2 hours ago, willpv23 said:

 

Honestly now you're starting to sound like the Australian news when they called us "underground hackers" for modding GTA. Restricting guns is nowhere near slavery and it's just ridiculous to claim that.

 

 

You seriously have an issue with needing to prove that you are mentally able to own something that can take a life away in mere milliseconds?

It's not ridiculous to view gun restrictions as a form of slavery when you consider the fact that some of the first gun control laws were used to prohibit blacks and Indians from purchasing firearms.

 

You and the others have taken his words out of context, which shows a lack of understanding his entire argument. It's not a literal comparison to slavery, but rather a conceptual comparison. The 2nd amendment is literally the only barrier between the government violating our rights as Americans. 

Edited May 23, 20187 yr by TheDivineHustle

@Giordano You are seriously spot on with everything you said, great write up. Now as far as my opinion goes. I seriously cannot grasp this concept that making a law will fail just like every other law in the book. Not only is there zero evidence to back this up, but how about instead of automatically assuming that no law will work, try and come up with a solution, like what Florida did. 

 

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/05/591036676/florida-senate-approves-gun-control-package-oks-arming-some-school-personnel 

1 minute ago, TheSandwichStealer said:

@Giordano You are seriously spot on with everything you said, great write up. Now as far as my opinion goes. I seriously cannot grasp this concept that making a law will fail just like every other law in the book. Not only is there zero evidence to back this up, but how about instead of automatically assuming that no law will work, try and come up with a solution, like what Florida did. 

 

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/05/591036676/florida-senate-approves-gun-control-package-oks-arming-some-school-personnel 

 

Well, on the basis of an "assault rifle" ban, it's already been tried and numerous research centers have concluded that it would have little to no significant change on violent crime/mass shootings. So there is plenty of evidence to back it up, actually.

3 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Just want to pop in and say that comparing one country to another on the basis of gun control is illogical. I’ll sit back and await responses from a few people that have left me hanging, as usual. 

 

Yup, I agree.  Just felt the need to clarify the situation in the UK as someone said that gun control here is responsible for an increase in the murder rate.  I can say though that on a personal level, after visiting my younger cousins in the US earlier this year, I found it very troubling that they, as middle school kids, actually have to practice every couple of months for what to do if someone comes to their school with a gun.  I don't think there was anything further from my mind when I was at school, especially at a young age like that.

Just now, Sam said:

 

Yup, I agree.  Just felt the need to clarify the situation in the UK as someone said that gun control here is responsible for an increase in the murder rate.  I can say though that on a personal level, after visiting my younger cousins in the US earlier this year, I found it very troubling that they, as middle school kids, actually have to practice every couple of months for what to do if someone comes to their school with a gun.  I don't think there was anything further from my mind when I was at school, especially at a young age like that.

I do too, but I feel the problem stems deeper than just guns, and that's what a lot of people don't understand. Taking away the gun isn't going to forever solve the problems that we have in our school systems. A comparison between the UK and US on this matter doesn't make any sense to me because the circumstances are completely different. There are just too many different variables to make a reasonable comparison.

26 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

It's not ridiculous to view gun restrictions as a form of slavery when you consider the fact that some of the first gun control laws were used to prohibit blacks and Indians from purchasing firearms.

 

You and the others have taken his words out of context, which shows a lack of understanding his entire argument. It's not a literal comparison to slavery, but rather a conceptual comparison. The 2nd amendment is literally the only barrier between the government violating our rights as Americans. 

 

 

Funny that you claim I'm taking someone words out of context, then post a quote that is famously taken out of context.

28 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

It's not ridiculous to view gun restrictions as a form of slavery when you consider the fact that some of the first gun control laws were used to prohibit blacks and Indians from purchasing firearms.

 

You and the others have taken his words out of context, which shows a lack of understanding his entire argument. It's not a literal comparison to slavery, but rather a conceptual comparison. The 2nd amendment is literally the only barrier between the government violating our rights as Americans.

 

Actually, it is.    Owning a weapon is not a right, but a privilege.  There's a reason not every single person can own one.  Slavery is taking away all of someone's rights and making them the lesser human being.  Nothing was taken out of context, he compared slavery to that of losing a firearm.  You can't make claims of word twisting or out of context just because you don't like someone's response to it. We responded directly to what he said, nothing more.

 

It really blows my mind that people think the government would freely attack us. This isn't North Korea, this isn't Russia, this is the United States.  While our government does do shady things, turning on their own people is not probable.   It's even funnier that you think the 2nd amendment protects us from the government.  It's an amendment which says we can own firearms, not an amendment which says we dictate who our leaders are.  The whole "protects us from the government" is a fall back reason, nothing more. 

20 minutes ago, Giordano said:

 

Actually, it is.    Owning a weapon is not a right, but a privilege.  There's a reason not every single person can own one.  Slavery is taking away all of someone's rights and making them the lesser human being.  Nothing was taken out of context, he compared slavery to that of losing a firearm.  You can't make claims of word twisting or out of context just because you don't like someone's response to it. We responded directly to what he said, nothing more.

 

It really blows my mind that people think the government would freely attack us. This isn't North Korea, this isn't Russia, this is the United States.  While our government does do shady things, turning on their own people is not probable.   It's even funnier that you think the 2nd amendment protects us from the government. 

, not an amendment which says we dictate who our leaders are.  The whole "protects us from the government" is a fall back reason, nothing more. 

 

Wrong. Owning a weapon is a right, as literally stated by the US Constitution and declared by the US Supreme Court numerous times. Unless, of course, you know better than the US Supreme Court.

 

You took what he said literally and missed the context in which he was speaking, which led to you and the others misunderstanding him and thinking that he was comparing losing a gun directly to being a slave. That's why you find it so outrageous because you don't actually have any idea what he's talking about because you don't understand what he's trying to say.

 

You also don't understand the intentions behind the 2nd amendment as noted by:

Quote

It's an amendment which says we can own firearms

 

Yes... own firearms for what purpose?

 

If you don't believe that the government would freely oppress us and take our rights, you're completely blinded. You've got to understand that there are things going on that you and the general populous don't even know about. There's a reason why certain government positions require secret security clearances. A lot of those government actions are kept hidden, you have no idea. You just think that, since you don't actively see it with your own eyes, it's not happening or couldn't happen. That's a very naive mindset.

22 minutes ago, willpv23 said:

 

Funny that you claim I'm taking someone words out of context, then post a quote that is famously taken out of context.

But did I take the quote out of context? Sounds like you're trying to pull a strawman on me, friend.

Edited May 23, 20187 yr by TheDivineHustle

I like these debates, they are very representative of why nothing changes in modern politics.

People will pick a binary position (left or right) and will refuse to capitulate or analyze any of the other sides' ideas. Even though both sides have some valid points and arguments.

And that's why nothing will truly change. Sure, the laws might change a bit when the candidate which represents the binary side gets into office, but they'll probably change right back when it inevitably flips. There's literally no point to this debate.

 

This topic is literally a thread about gun control -- but not only this thread, the entire reporting in the news. The thread on this topic might as well just be 'Gun control; hear yet another repeat of the same static points'. What a complete disservice to the victims of the attack.

25 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

But did I take the quote out of context? Sounds like you're trying to pull a strawman on me, friend.

 

The first reference with some explanation here.

 

He's referencing tax here, with "purchase a little temporary safety" literally meaning forcing people to pay for their own protection. The Governor was refusing bills to appropriate funds for the protection of the Frontier against the French and Indians because he wanted to tax the Penn lands instead.

 

The second reference, during the revolution. He's essentially saying that compromise will not be possible regarding "the other two acts" and they would rather go to war than alter them. The "other two acts" he is referencing are "16. The American admiralty courts reduced to the same powers they have in England, and the acts establishing them to be reënacted in America; and 17. All powers of internal legislation in the colonies to be disclaimed by Parliament" - nothing to do with guns, or even individual rights at all (source for the two acts).

 

2 hours ago, Giordano said:

If you are going to compare and use a courthouse as an example, be prepared to have it thrown back at you.  You mention the White House, a police station, library's in the ghetto.  Do you not understand that you are comparing?  Why do you think the White House has a shit ton of armed guards?  You act like we aren't doing anything and schools are defenseless.  Again, schools have an SRO.  You seem to think one officer is a poor number and can't do anything.  Do you really believe the answer is having 10+ police officers at the school?  It's a school, not a prison, not the White House, not a military installation.  A school.

 I do know what I am compairing school's to, and that is a government facility, ran by the government that is unguarded in most cases with little to no effort placed on the school's that house your children and the children of other's, but the security of a school seems to mean absolutely nothing to anyone.

  You would rather restrict me from owning what I own and have done no bad with instead of starting by protecting the school's in a manner that you wish uppon every other government facility in the country.  If my method does not work then I would admit that I am wrong, but if my method stops people from entering school's and shooting children, then it would be a far better outcome than these other methods suggested. 

2 hours ago, Giordano said:

I didn't twist anything.  In fact I quoted everything I replied to.  You seem to be under the assumption that if it was voted to have an armed guard at the door at all times, that guard would be there all day, five days a week, facing the door like a robot.  You really are forgetting human nature and that this is a living person.  Can you honestly tell me you'd willingly volunteer to be an armed guard that just stared at the front doors all day long and did nothing else what so ever?

  You did twist it to make it seem preposterous and a fire hazard.  You act like no one has ever guarded a building before, you make it seem that the guard's emplaced at the school's would be acting like the queens guard, they wouldn't.  You make it seem that the only way that we can guard school's with my method is to use only 1 officer at the school and never rotating him with other officer's at the school's.  You have no idea what security looks like and refuse to open your eyes to how it work's.

 

2 hours ago, Giordano said:

1) Yes, they guard the door, and this would be acceptable in, say, a prison.  In a school?  A staff member acting as a greeter is the best solution.  We do not need to waste an officer's time making him a door guard.  If anything, bring on an actual security guard.  Police officer's job is not to stand watch, especially not at a school

   It would not be a prison, get that threw your head, and what the hell would a greeter do to someone that walks in with the intent to do harm to people?  Say "Hi welcome to this school, we have done absolutely nothing to protect this school exept impose registration, phycye evaluations, and restrictions.  Is your gun registered and did you get a licence or permit to be able to have that sir?"

2 hours ago, Giordano said:

2) There is a huge difference between guarding the school and standing there like a statue.  The SRO I had did his job with flying colors.  He'd walk around and do some foot patrol a lot.  Especially during lunch.  Never once was he the door guard, and guess what?  We never had an issue!  I get that times have changed, but it is still unnecessary to have a police officer as a door man.

  And guess what?  Sandy hook didn't either, neither did Parkville, or Orlando, or even Columbine.  When it happens is when these measures will work.

2 hours ago, Giordano said:

Inadequate?  So because the staff member who was stationed at the door wasn't armed, our security was inadequate and we were at risk?  How does this make any sense what so ever?  Metal detectors doesn't solve the problem.  They might force a shooter to act way earlier than intended, but it doesn't magically take their guns away and leave them unarmed.  Nor does having a cop there stop it either.  Guy walks in and immediately shoots the cop.  Then what?  What did an armed door guard do?

  Having a unarmed staff member at the door acting as security does absolutely nothing and never will to stop a shooter that waltz inside and starts shooting.  If they get inside the school with a gun that they stole from their grandpa's closet or from a house that they broke into or even one they purchased from a criminal could not have been stopped if he was required to buy a permit, or get a evaluation, you are hiding the solution at hand and trying to punish other's for the actions of someone that never intended to follow the law.

2 hours ago, Giordano said:

and guess what happened? You got in trouble for fighting.   As bad as bullies are, unless they hit you first, fighting them doesn't solve shit.  If you throw the first punch over words, you deserve to be expelled and charged.  Violence solves nothing.  Just because hitting someone yields a desirable result doesn't mean you should do it.

  Sometimes getting into a little bit of trouble to stop someone from attacking you is worth it.  It is called self defense.  

 

  I never said to punch someone because they said some word's you do not like, I did say that "STICKS AND STONES MAY BREAK MY BONES BUT WORD'S WILL NEVER HURT ME".  Think about that really hard.  Someone can say all the word's to you that they want and you will not be harmed because other people's opinions do not dictate your life.

3 hours ago, willpv23 said:

You seriously have an issue with needing to prove that you are mentally able to own something that can take a life away in mere milliseconds?

Yes I do because guns are not the only things on this planet that can be USED to take someone's life away in mere milliseconds.  You don't have to go to a gun shop to buy a gun, it is like saying that because I conceal a weapon without a license makes me a criminal intent on doing un-necessary harm to other's.

3 hours ago, willpv23 said:

Honestly now you're starting to sound like the Australian news when they called us "underground hackers" for modding GTA. Restricting guns is nowhere near slavery and it's just ridiculous to claim that.

  No I am not, I am sounding like an individual that wants to be left to live my life as I see fit, just as you wish to live your life the way that you see fit.  

  And I said to subjugate an INDIVIDUAL, to live they way that YOU see fit, is on the same path as slavery.  Meaning that if you want me to do thing's in the manner that you want and I do not agree with it but still am forced to live by it, makes it slavery.

3 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

No I am not, I am sounding like an individual that wants to be left to live my life as I see fit, just as you wish to live your life the way that you see fit.  

  And I said to subjugate an INDIVIDUAL, to live they way that YOU see fit, is on the same path as slavery.  Meaning that if you want me to do thing's in the manner that you want and I do not agree with it but still am forced to live by it, makes it slavery.

 

I want to live my life surrounded by nuclear weapons that could destroy the entire world, therefore I should be able to buy them. An exaggeration, but no different than your argument of "it should be legal because I want it."

It's nice and all to say "Let's put metal detectors, guards at the entrance, shut all doors but the entrance and make them openable only in case of fire hazard or other stuff, call for a 24/7 satellite surveillance, a bunker and an arsenal of nuke (barely exaggerating there) to prevent mass shootings in schools".

 

It's nice, yeah. It feels safe. Inside.

 

Meanwhile, the guy who wants to shoot the kids just has to wait for the end of class where all the kids go back home to shoot them when they all go out. From the only open door. Making all those safety measures irrelevant. Therefore, the issue doesn't lie in the schools safety measures, but elsewhere.

 

Where? Hm, I do wonder... 🤔

 

29 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

Yes I do because guns are not the only things on this planet that can be USED to take someone's life away in mere milliseconds.  You don't have to go to a gun shop to buy a gun, it is like saying that because I conceal a weapon without a license makes me a criminal intent on doing un-necessary harm to other's.

 

What else can take a life in mere milliseconds? A bomb? You need to know where to find the materials, how to build it and how to trigger it. A knife? You gotta know where to exactly stab your victim if you want to kill them that fast and that quickly, on top of knowing how to fight with one to overcome anyone who'd have any knowledge about self-defense. A car? It's not a 100% kill, and you need to know how to drive one. I don't see what else really that could kill someone in mere milliseconds.

 

A gun does though, because it requires little training to shoot someone at point blank range, getting access to it is relatively easy since there's no permit required in most cases, nor is there any kind of psychological test to see if you're some kind of psycho or an irresponsible human being who'd use a gun like a toy. And you can't dodge a bullet. So, that excuse of "many things can be used to kill someone quick" is pretty irrelevant.

Edited May 23, 20187 yr by Hystery

3 hours ago, Giordano said:

It is a school, not a facility with classified information or some black ops site.  School's have security, maybe some don't have adequate enough, and in those cases, changes can be made.  However, your proposal is that we turn schools into Area 51

  So you find it more important to not make sure that school's are safe and would rather allow anyone to come in and leave without question.  My local courthouse has 5 officer's in the facility and you think that putting 2 officer's into a school with metal detectors and one way in and one way out, unless there is an emergency, is like making kid's prisoners and compairing that to Area 51?  You are delusional, protect your politicians better than your kid's, don't even try to protect them in any way that you wish to protect other's in this country.  That is your logic.

I have not once pointed anywhere near making a school area 51, LISTEN to me and stop trying to twist what I say over and over.

3 hours ago, Giordano said:

Are you seriously comparing restricting guns to slavery?  Am I really reading this?  There is HUGE, HUGE, HUGE difference between taking away someone's right to own a gun and taking away their humanity.

  Once again will you open your eyes up, and read what I just said, "To subjugate another individual, to live the way that you see fit, is on the same path as slavery. "  Can you please tell me where in that sentence it says anything about guns?

 

3 hours ago, Giordano said:

 

You do realize why we need people to prove they are capable of owning a firearm, right?  Not everyone has the mental capacity for it.  A perfect example is my neighbor who is 35, but mentally 7. 

  Do you find anything else in the world that he can do not possible?  What if he drove a car?  Do you think that if he goes into a gun shop that they will sell him a gun?  It is perfectly legal to deny selling a gun to someone if you don't want to.

3 hours ago, Giordano said:

Since some people are scared, don't like confrontations, or whatever it may be, you essentially are telling them to suck it up and defend themselves.  Here you go again with "letting evil prevail".  This is real life, and these are CHILDREN.  Understand that someone who bullies as a teenager might become the nicest adult who regrets all they did, so lets stop labeling people as 'evil'.  Furthermore, as nice as it is for people to step in and help, it is not mandatory.  No one has to help, no one has to do anything.  You can have all the issues with it you want, but you don't have a right to talk crap to them or act like they are lesser human beings because they didn't act.

  I never said that standing up for someone is mandatory, read a little slower and you will see what I am saying, I said that we need to ENCOURAGE people to stand up for those that cannot stan up for themselves.  And we also need to start teaching people to NOT be scared and encourage them to be brave.  

 

  And I never talked to anyone like crap, damnit, I have not insulted anyone or looked uppon them as lesser.  You are painting me a colour that I am not.  I have stood up to these people and I have seen other's stand up to them too, I encourage everyone to stand up to these pricks because you are not worthless, you are a human that trys to do good and you should not let someone stomp on you or any other's.

 

  On that note, shame on you for suggesting that a looking down on other's when I continue to try and encourage people to stand up for themselves and other's.

3 hours ago, Giordano said:

There is no evil.  There are bad people who do bad things, and good people who do good things, but this whole 'good' and 'evil' thing is purely fantasy.   Yes, there are some people who do truly heinous things, but that does not make them an evil person. We all do the things we do for a reason, and sometimes, that reason is out of our control.

  WTF do you think evil is?  Mordor?  If you can stop someone from attacking you, would you?

3 hours ago, Giordano said:

Here's the thing, you have zero proof or evidence to back this up.  Every law on the book has failed?  Huh, didn't know we have rapes, murders, riots, looting, etc going on every second without any sort of repercussions!  Why, maybe I'll go steal someone's car since the law fails and I'll get away with it.

  When no one gets caught and tried after they do a crime, then the law that was put in place to stop them did not work.  It is illegal to kill someone and yet people do it and get away with it everyday.  

1 hour ago, willpv23 said:

 

I want to live my life surrounded by nuclear weapons that could destroy the entire world, therefore I should be able to buy them. An exaggeration, but no different than your argument of "it should be legal because I want it."

  So you think, that if I want to own an Glock and an AR, in order to defend myself, it is as equal to you wanting to own nukes? 

 

56 minutes ago, Hystery said:

It's nice and all to say "Let's put metal detectors, guards at the entrance, shut all doors but the entrance and make them openable only in case of fire hazard or other stuff, call for a 24/7 satellite surveillance, a bunker and an arsenal of nuke (barely exaggerating there) to prevent mass shootings in schools".

 

It's nice, yeah. It feels safe. Inside.

 

Meanwhile, the guy who wants to shoot the kids just has to wait for the end of class where all the kids go back home to shoot them when they all go out. From the only open door. Making all those safety measures irrelevant. Therefore, the issue doesn't lie in the schools safety measures, but elsewhere.

 

Where? Hm, I do wonder... 🤔

  Hmmm.... Not me or millions of other firearm owners.  Maybe you should look at the evil individual, that you can't find.  Not the gun.  What do you want?  Everyone to be chained up and unable to cause any harm to other's?

 

1 hour ago, Hystery said:

What else can take a life in mere milliseconds? A bomb? You need to know where to find the materials, how to build it and how to trigger it. A knife? You gotta know where to exactly stab your victim if you want to kill them that fast and that quickly, on top of knowing how to fight with one to overcome anyone who'd have any knowledge about self-defense. A car? It's not a 100% kill, and you need to know how to drive one. I don't see what else really that could kill someone in mere milliseconds.

 

A gun does though, because it requires little training to shoot someone at point blank range, getting access to it is relatively easy since there's no permit required in most cases, nor is there any kind of psychological test to see if you're some kind of psycho or an irresponsible human being who'd use a gun like a toy. And you can't dodge a bullet. So, that excuse of "many things can be used to kill someone quick" is pretty irrelevant.

  And when you shoot someone, you have to know where to shoot them.  Just because you shoot someone it does not mean that they will die.  It is not hard to stab someone, even to death.  And it is not hard to drive a car, even if it is to try and kill people.  Your argument is flawed and irrelevant because you continue to fail to acknowledge that people can be killed with other thing's than guns.  This whole topic is only an issue because of some middle class kids that got killed.  You would never publicly argue this case in my neighborhood, which on fact most people have guns in order to stop the criminals that wish to do harm to them.

 

  And you don't need a permit to drink then get into a car and drive then run a stop light and kill people.  You have no argument.  You can kill people with just about anything and you cannot protect people from criminals.

19 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

Hmmm.... Not me or millions of other firearm owners.  Maybe you should look at the evil individual, that you can't find.  Not the gun.  What do you want?  Everyone to be chained up and unable to cause any harm to other's?

 

I'm looking at both the individual, who's evidently someone bad (drop the 'evil', it's so theatrical, and not fitting), and at the people who give them the opportunity to get his hands on a tool that was designed to kill someone. 

 

The point is clear anyway: you have an issue with needing to prove that you are mentally able to own a gun. You're favorable for psychos to have the right to own a gun, regardless of if they're about to commit a murder with it. There's nothing else to argue after that.

 

19 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

And when you shoot someone, you have to know where to shoot them.  Just because you shoot someone it does not mean that they will die. It is not hard to stab someone, even to death.

 

You've more chances to kill someone with a gun, even if you don't know how to shoot it, than by stabbing someone. Be real now, it's getting ridiculous. To kill someone with a knife, you need to first, get up close, second, having the victim not being able to defend itself, third, either exactly knowing where to stab to kill someone quick, or to stab multiple times (which takes a lot longer than shooting someone down), fourth, to have the stamina (because yeah, stabbing someone takes strength, if you think you can just sink a knife into someone like into butter, you're sorely mistaken). To kill someone with a gun, you don't need to get up close, the victim cannot defend itself, and it takes just a second to take someone down, either through injury or fatally, and you need no stamina, just to have a fingertip to press the trigger. Saying that, because knives can kill, guns are worth having, is fallacy and a clear evidence that you've no argument to prove your point.

 

19 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

This whole topic is only an issue because of some middle class kids that got killed.  You would never publicly argue this case in my neighborhood, which on fact most people have guns in order to stop the criminals that wish to do harm to them.

 

I'd gladly discuss this in public, with you or anyone, regardless of the location, because it's not about confrontation, but defending your opinions. Don't assume what I would or would not discuss in public. You're blaming people for painting a color you're not, you're just doing the same right now.

 

19 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

And you don't need a permit to drink then get into a car and drive then run a stop light and kill people.  You have no argument.  You can kill people with just about anything and you cannot protect people from criminals.

 

Irrelevant to the topic. You don't need a permit to drink and then grab your gun for fun and shoot someone by accident either. Does it make sense regarding the discussion? No. Just like what you just said.

Edited May 23, 20187 yr by Hystery

2 hours ago, ToeBius said:

When no one gets caught and tried after they do a crime, then the law that was put in place to stop them did not work.  It is illegal to kill someone and yet people do it and get away with it everyday.  

 

That's an issue with investigation and trial, not with the law. You're mixing everything.

 

3 hours ago, ToeBius said:

And I said to subjugate an INDIVIDUAL, to live they way that YOU see fit, is on the same path as slavery.  Meaning that if you want me to do thing's in the manner that you want and I do not agree with it but still am forced to live by it, makes it slavery.

 

Until recently, it was forbidden for gay couples to marry legally. I'm gay. Meaning that until recently, you'd want me to do (or in this case, NOT do) things (marry) in the manner that you want, and I'd not agree with it, but still would be forced to live by it. Does that mean that I'd have been a slave for so long and never realized it until now? 🤔 Or maybe does that mean you make no sense with this and you're clearly overreacting? 🤔

 

EDIT: sorry for the double post, website has been acting up today.

Edited May 23, 20187 yr by Hystery

On 5/23/2018 at 2:42 PM, Hystery said:

I'm looking at both the individual, who's evidently someone bad (drop the 'evil', it's so theatrical, and not fitting), and at the people who give them the opportunity to get his hands on a tool that was designed to kill someone. 

 

The point is clear anyway: you have an issue with needing to prove that you are mentally able to own a gun. You're favorable for psychos to have the right to own a gun, regardless of if they're about to commit a murder with it. There's nothing else to argue after that.

  Just because something is designed to kill someone is not an argument to restrict it.  Swords were designed to kill people and you don't argue against them.

 

 And I am not if favor or phychos having guns, but punishing me and forcing me to be evaluated, registered, and restricted will not stop anyone from doing anything bad.  Just because someone is ok one day does not mean that they are good another day.  If I am at a store and someone enters with the intent to shoot people and I use my firearm to stop them, how would that of stopped anything?  We live in a country with guns, and taking steps to restrict lawful people from owning guns will only empower the criminal.

On 5/23/2018 at 2:42 PM, Hystery said:

The point is clear anyway: you have an issue with needing to prove that you are mentally able to own a gun. 

  I have an issue with it because people would say that me thinking that I need a certain gun for self defense against other's is not a reason to own a gun.  And my distrust of my government could also be a reason to keep me from owning the guns that I want.  I have guns for self defence, from a Glock 19 to an AR15, and there are people that do not agree with me for having these guns.  There are many people that think I should be limited to a 5 shot pistol or a 10 round rifle magazine.  I don't, I feel that it is better to have more rounds and not use them, than to have less rounds and need more.

 

On 5/23/2018 at 2:42 PM, Hystery said:

You've more chances to kill someone with a gun, even if you don't know how to shoot it, than by stabbing someone. Be real now, it's getting ridiculous. To kill someone with a knife, you need to first, get up close, second, having the victim not being able to defend itself, third, either exactly knowing where to stab to kill someone quick, or to stab multiple times (which takes a lot longer than shooting someone down), fourth, to have the stamina (because yeah, stabbing someone takes strength, if you think you can just sink a knife into someone like into butter, you're sorely mistaken). To kill someone with a gun, you don't need to get up close, the victim cannot defend itself, and it takes just a second to take someone down, either through injury or fatally, and you need no stamina, just to have a fingertip to press the trigger. Saying that, because knives can kill, guns are worth having, is fallacy and a clear evidence that you've no argument to prove your point.

  Then why is it that people get stabbed and beat to death?  You are focusing on one tool that could be used by someone to kill someone.  The point still stands, if you want to inflict harm upon other's, you don't need a gun to do so.  9/11, Boston, and the recent bombings in Texas. Banning guns or requiring mental evaluations wouldn't stop it.  You have to be prepared for the worst and hope that you can react to it.

 

On 5/23/2018 at 2:42 PM, Hystery said:

I'd gladly discuss this in public, with you or anyone, regardless of the location, because it's not about confrontation, but defending your opinions. Don't assume what I would or would not discuss in public. You're blaming people for painting a color you're not, you're just doing the same right now.

  Then why do you do your battle cry when there is a school shooting? Why not when there are shootings, stabbings, or beatings?  Everyone cries when someone shoots up a school, church, base, etc.  No one brings up these issue's any other time.

 

On 5/23/2018 at 2:42 PM, Hystery said:

Irrelevant to the topic. You don't need a permit to drink and then grab your gun for fun and shoot someone by accident either. Does it make sense regarding the discussion? No. Just like what you just said.

  It is not irrelevant, you cannot expect to stop people from doing BAD thing's by registering a certain group of people.  Me doing mental evaluations won't stop the gang's from shooting other gang's.

 

On 5/23/2018 at 3:32 PM, Hystery said:

That's an issue with investigation and trial, not with the law. You're mixing everything.

  And when none of those work the law failed.  When someone rapes someone and never gets caught, the law fails.  It can only be used after the fact.  I am not mixing anything, if these law's worked, then the crime that persist would be no more, yet the crime continues and people are only brought to justice after caught.

 

On 5/23/2018 at 3:32 PM, Hystery said:

Until recently, it was forbidden for gay couples to marry legally. I'm gay. Meaning that until recently, you'd want me to do (or in this case, NOT do) things (not marry) in the manner that you want, and I'd not agree with it, but still would forced to live by it. Does that mean that I'd have been a slave for so long and never realized it until now? 🤔 Or maybe does that mean you make no sense with this and you're clearly overreacting? 🤔

  When the fuck was I for banning gays from being married?  Never, I have been against any form of refusing to allow people to marry since I was a child and I have voiced my opinion on why the state should never restrict gays from marrage.  It was a form of slavery and I have been vocal with my reps since I was young.  Gays, just like blacks, wer barred from being free individual's because someone seen fit that they should be forced to live in their image. I am against that.  Live and let live is my motto.  You live the way that you live until you start infringing upon mine, and it will be YOU, not an object, that will come into questions for your actions.

 

  It is not my position to say who you can love, if you are a man and you love another man or if you are a woman and you love another woman and wish to marry then do so, that is not my position to deny you that.  I personally see no reason, exept for control, that the State is involved in marriage at all.

 

  If you want to be gay, HURRAY, it doesn't bother, harm, or disrupt me.  When you start forcing me, to live by your beliefs, then I have an issue.  You live your life the way you see fit and so will I.  

 

  I want everyone here to know that I am not just an advocate for owning guns but my beliefs, in Individual Freedom, spreads farther than just owning guns. I find that Individual Liberty will alway's come before anything else and it is my belief that if we want the government to do something for us then we should hold them to the highest scrutiny.

On 5/23/2018 at 3:32 PM, Hystery said:

EDIT: sorry for the double post, website has been acting up today.

  Same here.

Edited May 24, 20187 yr by ToeBius
Misspelled a word

4 hours ago, willpv23 said:

 

The first reference with some explanation here.

 

He's referencing tax here, with "purchase a little temporary safety" literally meaning forcing people to pay for their own protection. The Governor was refusing bills to appropriate funds for the protection of the Frontier against the French and Indians because he wanted to tax the Penn lands instead.

 

The second reference, during the revolution. He's essentially saying that compromise will not be possible regarding "the other two acts" and they would rather go to war than alter them. The "other two acts" he is referencing are "16. The American admiralty courts reduced to the same powers they have in England, and the acts establishing them to be reënacted in America; and 17. All powers of internal legislation in the colonies to be disclaimed by Parliament" - nothing to do with guns, or even individual rights at all (source for the two acts).

 

Thanks for the information, I wasn't aware of that at all.

 

Regardless, my point still stands:

 

Spoiler

 

 

4 hours ago, willpv23 said:

 

I want to live my life surrounded by nuclear weapons that could destroy the entire world, therefore I should be able to buy them. An exaggeration, but no different than your argument of "it should be legal because I want it."

That's not what they're saying though is what you aren't getting.