guns or no guns?

ambitious01

If guns were banned then only the criminals would have them.
I am PRO-GUNS.

tabulator32

awesome collection, swordsmith!

nice.

:bigsmile:

scarlettesong

I imagine I will p!ss a lot of people off with this opinion, but if you're using the 2nd amendment for your argument, your argument is invalid. Most that cherry pick the constitution to suit their agenda misquote it. The 2nd amendment allowed for gun ownership, which back in the day was a, what, musket, as part of an organized community militia. Forgive my southern, but ain't none a'ya'll part o' no dang militia. Have your personal revolver for home protection, have your rifle for hunting. That's all anyone needs. Guns are like a lot of things. Just because they exist, doesn't mean you should have one. I'd like to have a nuke just so I could play US vs. China with anyone that pisses me off. See how that wouldn't be a good idea?

Next time you post, trying to avoid logical fallacies so you feel like you're winning the argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Edited because apparently basic HTML doesn't really work.

elcyclista

If there were a gun ban before the Colorado tragedy, he would have used bombs instead.

They're relatively easy to make with common household items.

scarlettesong

If there were a gun ban before the Colorado tragedy, he would have used bombs instead.

They're relatively easy to make with common household items.

Nooooo... don't take my bleach! How will I clean?!?!

jppd47

I laugh when I see "military grade firearm" and then stop listening. I also lol at the "clip size' argument. This dudes drum jammed on him so he dropped the rifle.

swordsmith

I laugh when I see "military grade firearm" and then stop listening. I also lol at the "clip size' argument. This dudes drum jammed on him so he dropped the rifle.

A drum was not in the weapon I saw laying on the ground. It had a standard 30 round mag- unless he dumped the drum and tried to switch to a normal mag. For all his planning and intelligence thank god he didnt have a clue how to clear the weapon from a jam!

jppd47

I laugh when I see "military grade firearm" and then stop listening. I also lol at the "clip size' argument. This dudes drum jammed on him so he dropped the rifle.

A drum was not in the weapon I saw laying on the ground. It had a standard 30 round mag- unless he dumped the drum and tried to switch to a normal mag. For all his planning and intelligence thank god he didnt have a clue how to clear the weapon from a jam!

even more reason to stop listening. At least non-factual reporting my own opinion is covered under 1A

jdhosier

I just got a new guard dog.

jaymek92

I'm really neither.
I understand that Amurrica LOVES guns because guns are scary and dangerous and rebellious, which is everything America thinks it is. If Americans want guns, then goddammit they will have guns! And the Bill of Rights protects that.
At the same time, I feel like there needs to be some limitation there. If you're one individual and you have 50 functioning firearms, I'm going to be concerned. I can see having a handgun for protection and a couple shotguns or rifles for hunting, but there's no reason to have a collection of guns (unless they're an actual collection, like of WWII weapons). One person cannot fire more than two guns at once, and the chances he or she would need to fire more than one at once is really negligible, so what is the point of owning so many guns?

jppd47

I'm really neither.
I understand that Amurrica LOVES guns because guns are scary and dangerous and rebellious, which is everything America thinks it is. If Americans want guns, then goddammit they will have guns! And the Bill of Rights protects that.
At the same time, I feel like there needs to be some limitation there. If you're one individual and you have 50 functioning firearms, I'm going to be concerned. I can see having a handgun for protection and a couple shotguns or rifles for hunting, but there's no reason to have a collection of guns (unless they're an actual collection, like of WWII weapons). One person cannot fire more than two guns at once, and the chances he or she would need to fire more than one at once is really negligible, so what is the point of owning so many guns?

Guns are tools. Each one meant for a different task. What if I want to collect Modern firearms? Whats so special about WWII firearms? There's functionally no difference. Whats a couple for hunting? What about shooting sports, the different genres have individual requirements, some up to 3 or 4 different depending on the course.

alphabetsalad

I only made it through the first 22 pages of this thread, so apologies if someone has already said this and I missed it.

I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with Chris Rock. We don't need gun control. We need bullet control.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=chris rock bullet control&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFQQtwIwAA&url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II&ei=CA4OUJXSA4T40gGOqIGYAw&usg=AFQjCNGsRRitz_U-cGFGk0Afsu96xGmAxg&sig2=uLumc5rJXvyHRqv8iMwlSw

jppd47

I reload my own ammo anyway....

bullet control is gun control.
That would be like saying:
Car accidents kill more people every year, lets regulate cars...... NO you can't do that we how would we get to work.
Ok we will just increase the cost of gas, thats not regulating cars....

Fit4_Life

Guns! DEFINITELY!

wild_wild_life

Wow, there are a lot of pro-gun people here.

I don't think you can compare a gun to a spoon, or a car. Spoons and cars are useful, constructive objects that can be used in harmful ways. Anything can be. That does not make them equivalent to a weapon whose only purpose is to cause harm.

I guess I've never wanted a gun, so it's easy for me to say let's restrict them. I can't relate to the perspective that seems to value the freedom to own this object designed to hurt others over other people's safety.

jaymek92

I'm really neither.
I understand that Amurrica LOVES guns because guns are scary and dangerous and rebellious, which is everything America thinks it is. If Americans want guns, then goddammit they will have guns! And the Bill of Rights protects that.
At the same time, I feel like there needs to be some limitation there. If you're one individual and you have 50 functioning firearms, I'm going to be concerned. I can see having a handgun for protection and a couple shotguns or rifles for hunting, but there's no reason to have a collection of guns (unless they're an actual collection, like of WWII weapons). One person cannot fire more than two guns at once, and the chances he or she would need to fire more than one at once is really negligible, so what is the point of owning so many guns?

Guns are tools. Each one meant for a different task. What if I want to collect Modern firearms? Whats so special about WWII firearms? There's functionally no difference. Whats a couple for hunting? What about shooting sports, the different genres have individual requirements, some up to 3 or 4 different depending on the course.

I said "an actual collection, LIKE of WWII weapons". Personally, I don't know anybody who collects modern weapons. Everyone I know with modern guns fires them, and items that are collected are generally not put to use. However, if you really want to collect modern weapons, fine. The WWII weapons was just an example.
A couple for hunting is a couple for hunting. Maybe you prefer a specific shotgun for one animal and a different shotgun for another and a different rifle for another.
And shooting is a whole different story. That's a sport, not hunting or killing. I'm not going to say somebody shouldn't own multiple types of running shoes, so why should they not have different guns for different courses?
All I was saying is that, personally, I feel that there should be some limitations on the kinds/amount of weapons an individual can own. I'm not saying NO GUNS or ONLY ONE GUN FOR YOU. I'm saying that somebody really has no use for 20 guns and no civilian ever has use for an assault rifle.

TheFitFireman

Wow, there are a lot of pro-gun people here.

I don't think you can compare a gun to a spoon, or a car. Spoons and cars are useful, constructive objects that can be used in harmful ways. Anything can be. That does not make them equivalent to a weapon whose only purpose is to cause harm.

I guess I've never wanted a gun, so it's easy for me to say let's restrict them. I can't relate to the perspective that seems to value the freedom to own this object designed to hurt others over other people's safety.

I'm going to try my best to hold in my anger from the nonsense you just spewed. Please tell me how you can't compare a gun to a spoon, BOTH of them are tools. Spoon for eating, gun for protection. I can't even begin to describe how ignorant you sound saying that a guns only purpose "is to cause harm". Really? That's there only purpose? Pure ignorance at its finest...

TheFitFireman

I'm really neither.
I understand that Amurrica LOVES guns because guns are scary and dangerous and rebellious, which is everything America thinks it is. If Americans want guns, then goddammit they will have guns! And the Bill of Rights protects that.
At the same time, I feel like there needs to be some limitation there. If you're one individual and you have 50 functioning firearms, I'm going to be concerned. I can see having a handgun for protection and a couple shotguns or rifles for hunting, but there's no reason to have a collection of guns (unless they're an actual collection, like of WWII weapons). One person cannot fire more than two guns at once, and the chances he or she would need to fire more than one at once is really negligible, so what is the point of owning so many guns?

Guns are tools. Each one meant for a different task. What if I want to collect Modern firearms? Whats so special about WWII firearms? There's functionally no difference. Whats a couple for hunting? What about shooting sports, the different genres have individual requirements, some up to 3 or 4 different depending on the course.

I said an actual collection, LIKE of WWII weapons. Personally, I don't know anybody who collects modern weapons. Everyone I know with guns fires them, and items that are collected are generally not put to use. However, if you really want to collect modern weapons, fine. The WWII weapons was just an example.
A couple for hunting is a couple for hunting. Maybe you prefer a specific shotgun for one animal and a different shotgun for another and a different rifle for another.
And shooting is a whole different story. That's a sport, not hunting or killing. I'm not going to say somebody shouldn't own multiple types of running shoes, so why should they not have different guns for different courses?
All I was saying is that, personally, I feel that there should be some limitations on the kinds/amount of weapons an individual can own. I'm not saying NO GUNS or ONLY ONE GUN FOR YOU. I'm saying that somebody really has no use for 20 guns and no civilian ever has use for an assault rifle.

I collect modern weapons, another guy on here posted a full gun safe of modern weapons that could be considered a collection... Also, there's purposes to owning a variety of guns and sometimes that means over 20. There is uses for assault rifles as well; home protection not to mention shooting competitions like 3-gun that require the use of an assault rifle. No one type of fire should be banned, all firearms are capable of lethality so that would make no sense banning one over the other. Not to mention these assault rifles you speak of, nearly all of them are semi-automatic just like a pistol, it costs like 10k and a lot of government paperwork to be able to own a fully automatic assault rifle.

Capt_Apollo

i'm getting my new york city shotgun permit and buying a shotgun. will also be attending a firearms safety course. why? cuz i want to.

tabulator32

All I was saying is that, personally, I feel that there should be some limitations on the kinds/amount of weapons an individual can own. I'm not saying NO GUNS or ONLY ONE GUN FOR YOU. I'm saying that somebody really has no use for 20 guns and no civilian ever has use for an assault rifle.

The problem with that line of thinking is...first, lets say they draw the legal limit a "twenty guns", and then, later on, they say "there really is no need for more than fifteen" and then someone says "lets call it an even dozen" and then "ten! ten is a nice round number!" and then it just keeps going downhill from there.

When citizens no longer retain the right to protect themselves and their property, they are no longer citizens, they are subjects.