <br /><br />[url]\"http://imageshack.us\" target=\"_blank\"> [img]\"http://img472.imageshack.us/img472/9928/130blood4ts.jpg\" alt=\" - \" /></a> |
11-12-2003, 08:03 PM | #2 |
Hathor
Join Date: February 18, 2002
Location: Vienna
Age: 42
Posts: 2,248
|
I'd have to say a lot about that but it's 2AM over here and I keep my more elaborate answers for the morning.
In short: I'm for a ban on all non-hunting firearms. (I understand that in the US high calibre handguns are also used for hunting on some occasion). Exceptions only for people who "require" guns at their job (e.g. security guards) and only AT their job (no taking the gun home).
__________________
\"I am forever spellbound by the frailty of life\"<br /><br /> Faceman |
11-12-2003, 08:16 PM | #3 |
Lord Ao
Join Date: June 24, 2002
Location: Nevernever Land
Age: 49
Posts: 2,002
|
Gun control is putting 7+1 rounds in the same 1/2 inch hole at 25 yards.
Seriously, what do you think all these extra restrictions do? Take the weapons away from law abidding citizens. That's it. The criminals will just ignore the law and get around it - and still own guns. That's what they do! They're criminals! Why do think the 2nd Ammendment is there? To allow be people to have personal defense tools? No. To allow criminals to be dangerous? No. Criminals, esp ones with violent tendancies, are dangerous anyway. My own two hands are lethal weapons - should I wish to apply them that way. To allow hobbiests to have vast armouries for display? No. The 2nd Ammendment is there to protect We the People from Government. Don't think that is needed? Try reading the PATRIOT ACT. Yet We the Sheep seem all to willing to sell our power and our protection over to the Government for the illusion of safety and security. "Those that would trade Liberty for Security will have neither Liberty nor Security" ~Benjamin Franklin Don't think that the general populace needs assault riffles? I'll tell you one reason that We the People do: the standing army has assault riffles. The number one rule for subjugating a population is disarm it. Read any military treatise and you will find this guiding factor. Then you segregate and eliminate malcontents, and seduce the remaining populace to your cause. "War is extension of policy by other means" ..... and "the purpose of war is to deminish your opponents capability to wage war." The problem is not, and never has been the availability of weapons to the populace. The problem is people. To cure a disease, you do not treat a symtom. You treat the disease. That means removing those that are dangerous to society from society. No law can ever prevent an action. No law has ever stopped a bullet, or a rape, or a burglery. Consequenses for breaking the law can be a deterant, but that's it. Hopefully the deterant is high enough that the risk of commiting the crime does not equal doing the time, so to speak. [ 11-12-2003, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]
__________________
[url]\"http://www.duryea.org/pinky/gurkin.wav\" target=\"_blank\">AYPWIP?</a> .... <img border=\"0\" alt=\"[1ponder]\" title=\"\" src=\"graemlins/1ponder.gif\" /> <br />\"I think so Brain, but isn\'t a cucumber that small called a gherkin?\"<br /><br />Shut UP! Pinky! |
11-12-2003, 09:14 PM | #4 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
night stalker - surely societies such as the UK and australia, who have strict gun control laws, are examples for the fact that an unarmed populace need not necessarily be subjugated or abused?
or, to put it another way, the US citizens are armed to the teeth compared to australian citizens, yet the Patriot Act you referred to is much more subjugating and abusive of the citizenry than anything the australian govt passed in response to 9/11 and the war on terro. my point being - guns dont seem to help prevent the thing you claim the 2nd ammendment protects. note that i agree with you 100% that treating the disease is the right solution. edit: typo and added last sentence [ 11-12-2003, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: sultan ] |
11-13-2003, 01:45 AM | #5 | |||
Lord Ao
Join Date: June 24, 2002
Location: Nevernever Land
Age: 49
Posts: 2,002
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, the PATRIOT ACT (I capitolize it because it actually is an acronymn) got passed. See in order for a tool to work (2nd Ammendment in this case - Americans armed to the teeth) you have to pull the trigger so to speak. As I said, We the Sheep of the United States keep wanting to turn over freedoms we have over to the government for the illusion of security. We let them shove the PATRIOT ACT upon us. The reason I used the Jefferson quote is the atmosphere of We the People ranges from apathetic to slightly fearful. We are approaching tyranny - not there yet, but we are approaching it. And we VOTE for it! Or not vote for it, but raise no voice of opposition, which in effect is the same thing. Quote:
__________________
[url]\"http://www.duryea.org/pinky/gurkin.wav\" target=\"_blank\">AYPWIP?</a> .... <img border=\"0\" alt=\"[1ponder]\" title=\"\" src=\"graemlins/1ponder.gif\" /> <br />\"I think so Brain, but isn\'t a cucumber that small called a gherkin?\"<br /><br />Shut UP! Pinky! |
|||
11-13-2003, 05:32 AM | #6 |
Hathor
Join Date: February 18, 2002
Location: Vienna
Age: 42
Posts: 2,248
|
Okay,
I stated my point above and I'm no going to provide the philosophy behind it: It's rather simple. Handguns (and submachine-guns, assault rifles,...) have been invented and produced throughout history for one purpose: To hurt/kill humans. Now a country who forbids these things by law should have no big problem banning items that are tools to solely that purpose. The difference is that if your average Joe snaps and goes on a rampage he will probably wound 3-4 people with a knife before stopped, but may kill 5-6 people with a handgun, with an assault-rifle or and MP maybe even more. Now let me address the common defensive arguments on gun ownership:
[ 11-13-2003, 05:36 AM: Message edited by: Faceman ]
__________________
\"I am forever spellbound by the frailty of life\"<br /><br /> Faceman |
11-13-2003, 12:33 PM | #7 | |
Silver Dragon
Join Date: March 4, 2001
Location: Knoxville, TN USA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,641
|
Quote:
[ 11-13-2003, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]
__________________
Sir Taliesin<br /><br />Hello... Good bye. |
|
11-13-2003, 01:12 PM | #8 |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
I think the Patriot Act shows it's time for us to reclaim a bit o' the country. I'm up for a revolution. Who's with me. Erm, on the point that the US army is too powerful for even an armed popular revolt -- let us not forget that many of the soldiers will join the ranks of the revolutionaries. I had that pointed out to me when I made the same point.
Jefferson felt that a popular revolt was needed ever 20 to 50 years in society. I'm with him on that. Peace leads to too much overpopulation. |
11-13-2003, 01:24 PM | #9 |
Drow Warrior
Join Date: September 16, 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Age: 47
Posts: 257
|
As a gun owner, I have another valid reason I should be allowed to continue owning my firearms.
A gun is a tool. The reason for possession of that tool is irrelevant. Most instances of injury and death due to owning a gun comes not from malicious intent, but from the misuse of the tool. Education would result in less instances where a gun results in bodily injury. Every year, irresponsible and reckless automobile drivers kill more people than guns even come close to killing. Like a gun, cars are a tool we use. When improperly used the result can often times be tragic. Just as I can decide to take my gun and shoot another, I can take my car and hit another, often having the same effect, death. Does this mean that we should also have a ban on automobiles? The bottom line is that removing the right to own firearms does nothing but promote an illusion of pacification. In addition, it removes a personal liberty I should always have, the right to protection. Understand also that a guns protection comes mostly from the threat of its use, not the actual act of using it. |
11-13-2003, 03:54 PM | #10 | |
Hathor
Join Date: February 18, 2002
Location: Vienna
Age: 42
Posts: 2,248
|
Quote:
Basically my point was: If you really gotta fight the whole army you'll lose. If you got part of the army with you, I'm not sure your personal 1911A will make that much a difference. P.S.: Personally I love guns and if my country allowed automatic weaponry I should be the first to buy some BUT After giving the thing a little thought I decided that owning a gun is dangerous and that I don't want that kind of responsibilty. So although I read a lot about guns, and would never refuse if someone took me along to the shooting range, the only pieces I own are two 6mm BB replicas. [ 11-13-2003, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Faceman ]
__________________
\"I am forever spellbound by the frailty of life\"<br /><br /> Faceman |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gun Control. Knife Control. Tomorrow, pointy sticks? | VulcanRider | General Discussion | 76 | 06-04-2005 11:17 AM |
Gun Control? | Son of Osiris | General Discussion | 100 | 05-09-2004 03:51 PM |
Bat Control | Arvon | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 3 | 06-08-2002 12:46 PM |
Control Q | Willard | Baldurs Gate II: Shadows of Amn & Throne of Bhaal | 16 | 05-28-2002 09:23 PM |
gun control code | corsair | Miscellaneous Games (RPG or not) | 11 | 02-28-2002 06:26 PM |