<!--QuoteBegin-Scinet+Sep 14 2004, 06:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Scinet @ Sep 14 2004, 06:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It is a strange world indeed when tools of violence become objects of desire or pride. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You say this as if it's a new concept in our modern world of doom. Look at knights. Samurai. Hell, look at cowboys. It's nothing new.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Scinet+Sep 14 2004, 03:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Scinet @ Sep 14 2004, 03:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> They shouldn't have renewed the ban. They should've extended it. Private citizens do not need firearms for protection of self or surroundings. Nor do the americans need weapons to protect them from the King of England anymore, which was the case when the 2nd amendment was written. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> er... sport doesn't count for anything at all, does it? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sorry to disappoint all you gun fetishists but that's military hardware. You shouldn't be allowed to toy with that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> says... who? you?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Because of my country's rather strict laws on gun ownership firearms in private hands are rare. Granted, our criminals have weapons but that gear is bought from Russia at bargain prices and changing our gun legistlation in any way wouldn't change that, and there is of course the fact that they use the guns on eachother most of the time, which I am no way against.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> so in the event of a criminal, russian-armed, killing people in your vicinity, you wouldn't want your own firearm to put him away? granted it's a very generic, very abstract hypothetical situation.. but the statistics stand that gun control leads to lawful civilians without guns, and criminals with guns, thereby putting power in the hands of armed criminals.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, because the gun market is so limited and small-time here the people most prone to random acts of violence or killing sprees are the least likely to get their hands on anything. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> we aren't so fortunate here in the US. there are plenty of weapons, and taking them away from lawful citizens, as i said above, leaves them only in the hands of criminals.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sorry if I seem daft but the whole thread seems to be an NRA spokesperson's wet dream. The object of the debate is a gun. It was created to kill. People, animals, stuffed teddy bears, anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> archery, javelin throwing, boxing, fencing, swords, knives.. outlaw those as well?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why should a private citizen be allowed to possess such a device? There are a million more productive uses for one's income than weapons, but I guess it has been ingrained too far into our subconscious that guns are cool, so its good they are on the open market. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> your lack of understanding of the hobby or interest does not invalidate it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The never-fading argument for gun ownership has always been home protection. If you guys don't feel safe in your own homes anymore, don't you think that something more should be done to address the problem than just go for the low-brow approach and try to solve the problem with H&K 9mm social services? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> again.. "low-brow"? why the conceited tones? is defense with force something to look down upon? are there laws against protecting yourself where you live? do you have to call the police while your life/well-being is threatened?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for individualism, some morons need metal junk (ie. piercings) in their face to feel individual and really sure about themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> or for some, perhaps it's a lifestyle or simple choice they felt like making?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Others need constant casual sex.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> this makes you an individual.. how? ever thought that casual sex may appeal to human instinct?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Really, to be able to make up your own mind about things and feel individual and sure about yourself you don't need any of the above. You just need some more self-confidence without the help of external accessories. Or can anyone really claim they need a gun to know who they are? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> i think you need to get down off your high horse and do a little thinking... it's a hobby, or a sport, or an interest.. where do you come up with this "you American neanderthals need guns to identify yourselves" horse.. ****?? just because someone likes archery or fencing or javelin throwing or in this case SHOOTING and you can't find an affinity with it in yourself doesn't make it wrong. "oh, i don't like or play (insert sport/hobby/interest) therefore it SUCKS AND SHOULD BE BANNED?" honestly, <i>GET OVER YOURSELF.</i>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Tradition doesn't cut it either. The tradition of america up to the 1960s was that of genocide and racism, as anyone who knows even the basics of history can say. If it's tradition, it shouldn't be broken, is that what you are trying to say? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> America was forged by the rifle. maybe you don't associate your nation with anything.. but who are you to say we shouldn't?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->According to your reasoning ("ban cars and such since they kill too") the ban on drugs should be cut too, since people can handle it, right? I mean, they can handle guns too. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> isn't it that way in certain places in Europe, where they ban firearms and yet let their people fry their brains?
<!--QuoteBegin-Scinet+Sep 14 2004, 06:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Scinet @ Sep 14 2004, 06:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No, I actually didn't think of it from a hobby's viewpoint, because as hobbies go, it's quite an odd one. I understand hunting, and requiring tools for that, and I understand people who collect weapons that have been made non-functional. I don't, however, understand why the weapons should be functional. If the functionality is an issue, wouldn't that mean that the intention is to use them? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It's not just aesthetic value. It's how each gun behaves, again, much akin to cars. It's how it feels in your hand, how smooth the action is, not just how it looks. Again, like car collecting. You don't see jay Leno buying the empty husks of cars because he doesnt plan on driving them. The engine is part of the experience. Of course you use the guns in your collection, but why do you immediately assume you'll use it on a living thing?
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You are calling me ignorant for pointing out that the original law of gun ownership is over 200 years old and written for a very specific purpose. Is it not circular reasoning that you use the very same law as the basic premise of your argument? Is it not ignorance if you choose not to accept that the world has chnged from those days? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> and because you think the world has changed, we should forget who we are as a country? i mean, we're already in the midst of that process (yay F911 and Michael More Sh*), so i suppose it would just be another step.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is a strange world indeed when tools of violence become objects of desire or pride. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> yes.. as mentioned above, perhaps strange to you, but not very difficult to see that it's been that way since the dawn of our race.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[edit] <b>Bloodysloth</b>: No, I actually didn't think of it from a hobby's viewpoint, because as hobbies go, it's quite an odd one. I understand hunting, and requiring tools for that, and I understand people who collect weapons that have been made non-functional. I don't, however, understand why the weapons should be functional. If the functionality is an issue, wouldn't that mean that the intention is to use them?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> again, why own a car if it doesn't "go"? (unless it's a really old museum piece or something).
Feinstein is a traiterous ****. She went so far as to question the reason for using a SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLE and SHOTGUN for hunting purposes. She is a moron. Also, do a little research on the subject before you voice your opinion on the Assault Weapons Ban subject.
And just as Zig said, America was forged by the rifle, I take great pride in my nation, and its traditions. Including the right to own firearms. Firearms (and shooting) are considered to be a hobby, a sport, a way to survive, and a way to protect yourself. Not only that, they are beautiful pieces of machinery, that are to be treated with the utmost respect, hell...I treat my firearms as if they were an extension of my own being. I love them, I treat them better than I treat most other people. They arent just ruthless killing machines.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
you know what, Scinet, you may think our motives for owning firearms are invalid or questionable (though i can't imagine why, what with the complete legitimacy of firearms as an interest), but i, personally, would never let you anywhere NEAR an operable weapon of ANY sort.
why?
because while those of us who enjoy the sport and interest as we should, collecting and owning safely and using appropriately, you are just so FIXATED on using it quickly and immediately to KILL, to KILL and KILL and KEEP KILLING.
Scinet, leave the topic, you know NOTHING of this subject, just like the rest of the soccer moms and Sheeple. Drink Bleach, have a good nights sleep. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Man, harsh language. Just because he disagrees with me and you doesnt mean telling him to go poison himself is the answer. Same goes for the (exceedingly ironic, mind you) Feinstein death threats.
It was a stupid law, made for the wrong reasons and I'm glad it's gone.
As said above gun ownership is a right, and part of our heritage as Americans, if you don't like it ignore it, no one is forcing you to own/fire a gun.
The constitution states that Americans have the freedom of speech.
RIGHT AFTER THIS it states that we should be able to keep and carry weapons. It does, indeed, preface this with the "rell regulated miltia," but I ask, is a militia no more than a citizen-comprised protective body? That's something everyone can enjoy.
So what is the purpose of a gun if guns are made just for killing? A lot of things have features which easily yield illegality, but that does not make the object as a whole illegal. By your logic, every car in America should be limited to 65mph (85mph in some states) because anything above that is ONLY needed for breaking the law. This would be easy to regulate, by doing regular inspections which are already in place, and would have no negitive effect on people that use cars for lawful purposes.
Furthermore, the expiration of the ban applies to guns with more than two "evil features," like flash suppressors, etc. I'm actually pretty sure that the "grenade launcher" mentioned just means a mount for one... are the explosives themselves not still illegal? Also, one of the features was a "bayonette lug." Honestly, is there anything MORE impactical for trying to make a deadly weapon for cheap? Just grab a kitchen-knife and some duct tape. Same effect, these features are in there just for shock value.
The ONLY thing that could have some effect on crime is the legality of full-capacity magazines. This, of course, just means that you'd have to carry around less magazines, which are pretty easy to swap out in a hurry. Also, full-cap magazines have never been illegal, just ones made after 1994 (no long the case).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They shouldn't have renewed the ban. They should've extended it. Private citizens do not need firearms for protection of self or surroundings. Nor do the americans need weapons to protect them from the King of England anymore, which was the case when the 2nd amendment was written. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Private citizens do need firearms to protect themselves. The police can't be everywhere and are now little more than an after-the-fact cleanup crew. Furthermore, the Second Amendment was never about foreign invasion, even though it is a handy side benefit. The Second Amendment has always been about protecting Americans from <i>their own government.</i> The idea is that a heavily armed population would be able to rebel should our government officials turn tyrant. Given the rate at which the Federal government is expanding, I don't think that giving up those rights is a good idea.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The never-fading argument for gun ownership has always been home protection. If you guys don't feel safe in your own homes anymore, don't you think that something more should be done to address the problem than just go for the low-brow approach and try to solve the problem with H&K 9mm social services?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not have both? It's not possible to stamp out crime completely; but even if it is reduced, having a weapon is insurance. Crime has been dropping in the U.S. for decades. However, I support the idea that people should have the right to possess firearms even if it is just a precautionary measure. When England banned handguns, their violent crime rates went up pretty fast and in many areas, England has higher crime rates than the U.S.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for individualism, some morons need metal junk (ie. piercings) in their face to feel individual and really sure about themselves. Others need constant casual sex. Still others need funny mechanic devices that emit loud noises and make a terrible mess if something happens to be in the way. Really, to be able to make up your own mind about things and feel individual and sure about yourself you don't need any of the above. You just need some more self-confidence without the help of external accessories. Or can anyone really claim they need a gun to know who they are? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For the record, I don't actually own any firearms. Well, I do have a BB gun for plunking cans, but it won't kill anyone. There are actually good reasons for gun ownership and none of them fall under "phallus extention." If Zig wants an AR-15, I think he should be able to purchase one. It's as much about the freedom to do what you wish, when you wish as it is about things like protection or sport. Like I said before, the government shouldn't be in the business of telling me what I do and do not need.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You are calling me ignorant for pointing out that the original law of gun ownership is over 200 years old and written for a very specific purpose. Is it not circular reasoning that you use the very same law as the basic premise of your argument? Is it not ignorance if you choose not to accept that the world has changed from those days?
It is a strange world indeed when tools of violence become objects of desire or pride. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Simply because a <i>right</i> is old does not mean that it is no longer useful or valid. The Fifth Amendment* is equally old and what with modern science and all, mistakes in the criminal system are down. Should America scrap that too?
*The Fifth Amendment states the right of a person not to be held in Double Jeopardy, as well as the right against self-incrimination.
Perdition,
Could you please turn down the rhetoric? It's one thing to disagree with somebody's politics. It's another to call a U.S. Senator a "dyke" and say that you're going to "shoot her right in the neck." She's a democratically elected officer of the U.S. government and is deserving of the respect such a position accords.
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...justifiable homocide...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know, I know, it's a typo. But for a moment there I thought it might've been a Freudian slip. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Then why quote it if you knew it was a typo? Why not address the issues which I made? Attack them, not me.
<!--QuoteBegin-BloodySloth+Sep 14 2004, 07:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BloodySloth @ Sep 14 2004, 07:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Man, harsh language. Just because he disagrees with me and you doesnt mean telling him to go poison himself is the answer. Same goes for the (exceedingly ironic, mind you) Feinstein death threats. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> One thing if we disagree, another if he trolls on a subject he OBVIOUSLY KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT. <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/mad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I mean, come one! Look at his posts! <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/mad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Scinet+Sep 14 2004, 06:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Scinet @ Sep 14 2004, 06:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Nor do the americans need weapons to protect them from the King of England anymore, which was the case when the 2nd amendment was written.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While the Constitution was written in the shadow of the War for American Independance, you are assuming an awful lot to say that the purpose of the second amendment was to protect against King George. In fact, I see no mention of England or any sort of king in its wording. The reason it exists is to protect the people from the government.
Every item in the Bill of Rights was written to protect the people and not the country.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sorry to disappoint all you gun fetishists but that's military hardware. You shouldn't be allowed to toy with that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Every firearm I own is a weapon. I treat it like a weapon. If for a second I even thought of my firearms as toys or playthings I would instantly have them destroyed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is very rare here for a child to die in a gun-related accident... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What a surprise. It is the same here. You just wouldn't know that based upon media reports.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sorry if I seem daft but the whole thread seems to be an NRA spokesperson's wet dream. The object of the debate is a gun.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The object of the debate is not the gun. It is what the firearm represents. To me it represents my freedom to determine my future and is a symbol of my individualism.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The never-fading argument for gun ownership has always been home protection. If you guys don't feel safe in your own homes anymore, don't you think that something more should be done to address the problem than just go for the low-brow approach and try to solve the problem with H&K 9mm social services? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hate pulling up this topic but it seems I never have a choice. Those familiar with the forums remember so I'll summarize.
When I was a child, a pedophile tried to kidnap me. I protected myself with a shotgun.
Tell me that I would be better off with the pedophile than near the gun.
I guess you're right about me being kind of a bitter ****. But, what can I say? I hate people who are out to screw people over. I'm nonviolent by nature...I just can't stand people like Diane Feinstein and her crew. I guess I should apologize for dragging my end of the conversation to an all time low.
*edit* I went through and cleaned up my posts, btw.
*edit #2* It just really upset me the other day when I saw her talking about the unbanning of Assault Rifles, trying to convince the general public that by the ban being lifted, the streets were going to be filled with guns that can "fire 30 rounds in 3 seconds" and what have you. I just...ahh! Don't know what to say.
<!--QuoteBegin-BloodySloth+Sep 15 2004, 02:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BloodySloth @ Sep 15 2004, 02:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Saying you want to shoot her in the neck proves all she's saying about gun rights. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If he didn't have all those guns he probably wouldn't think like that. Man I wish that ban was still in place. Scary... I fear what may become of America in the coming years.
<!--QuoteBegin-relsan+Sep 14 2004, 09:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (relsan @ Sep 14 2004, 09:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-BloodySloth+Sep 15 2004, 02:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BloodySloth @ Sep 15 2004, 02:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Saying you want to shoot her in the neck proves all she's saying about gun rights. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If he didn't have all those guns he probably wouldn't think like that. Man I wish that ban was still in place. Scary... I fear what may become of America in the coming years. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Relsan, thinking like another Feinstein.
I'm a nonviolent kid, and if I didn't have access to guns...but wanted to hurt someone, I could turn a set of car keys into a deadly weapon. See the point im making? Guns arent as 'deadly' and 'scary' as people make them out to be.
And if that was sarcasm, my bad for getting defensive.
Dear god I hope that was sarcasm relsan <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Strangely enough even the Daily Show seems to have missed all the facts of the actual ban. I thought at least they would point out how bizarre the ban was in the first place.
<!--QuoteBegin-BloodySloth+Sep 14 2004, 10:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BloodySloth @ Sep 14 2004, 10:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Strangely enough even the Daily Show seems to have missed all the facts of the actual ban. I thought at least they would point out how bizarre the ban was in the first place. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Any highlights? it looks like i just missed it.
Well they focused their satire on the lifting of the ban rather than what the ban did. They had a clip of an NRA spokesman talking about what the ban did, ban cosmetic changes (basically), but Jon didnt really touch upon it.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
i used to like the daily show a lot more, but nowadays they're a lot less objectively funny and a lot "edgier" as in they don't show much that could portray any sort of consevative opinion (like gun rights) in a favorable light.
kinda sad.. i had a lot more respect for them in the past.. i mean, they could have gotten a lot of laughs with some kind of kerry zombieface joke or something.. but they didn't.. probably because the election is so near, and bushbashing (with the lack of any democrat bashing) = reviews in this time of heightened viewing.
N1Rampage seems to have issues with people expressing their opinions if they are contrary to his own. Just because the topic is filled with people leaning towards the NRA doesn't mean it automatically becomes some sort of void where opposing opinions are "wrong" or "ignorant". Learn to discuss and debate or stop reading the Discussions forum if you can't take the fact that people do indeed disagree. And for the record, I didn't know that an opposing opinion is trolling these days.
As for the replies I've gotten, it would probably take me more time than I am willing to spend to hunt down every single bit of quotable material from your messages, so I'll try to address most of the points raised in an essay form with references.
It seems to be a typical tactic for the pro-gun lobby to label all who dare to state the purpose of a firearm as hysterical uninformed idiots, while their own ardent defense stating that guns should be availabe since some enjoy the aesthetic values and some need them for home defense seem to be the actual displays of hystery. Note that I left out hunting and target practice, since I can understand those activities. However, one does not need an AR-15 or a G41 for target practice, and those aren't exactly useful for hunting either.
The aesthetic argument cannot function simply because if aesthetic values are a reason for allowing the possession of an item, should I not be allowed to possess drugs if I enjoy the aesthetics? How about a jet fighter? They're so much slicker than the silly civilian Cessnas. Do not consider this as trolling. I am simply still trying to understand why some military hardware pieces should be allowed to private citizens. Many other things are not allowed and nobody seems to mind.
As for home defense, why the fixation on vigilantism? Are the police in your country so slow and untrustworthy that the common people who usually do not actually know that much about the law should be allowed to take it in their own hands. By googling I found a page that dealt with statistics that aimed to prove how concealed weapons lowered rape statistics. What the writer forgot to mention is that most rapes are not the "park bush" variety, and even though the women's lib movement has slowly begun to change the attitudes of the victims, most rapes still go unreported. This is simply because most of the time it happens in a familiar location and the perpetrator is someone the victim knows, like a friend, acquaintance, relative or even her own husband. There is very that can protect against such occurrences. Probably the only thing that could do so is to change the attitudes of the would-be rapists, but that's a long shot, and would require tearing down some more pieces from the society's patriarchal structures.
As for safety, I feel safe at work. I work late shifts in a small convenience store when I have the time from my studies. On over 90% of the shifts I am alone. Most of the time when someone tries to steal something from the store, I've got no problems facing them down and taking back what isn't theirs. I don't have to be afraid since anything less than a gun I can handle. Some members of criminal organizations in this country do have guns, and a plenty of them, but that doesn't exactly bother me since the mob doesn't shoplift.
The police here are probably the happiest guys about our tight gun control, since deaths in the line of duty are very, very rare. Something akin to one officer every five years may be close to the truth.
One question still remains unanswered: why guns? Why not something else? The "because we can/want" argument does not suffice, since that argument can not be used to justify anything.
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Sep 14 2004, 10:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Sep 14 2004, 10:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It is less about tradition and more about symbolism.
The right to own a firearm is symbolic of individualism and self-determination. Americans have a tradition of resisting external influences in their lives. While I have no plans on moving to Montana and living off the land, but I could.
I like being self-sufficient and do not want the government to take over any of my responsiblities. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe tradition was the wrong term for it but I understand that you won’t like to give up a fundamental right. And as German knowing the historical background of the Nazi dictatorship I see the positives of armed citizens. The Nazi’s wouldn’t be able to come to power that easy if Germany had armed citizens.
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Sep 14 2004, 11:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Sep 14 2004, 11:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Education has little to do when it comes to people killing each other. Though it would reduce the number of firearm accidents. But again, that has nothing to do with the violent uses of such things. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don’t see only the problem in violent uses but also in deaths by accidents using firearms. In German most deaths while firearms involved are accidents.
I agree with you that banns are not effective and even may increase the problem. A better solution maybe, that the administration take sure only responsible persons are able to own a firearm. So for example in Germany if you careless cause a car accident I can happen that your fire arm certificate will get drafted.
I must admit I have a very limited view on the handling of firearms of citizens of the USA. Sometimes it looks for me that the handling of firearms is a little to careless.
Comments
You say this as if it's a new concept in our modern world of doom. Look at knights. Samurai. Hell, look at cowboys. It's nothing new.
er... sport doesn't count for anything at all, does it? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sorry to disappoint all you gun fetishists but that's military hardware. You shouldn't be allowed to toy with that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
says... who? you?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Because of my country's rather strict laws on gun ownership firearms in private hands are rare. Granted, our criminals have weapons but that gear is bought from Russia at bargain prices and changing our gun legistlation in any way wouldn't change that, and there is of course the fact that they use the guns on eachother most of the time, which I am no way against.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so in the event of a criminal, russian-armed, killing people in your vicinity, you wouldn't want your own firearm to put him away? granted it's a very generic, very abstract hypothetical situation.. but the statistics stand that gun control leads to lawful civilians without guns, and
criminals with guns, thereby putting power in the hands of armed criminals.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, because the gun market is so limited and small-time here the people most prone to random acts of violence or killing sprees are the least likely to get their hands on anything. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
we aren't so fortunate here in the US. there are plenty of weapons, and taking them away from lawful citizens, as i said above, leaves them only in the hands of criminals.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sorry if I seem daft but the whole thread seems to be an NRA spokesperson's wet dream. The object of the debate is a gun. It was created to kill. People, animals, stuffed teddy bears, anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
archery, javelin throwing, boxing, fencing, swords, knives.. outlaw those as well?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why should a private citizen be allowed to possess such a device? There are a million more productive uses for one's income than weapons, but I guess it has been ingrained too far into our subconscious that guns are cool, so its good they are on the open market. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
your lack of understanding of the hobby or interest does not invalidate it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The never-fading argument for gun ownership has always been home protection. If you guys don't feel safe in your own homes anymore, don't you think that something more should be done to address the problem than just go for the low-brow approach and try to solve the problem with H&K 9mm social services? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
again.. "low-brow"? why the conceited tones? is defense with force something to look down upon? are there laws against protecting yourself where you live? do you have to call the police while your life/well-being is threatened?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for individualism, some morons need metal junk (ie. piercings) in their face to feel individual and really sure about themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
or for some, perhaps it's a lifestyle or simple choice they felt like making?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Others need constant casual sex.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
this makes you an individual.. how? ever thought that casual sex may appeal to human instinct?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Really, to be able to make up your own mind about
things and feel individual and sure about yourself you don't need any of the above. You just need some more self-confidence without the help of external accessories. Or can anyone really claim they need a gun to know who they are? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i think you need to get down off your high horse and do a little thinking... it's a hobby, or a sport, or an interest.. where do you come up with this "you American neanderthals need guns to identify yourselves" horse.. ****?? just because someone likes archery or fencing or javelin throwing or in this case SHOOTING and you can't find an affinity with it in yourself doesn't make it wrong. "oh, i don't like or play (insert sport/hobby/interest) therefore it SUCKS AND SHOULD BE BANNED?" honestly, <i>GET OVER YOURSELF.</i>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Tradition doesn't cut it either. The tradition of america up to the 1960s was that of genocide and racism, as anyone who knows even the basics of history can say. If it's tradition, it shouldn't be broken, is that what you are trying to say? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
America was forged by the rifle. maybe you don't associate your nation with anything.. but who are you to say we shouldn't?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->According to your reasoning ("ban cars and such since they kill too") the ban on drugs should be cut too, since people can handle it, right? I mean, they can handle guns too. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
isn't it that way in certain places in Europe, where they ban firearms and yet let their people fry their brains?
It's not just aesthetic value. It's how each gun behaves, again, much akin to cars. It's how it feels in your hand, how smooth the action is, not just how it looks. Again, like car collecting. You don't see jay Leno buying the empty husks of cars because he doesnt plan on driving them. The engine is part of the experience. Of course you use the guns in your collection, but why do you immediately assume you'll use it on a living thing?
and because you think the world has changed, we should forget who we are as a country? i mean, we're already in the midst of that process (yay F911 and Michael More Sh*), so i suppose it would just be another step.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is a strange world indeed when tools of violence become objects of desire or pride. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes.. as mentioned above, perhaps strange to you, but not very difficult to see that it's been that way since the dawn of our race.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[edit]
<b>Bloodysloth</b>:
No, I actually didn't think of it from a hobby's viewpoint, because as hobbies go, it's quite an odd one. I understand hunting, and requiring tools for that, and I understand people who collect weapons that have been made non-functional. I don't, however, understand why the weapons should be functional. If the functionality is an issue, wouldn't that mean that the intention is to use them?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
again, why own a car if it doesn't "go"? (unless it's a really old museum piece or something).
And just as Zig said, America was forged by the rifle, I take great pride in my nation, and its traditions. Including the right to own firearms. Firearms (and shooting) are considered to be a hobby, a sport, a way to survive, and a way to protect yourself. Not only that, they are beautiful pieces of machinery, that are to be treated with the utmost respect, hell...I treat my firearms as if they were an extension of my own being. I love them, I treat them better than I treat most other people. They arent just ruthless killing machines.
why?
because while those of us who enjoy the sport and interest as we should, collecting and owning safely and using appropriately, you are just so FIXATED on using it quickly and immediately to KILL, to KILL and KILL and KEEP KILLING.
why is that? it's kinda disconcerting.
As said above gun ownership is a right, and part of our heritage as Americans, if you don't like it ignore it, no one is forcing you to own/fire a gun.
The constitution states that Americans have the freedom of speech.
RIGHT AFTER THIS it states that we should be able to keep and carry weapons. It does, indeed, preface this with the "rell regulated miltia," but I ask, is a militia no more than a citizen-comprised protective body? That's something everyone can enjoy.
So what is the purpose of a gun if guns are made just for killing? A lot of things have features which easily yield illegality, but that does not make the object as a whole illegal. By your logic, every car in America should be limited to 65mph (85mph in some states) because anything above that is ONLY needed for breaking the law. This would be easy to regulate, by doing regular inspections which are already in place, and would have no negitive effect on people that use cars for lawful purposes.
Furthermore, the expiration of the ban applies to guns with more than two "evil features," like flash suppressors, etc. I'm actually pretty sure that the "grenade launcher" mentioned just means a mount for one... are the explosives themselves not still illegal? Also, one of the features was a "bayonette lug." Honestly, is there anything MORE impactical for trying to make a deadly weapon for cheap? Just grab a kitchen-knife and some duct tape. Same effect, these features are in there just for shock value.
The ONLY thing that could have some effect on crime is the legality of full-capacity magazines. This, of course, just means that you'd have to carry around less magazines, which are pretty easy to swap out in a hurry. Also, full-cap magazines have never been illegal, just ones made after 1994 (no long the case).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Private citizens do need firearms to protect themselves. The police can't be everywhere and are now little more than an after-the-fact cleanup crew. Furthermore, the Second Amendment was never about foreign invasion, even though it is a handy side benefit. The Second Amendment has always been about protecting Americans from <i>their own government.</i> The idea is that a heavily armed population would be able to rebel should our government officials turn tyrant. Given the rate at which the Federal government is expanding, I don't think that giving up those rights is a good idea.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The never-fading argument for gun ownership has always been home protection. If you guys don't feel safe in your own homes anymore, don't you think that something more should be done to address the problem than just go for the low-brow approach and try to solve the problem with H&K 9mm social services?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not have both? It's not possible to stamp out crime completely; but even if it is reduced, having a weapon is insurance. Crime has been dropping in the U.S. for decades. However, I support the idea that people should have the right to possess firearms even if it is just a precautionary measure. When England banned handguns, their violent crime rates went up pretty fast and in many areas, England has higher crime rates than the U.S.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for individualism, some morons need metal junk (ie. piercings) in their face to feel individual and really sure about themselves. Others need constant casual sex. Still others need funny mechanic devices that emit loud noises and make a terrible mess if something happens to be in the way. Really, to be able to make up your own mind about things and feel individual and sure about yourself you don't need any of the above. You just need some more self-confidence without the help of external accessories. Or can anyone really claim they need a gun to know who they are?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For the record, I don't actually own any firearms. Well, I do have a BB gun for plunking cans, but it won't kill anyone. There are actually good reasons for gun ownership and none of them fall under "phallus extention." If Zig wants an AR-15, I think he should be able to purchase one. It's as much about the freedom to do what you wish, when you wish as it is about things like protection or sport. Like I said before, the government shouldn't be in the business of telling me what I do and do not need.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You are calling me ignorant for pointing out that the original law of gun ownership is over 200 years old and written for a very specific purpose. Is it not circular reasoning that you use the very same law as the basic premise of your argument? Is it not ignorance if you choose not to accept that the world has changed from those days?
It is a strange world indeed when tools of violence become objects of desire or pride.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Simply because a <i>right</i> is old does not mean that it is no longer useful or valid. The Fifth Amendment* is equally old and what with modern science and all, mistakes in the criminal system are down. Should America scrap that too?
*The Fifth Amendment states the right of a person not to be held in Double Jeopardy, as well as the right against self-incrimination.
Perdition,
Could you please turn down the rhetoric? It's one thing to disagree with somebody's politics. It's another to call a U.S. Senator a "dyke" and say that you're going to "shoot her right in the neck." She's a democratically elected officer of the U.S. government and is deserving of the respect such a position accords.
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...justifiable homocide...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know, I know, it's a typo. But for a moment there I thought it might've been a Freudian slip. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then why quote it if you knew it was a typo? Why not address the issues which I made? Attack them, not me.
One thing if we disagree, another if he trolls on a subject he OBVIOUSLY KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT. <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/mad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I mean, come one! Look at his posts! <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/mad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Nor do the americans need weapons to protect them from the King of England anymore, which was the case when the 2nd amendment was written.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While the Constitution was written in the shadow of the War for American Independance, you are assuming an awful lot to say that the purpose of the second amendment was to protect against King George. In fact, I see no mention of England or any sort of king in its wording. The reason it exists is to protect the people from the government.
Every item in the Bill of Rights was written to protect the people and not the country.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sorry to disappoint all you gun fetishists but that's military hardware. You shouldn't be allowed to toy with that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Every firearm I own is a weapon. I treat it like a weapon. If for a second I even thought of my firearms as toys or playthings I would instantly have them destroyed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is very rare here for a child to die in a gun-related accident... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What a surprise. It is the same here. You just wouldn't know that based upon media reports.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sorry if I seem daft but the whole thread seems to be an NRA spokesperson's wet dream. The object of the debate is a gun.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The object of the debate is not the gun. It is what the firearm represents. To me it represents my freedom to determine my future and is a symbol of my individualism.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The never-fading argument for gun ownership has always been home protection. If you guys don't feel safe in your own homes anymore, don't you think that something more should be done to address the problem than just go for the low-brow approach and try to solve the problem with H&K 9mm social services?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hate pulling up this topic but it seems I never have a choice. Those familiar with the forums remember so I'll summarize.
When I was a child, a pedophile tried to kidnap me. I protected myself with a shotgun.
Tell me that I would be better off with the pedophile than near the gun.
*edit* I went through and cleaned up my posts, btw.
*edit #2* It just really upset me the other day when I saw her talking about the unbanning of Assault Rifles, trying to convince the general public that by the ban being lifted, the streets were going to be filled with guns that can "fire 30 rounds in 3 seconds" and what have you. I just...ahh! Don't know what to say.
If he didn't have all those guns he probably wouldn't think like that. Man I wish that ban was still in place. Scary... I fear what may become of America in the coming years.
If he didn't have all those guns he probably wouldn't think like that. Man I wish that ban was still in place. Scary... I fear what may become of America in the coming years. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Relsan, thinking like another Feinstein.
I'm a nonviolent kid, and if I didn't have access to guns...but wanted to hurt someone, I could turn a set of car keys into a deadly weapon. See the point im making? Guns arent as 'deadly' and 'scary' as people make them out to be.
And if that was sarcasm, my bad for getting defensive.
HEHE!
Any highlights? it looks like i just missed it.
kinda sad.. i had a lot more respect for them in the past.. i mean, they could have gotten a lot of laughs with some kind of kerry zombieface joke or something.. but they didn't.. probably because the election is so near, and bushbashing (with the lack of any democrat bashing) = reviews in this time of heightened viewing.
As for the replies I've gotten, it would probably take me more time than I am willing to spend to hunt down every single bit of quotable material from your messages, so I'll try to address most of the points raised in an essay form with references.
It seems to be a typical tactic for the pro-gun lobby to label all who dare to state the purpose of a firearm as hysterical uninformed idiots, while their own ardent defense stating that guns should be availabe since some enjoy the aesthetic values and some need them for home defense seem to be the actual displays of hystery. Note that I left out hunting and target practice, since I can understand those activities. However, one does not need an AR-15 or a G41 for target practice, and those aren't exactly useful for hunting either.
The aesthetic argument cannot function simply because if aesthetic values are a reason for allowing the possession of an item, should I not be allowed to possess drugs if I enjoy the aesthetics? How about a jet fighter? They're so much slicker than the silly civilian Cessnas. Do not consider this as trolling. I am simply still trying to understand why some military hardware pieces should be allowed to private citizens. Many other things are not allowed and nobody seems to mind.
As for home defense, why the fixation on vigilantism? Are the police in your country so slow and untrustworthy that the common people who usually do not actually know that much about the law should be allowed to take it in their own hands. By googling I found a page that dealt with statistics that aimed to prove how concealed weapons lowered rape statistics. What the writer forgot to mention is that most rapes are not the "park bush" variety, and even though the women's lib movement has slowly begun to change the attitudes of the victims, most rapes still go unreported. This is simply because most of the time it happens in a familiar location and the perpetrator is someone the victim knows, like a friend, acquaintance, relative or even her own husband. There is very that can protect against such occurrences. Probably the only thing that could do so is to change the attitudes of the would-be rapists, but that's a long shot, and would require tearing down some more pieces from the society's patriarchal structures.
As for safety, I feel safe at work. I work late shifts in a small convenience store when I have the time from my studies. On over 90% of the shifts I am alone. Most of the time when someone tries to steal something from the store, I've got no problems facing them down and taking back what isn't theirs. I don't have to be afraid since anything less than a gun I can handle. Some members of criminal organizations in this country do have guns, and a plenty of them, but that doesn't exactly bother me since the mob doesn't shoplift.
The police here are probably the happiest guys about our tight gun control, since deaths in the line of duty are very, very rare. Something akin to one officer every five years may be close to the truth.
One question still remains unanswered: why guns? Why not something else? The "because we can/want" argument does not suffice, since that argument can not be used to justify anything.
It is less about tradition and more about symbolism.
The right to own a firearm is symbolic of individualism and self-determination. Americans have a tradition of resisting external influences in their lives. While I have no plans on moving to Montana and living off the land, but I could.
I like being self-sufficient and do not want the government to take over any of my responsiblities. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe tradition was the wrong term for it but I understand that you won’t like to give up a fundamental right. And as German knowing the historical background of the Nazi dictatorship I see the positives of armed citizens. The Nazi’s wouldn’t be able to come to power that easy if Germany had armed citizens.
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Sep 14 2004, 11:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Sep 14 2004, 11:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Education has little to do when it comes to people killing each other. Though it would reduce the number of firearm accidents. But again, that has nothing to do with the violent uses of such things. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don’t see only the problem in violent uses but also in deaths by accidents using firearms. In German most deaths while firearms involved are accidents.
I agree with you that banns are not effective and even may increase the problem. A better solution maybe, that the administration take sure only responsible persons are able to own a firearm. So for example in Germany if you careless cause a car accident I can happen that your fire arm certificate will get drafted.
I must admit I have a very limited view on the handling of firearms of citizens of the USA. Sometimes it looks for me that the handling of firearms is a little to careless.