Jump to content

Your Right to Bear Arms is Bullsh*t


Lord of Oop North

Recommended Posts

It is a bit ironic that you admit gun control doesn't work in the middle of a rant about its opposite, innit? I mean, if downright fascist controls like the one y'all have in Canada can't do the job, that speaks loudly about the measures the statist crowd would have to push through in the US to further their agenda.

But points for a well executed outpouring of the Candian Inferiority Complex! Nothing like a helping of that to brighten one's day in a schadenfreude kinda way.

Ah, how clever of you. But you seem to have attributed an argument to my diatribe that I was not promoting. How predictable that you would attack this, rather then try and defend against my attack on your morally-bankrupt culture (I.e. Kouran's 'if you can't pay, then fuck 'em' mentality). Did I advocate for gun control while I was foaming at the mouth? I believe I did not, but perhaps the rabies is making me forgetful? I was simply ranting against a culture that values guns more then health, a culture that likes to talk the talk about opposing tyranny, but has done very little during this decade to actually demonstrate that. A culture that would rather spend money on bombs and guns, then the well-being of its people.

And if you think Canadian gun controls are "fascist" then you obviously know very little about our horribly inefficient and joke of a gun control program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then in that case the only things you should be treating is Infection and Trauma and ea lot of those could be classed as the patients fault rather than just one of those things.

So with the tobacco companies hiding the effects of smoking you're going to deny COPD and lung cancer sufferers health care, some of whom may be your veterans? Mesothelioma caused by working with asbestos, they didn't have to work there, let them die. Genetic diseases, your parents didn't have to reproduce so nope go away and die. Anthing caused by hypertension, many of the factors are genetic or dietary, bugger off and die.

In the NHS there is a cost benefit analysis so its certainly feasible

Ah how I love America with is preoccupation with the $$$. Stepping on those lower down the socioeconomic ladder to boost yourself up the next rung. ALL HAIL THE AMERICAN DREAM

In my opinion it all comes down to cost. Why should I pay for someone elses misadventure or stupidity. Though I must admit it's a nice strawman with the genetics question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't be that hard if it's so obvious.

Yeah, I have arrived at just letting this one go. Heh.

There are a few small cities across the U.S. that have made gun ownership mandatory. Not surprisingly, they have nearly non-existant crime rates now.

ETA: Arbor Gold already linked about Kennesaw, GA so this was redundant. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is beyond bizare.

I was pretty amazed as well. This led me to do some googling and I stumbled upon this NYT article, which gives an interesting perspective on the issue:

Experts don’t think the Kennesaw ordinance, which has never actually been enforced, did much to change gun ownership rates among Kennesaw residents.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kouran, your precious and inalienable right to gun ownership is, at present something that can be taken away from you at a moment's notice by the state you live in. Not to put too fine a point on it, but your second amendment right only protects you from federal laws, not state ones.* So don't get too carried away just yet, okay? Until such a time as we have an activist judge at the SCOTUS level determine that the 2nd amendment is in fact incorporated, it's a free for all regarding states imposing gun laws.

And I have to say, in this particular instance, where are the strong proponents of states rights? Shouldn't Scalia argue against any kind of Incorporation as a matter of principle?

* Unless you live in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and the U.S. territories of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And since you wanna be nitpicky about terminology

It's not nitpicky when real legislation has been passed on the issue with no better understanding of it than yours. Is it nitpicky to ask that if we are banning the inaptly named "assault weapons" (is there another kind? what do you use in an assault other than a weapon? harsh language?) that we have a working definition of what we are banning?

when I feel that you quite obviously knew what I meant,

I really don't know what you meant. You say you want to ban assault weapons. What is an assault weapon? I ask 5 people I get 5 different answers. I want to know what it is you want banned.

I now also support a ban of whatever your favorite gun is.

Dammit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is it with Cobb County residents? First they want to jigger with evolution related textbooks and now I learn one of their "cities" has mandatory gun ownership (except for conscientious objectors and convicted felons). Remind me never to visit there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I support a ban on something that is banned already, but I'll betcha 5 bucks its not hard to find a someone that opposes that ban. And since you wanna be nitpicky about terminology when I feel that you quite obviously knew what I meant, I now also support a ban of whatever your favorite gun is.

Go ahead and collect your $5.00 because you found me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is it with Cobb County residents? First they want to jigger with evolution related textbooks and now I learn one of their "cities" has mandatory gun ownership (except for conscientious objectors and convicted felons). Remind me never to visit there.

Cobb also passed a resolution that they don't welcome gays, some time back. It might have been since rescinded. Don't know.

God, guns, and gays, brother!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, how clever of you. But you seem to have attributed an argument to my diatribe that I was not promoting. How predictable that you would attack this, rather then try and defend against my attack on your morally-bankrupt culture (I.e. Kouran's 'if you can't pay, then fuck 'em' mentality). Did I advocate for gun control while I was foaming at the mouth? I believe I did not, but perhaps the rabies is making me forgetful? I was simply ranting against a culture that values guns more then health, a culture that likes to talk the talk about opposing tyranny, but has done very little during this decade to actually demonstrate that. A culture that would rather spend money on bombs and guns, then the well-being of its people.

Once again, bravo. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not nitpicky when real legislation has been passed on the issue with no better understanding of it than yours. Is it nitpicky to ask that if we are banning the inaptly named "assault weapons" (is there another kind? what do you use in an assault other than a weapon? harsh language?) that we have a working definition of what we are banning?

I really don't know what you meant. You say you want to ban assault weapons. What is an assault weapon? I ask 5 people I get 5 different answers. I want to know what it is you want banned.

Thats fair enough, but something that can be fought out between politicians, the NRA, the state militia of Michigan, Michael Moore, and whoever else wants to throw thier two cents in. I admit I am not prepared to present a bulleted list of weapons that fall under this category for the boards inspection. However, I think that using the term 'assault weapon' painted an accurate enough picture for the purpose of a message board discussion. I was just trying to make a general point about certain kinds of weapons that I think are going to cause more harm than good in a society. Isnt the difference between the practical uses of different types of weapons fairly obvious? Rifles and shotguns can be used for a variety of legitimate purposes, of which self defense is one. On the other hand, an Uzi has only one purpose and I don't consider it an outrageous infringement on my rights that you, me, or crazy murderin' Joe down the street can't just pick one up at the store.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, LoON, I agree with you, and so did Hunter S. Thompson.

This may be the year when we finally come face to face with ourselves; finally just lay back and say it -- that we are really just a nation of 220 million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns, and no qualms at all about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable.

We have become a Nazi monster in the eyes of the whole world, a nation of bullies and bastards who would rather kill than live peacefully. We are not just Whores for power and oil, but killer whores with hate and fear in our hearts. We are human scum, and that is how history will judge us. No redeeming social value. Just whores. Get out of our way, or we'll kill you. Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush? They are the same ones who wanted to have Muhammad Ali locked up for refusing to kill gooks. They speak for all that is cruel and stupid and vicious in the American character. They are the racists and hate mongers among us; they are the Ku Klux Klan. I piss down the throats of these Nazis. And I am too old to worry about whether they like it or not. Fuck them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a few small cities across the U.S. that have made gun ownership mandatory. Not surprisingly, they have nearly non-existant crime rates now.

Bullshit, their crime is the same as similar sized cities. This is the kind of 'guns will save everyone' arguments I can't stand. What you and your other extreme gun rights buddies never ever mention is when 7 year-old kids get shot in the head by gun owners who thought the family was trespassing on their property and they have a legal right to shot anyone on their property.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/content...n-trespass.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I think that using the term 'assault weapon' painted an accurate enough picture for the purpose of a message board discussion.

The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't.

I assume you would say that this is an assault rifle, and that this is not? But they are essentially the same gun, with merely cosmetic differences.

On the other hand, an Uzi has only one purpose and I don't consider it an outrageous infringement on my rights that you, me, or crazy murderin' Joe down the street can't just pick one up at the store.

All guns have just one purpose. Killing stuff. Some are better at it then others. An Uzi in semi-auto is probably going to be less deadly (by being more unwieldy, and less accurate) than, a Glock 17, both of which can be legally owned.

This is the frustrating thing about this debate. Most people want to ban "intimidating" looking weapons, regardless of the actual make up of the gun. You are a good debater John, I am certain you could make a strong argument to support your ideas. You hurt your side by not having a clear picture of what those ideas are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bullshit, their crime is the same as similar sized cities. This is the kind of 'guns will save everyone' arguments I can't stand. What you and your other extreme gun rights buddies never ever mention is when 7 year-old kids get shot in the head by gun owners who thought the family was trespassing on their property and they have a legal right to shot anyone on their property.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/content...n-trespass.html

Yeah, that story is pretty horrific. The sign outside the house of the shooters is really the most telling thing, though. I believe those are the kind of people that cling to guns. Yes, cling.

On the question of 'assault weapons', high capacity magazines do make for a difference when it comes to semi-automatic weapons. Obviously anything that could be modified to be fully automatic is seriously dangerous, and I believe most people think that such weapons should not be generally available. There is a difference between a 20 round clip and a 10 round clip. Let alone 30 or 50. I agree that it's not a question of how things look; it's what they can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bullshit, their crime is the same as similar sized cities. This is the kind of 'guns will save everyone' arguments I can't stand. What you and your other extreme gun rights buddies never ever mention is when 7 year-old kids get shot in the head by gun owners who thought the family was trespassing on their property and they have a legal right to shot anyone on their property.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/content...n-trespass.html

using the fact that occasionally people commit crimes with guns as the basis of an emotional 'ban all gunzzz!!!' argument is no more effective than trying to make an argument that because occasionally people commit crimes with cars, cars should be banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the question of 'assault weapons', high capacity magazines do make for a difference when it comes to semi-automatic weapons. Obviously anything that could be modified to be fully automatic is seriously dangerous, and I believe most people think that such weapons should not be generally available. There is a difference between a 20 round clip and a 10 round clip. Let alone 30 or 50.

So is it the ability to accept a high capacity magazine that makes it an assault weapon, or is it only an assault weapon once said magazine is attached? What is "high-capacity"? I have seen 10, 20, 30, 50, and 100 round magazines, along with belt-fed weapons with no detachable magazine that nonetheless do not need to be reloaded for 500 rounds. A US army M-16 mag holds 30 rounds, but they really only do well with 28 in there. Is that high-capacity, or is it the bare minimum the bean counters in the pentagon thought a soldier needed to get by, making it low capacity?

Any semi-automatic weapon can be modified to be full-auto. It is very very illegal to do so.

I agree that it's not a question of how things look; it's what they can do.

A bolt-action .308 can kill you at better than a half mile away, but only holds 5 rounds. A Glock 9mm is only accurate to about 30 meters but the standard mag holds 18 rounds. What is the threshold for deadliness that a weapon must pass before being "assault"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...