MERGED: Assault Weapons - Page 13 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-29-2004, 08:18 AM   #181
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 12:26 AM
nbc: i agree with you.
And i'm convinced that the 2nd Amendment doesn't make sense today.
(Ask sting2 if you believe that armed civilists have ANY chance against the US army)
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-29-2004, 08:37 AM   #182
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 06:26 PM
Please call your Congressmen. They are voting today to overrride the DC's own regulations. It's bad enough that they have no representation in the Congress or Senate (too black) but now the NRA wants to haaave Congress override local laws. WTF is happening to this country.
__________________

__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 09-29-2004, 07:49 PM   #183
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,149
Local Time: 06:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


No I wasn't characterizing any group, just the fact that anyone is succeptable to snapping at any moment or is capable of making rash decisions.

I know responsible drug users but that's still illegal. Why? Personal health? No, there are many things legal that are just as unhealthy.
Your last point, I think I have an idea of what you're saying but I don't think its clear enough but let me take a stab at it...

In terms of the statement that government can take away the rights of "responsible" drug users to get high, so they can take away the right of gunowners even if you are responsible... Well, yeah, you are right... government can do it and has the power to take away a person's rights... but that doesn't make it right or acceptable or justify taking away a gunowner's right to own firearms. You're just stating what the government can do. You mention the existence of responsible drug users, as a point that life is unfair for the responsible. Yeah... thats a good point you make. Life is unfair but if we have the capability to make it fair I say we should and letting gunowners enjoy their fun is one of them.

Anyways, mebbe you weren't characterizing gunowners as being people who can snap and commit a crime, but the story told in this context can lead a person to think that. Besides, people who are rash enough to pull out a gun and go shooting someone out of anger can just as likely kill with any other weapon IMO and they aren't limited to weapons- their bare hands are there as well.
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 09-29-2004, 07:52 PM   #184
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,149
Local Time: 06:26 PM
The 2nd Ammendment may seem archaic but it provides a sturdy defense of sorts for gunowners to be able to collect guns and have fun with them... e.g. go to shooting ranges (I was going to mention hunting, but I think some people would be offended by the idea of hunting thus possibly opening up another debate).
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 09-29-2004, 08:06 PM   #185
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Flying FuManchu


But you don't know me. If I was a criminal, you could make a case. But if I'm just an enthusiastic gun owner, you're taking away a hobby or my liberty and my pursuit of happiness.
Thats precisely right. Should the government who also doesnt know you, let you have a gun?

It isn't you who is the problem. Letting YOU partake in your hobby allows a nutcase to partake in theirs which ends lives. Safety is more important than your hobby in an area where there are no guarantees.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 09-29-2004, 08:11 PM   #186
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:26 AM
That is why background checks occur. Gun violence with illegal weapons is much more prevailant than that among registered gun owners.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-29-2004, 08:19 PM   #187
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 10:26 AM
They fail dude. Come on.

11,000 + a year. Forget Moore for a minute. How the fuck can ANYONE justify the personal use of a gun when there is no farming or hunting?
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 09-29-2004, 08:24 PM   #188
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:26 AM
I am not disagreeing, also handguns are the principle problem, they are really only useful for crime - and sport.

More people are killed with other peoples bare hands than rifles in the US. Proper regulation and fingerprint ID safety on the guns are the best option short of banning all guns, which would work but wouldnt get the illegal guns off the street which is where the problem is from.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-29-2004, 08:58 PM   #189
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 05:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader



If the 2nd Amendment doesn't make sense, the appropriate solution would be to repeal the Amendment, instead of countless attempts at restricting the rights created by the Amendment.
In an ideal world...I agree.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-29-2004, 09:21 PM   #190
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 05:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Flying FuManchu


Your last point, I think I have an idea of what you're saying but I don't think its clear enough but let me take a stab at it...

In terms of the statement that government can take away the rights of "responsible" drug users to get high, so they can take away the right of gunowners even if you are responsible... Well, yeah, you are right... government can do it and has the power to take away a person's rights... but that doesn't make it right or acceptable or justify taking away a gunowner's right to own firearms. You're just stating what the government can do. You mention the existence of responsible drug users, as a point that life is unfair for the responsible. Yeah... thats a good point you make. Life is unfair but if we have the capability to make it fair I say we should and letting gunowners enjoy their fun is one of them.

Anyways, mebbe you weren't characterizing gunowners as being people who can snap and commit a crime, but the story told in this context can lead a person to think that. Besides, people who are rash enough to pull out a gun and go shooting someone out of anger can just as likely kill with any other weapon IMO and they aren't limited to weapons- their bare hands are there as well.
The point I was really trying to make is that yes there are responsible gunowners, but the real issue is what is best for the country? While you protect the rights of those that target shoot you keep it legal for gun manufacturers to produce powerful weapons that can kill several humans within seconds. As long as it is legal to mass produce these weapons they will get in the hands of those who will use them to kill. Don't kid yourself, the blackmarket for guns is made up of guns produced by legal manufacturers. Blackmarket guns aren't built by gangsters in a basement. If heroin is legal the amount of hands it gets into will increase so the amount of irresponsible drug users increases.

I have nothing against responsible hunting. How many times do you hear of someone killing another human in a robbery or whatever by singlebolt hunting rifles...the number is small.

Yes banning guns will not stop murders, but I'll take my chances with a knife, baseball bat, or someones bare hands anyday over an assault rifle. I may be able to out run someone with a bat, but I'm pretty sure I can't outrun a bullet.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-29-2004, 09:37 PM   #191
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,149
Local Time: 06:26 PM
But that is what freedom is all about. Like I said... there are things out in this world that have been used to hurt people, maim them, and kill them that are everyday objects that we take for granted. It comes down to the person in the end. And we live with those potential threats... So why can't people live with it when dealing with guns. The rights of many shouldn't be circumvented by the few nutcases if there are no negative moral values associated with just owning a gun, collecting a gun, or "lawfully" shooting a gun. It is not immoral to own a gun. It is not immoral to collect guns. It is not immoral to shoot one at a range, at a target, etc... Owning a gun doesn't "make" a person do anything...

Quote:
Thats precisely right. Should the government who also doesnt know you, let you have a gun?

It isn't you who is the problem. Letting YOU partake in your hobby allows a nutcase to partake in theirs which ends lives. Safety is more important than your hobby in an area where there are no guarantees.
The government doesn't really "know me" or any other person. Yet they give "nutcases" (I'm thinking you're referring to average joe nutcases) the right to drive a car, get on the internet, own sharp objects, etc. That is a "free" society. Harmful philosophies, harmful objects, harmful everything are allowed to float around in a free society. These things can be used as instruments to hurt people and kill people, but we won't ban them... why? B/C we acknowledge that its a few people high on the crazy or stupid that abuse their privileges/ rights. So we brush it off. I feel the same about guns. If we can brush of alcohol (which if not helping to cause problems at least exacerbates problems to the nth degree) or the internet which helps bring a wealth of information a lot of good to some bad, or other things, why not guns?

Someone criticized my calling alcohol a cause and said it was wrong to attribute violence and death as being caused by alcohol, but rather the person should be held responsible. Well, if that is true, why can't the same argument be made for guns, especially considering statistically less people die from gun related deaths compared to alcohol related deaths (about less than half to about a third). This not even considering the fact that the stats for gun related deaths may not take into consideration, lawful use by law enforcement, self defense, or illegal guns.

I'm for a stronger enforcement of gun laws, better background checks, and gun licenses... However, I just can't agree with a total banning of guns. Guns have saved lives as well, but people choose to focus on the irresponsible owners or probably the people who have caused gun violence through weapons obtained by illegal means. I also don't own a gun and have not fired a gun. I just don't agree with the arguments that guns should be banned b/c the right to own a gun has been abused by a minority of people.... Of course safety is important, but there are no guarantees on anything and everything we participate in that has a hint of danger...
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 09-30-2004, 01:15 AM   #192
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 10:26 AM
FuManchu you seem like a pretty sane individual so obviously my objections dont apply to you. I personally dont agree with the comparisons to alcohol or cars as both have alternate and more primary functions. A gun's only use is to shoot a bullet. It isnt transport and isn't a social tool. If we start comparing guns to other dangerous things, we have no idea where to draw the line. We'd need to ban everything from swimming pools down to headache tablets.

We could go around this topic for hours but I wanted to say at least thanks for offering something very rational to this. We've had this topic before and I dont remember any of the counter argument making much sense
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 09-30-2004, 02:38 AM   #193
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 12:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
A gun's only use is to shoot a bullet.
you could also use it to bash someone's skull in

the only pro to allowing guns is that you allow a certain freedom
my personal opinion that the price being paid for this freedom on a yearly basis is way too high
and though this is just an opinion I am yet to read anything that would even make me slightly question whether 11,000+ casualties per year is worth it
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 09-30-2004, 07:33 AM   #194
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 07:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Flying FuManchu
I'm for a stronger enforcement of gun laws, better background checks, and gun licenses... However, I just can't agree with a total banning of guns. Guns have saved lives as well, but people choose to focus on the irresponsible owners or probably the people who have caused gun violence through weapons obtained by illegal means. I also don't own a gun and have not fired a gun. I just don't agree with the arguments that guns should be banned b/c the right to own a gun has been abused by a minority of people.... Of course safety is important, but there are no guarantees on anything and everything we participate in that has a hint of danger...
This is pretty much exactly my view. As much as I'm not a big gun fan, and as much as I worry about gun-related violence, I'm not sure an out-and-out ban would work in the US as it has worked elsewhere. And speaking personally, I would be a hypocrite if I argued for total gun control, as in certain situations, I would strongly consider learning how to use and owning a gun.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 09-30-2004, 08:06 AM   #195
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
A gun's only use is to shoot a bullet.

Exactly. Not to kill people. People misuse guns the same way they misuse knives, bats, cars, alcohol, etc.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com