Printable View
[QUOTE=bmulls]Using statistics and the large picture to justify getting drunk is awfully selfish. Why would you not support prohibition on something as potentially as dangerous as alcohol?[/QUOTE]
Are you even comparing the two? Currently, guns are one of the least regulated of any consumer product.
[IMG]http://oi50.tinypic.com/2cjy20.jpg[/IMG]
Why didn't the "NO GUNS" policy work?! Now consider why teachers in Israel are armed.
More people are killed with baseball bats and knives than are killed with guns. Do we need more bat control laws or knife control laws? ALso don't forget, guns are illegal in Mexico, but thousands of people are murdered by guns there each year over there.
[QUOTE=MJ23forever][IMG]http://oi50.tinypic.com/2cjy20.jpg[/IMG]
Why didn't the "NO GUNS" policy work?! [B]Now consider why teachers in Israel are armed.
[/B]
More people are killed with baseball bats and knives than are killed with guns. Do we need more bat control laws or knife control laws? ALso don't forget, guns are illegal in Mexico, but thousands of people are murdered by guns there each year over there.[/QUOTE]
Don't be daft..they are constantly threatened by terrorist attacks around them, this is a completely different situation. :facepalm
[QUOTE=MJ23forever]
More people are killed with baseball bats and knives than are killed with guns. Do we need more bat control laws or knife control laws? ALso don't forget, guns are illegal in Mexico, but thousands of people are murdered by guns there each year over there.[/QUOTE]
nonsense
[url]http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/weapagetab.cfm[/url]
[QUOTE=rsoares28]Longtime lurker, not many posts but i just went through 5 failed login attempts, + a password reset just so i could say that BMOGEFan is a fcking retard. Worst analogy ever.
Give me one good reason why anybody outside of a military trained assassin would require the services of an assault rifle[/QUOTE]
Do you understand that these rifles are not fully automatic and shoot a very small bullet one at a time? The reason that so many people want these rifles is because they are light, accurate and they can be set up in a variety of configurations depending on what the owner intends to use it for (target shooting, hunting, home defense, etc.).
You would [U]need[/U] one to protect yourself from an opressive government. People in the US these days don't think it's a possibility but if you would pick up a history book you would find that it happens all the time. All it takes is one bad apple to get elected and they could be rounding people up and putting them in death camps. The government will be armed with fully automatic machine guns. You are going to be severely outguned regardless but at least if you have an AR-15 or AK-47 you have a fighting chance. If you are fighting back with single shot, bolt action rifles you are going to be screwed.
While we are talking about what people need, does anyone need Ferrari? Do people need a $10,000 Lebron James rookie card? No, but it's (supposedly) a free country and you should be able to buy and do what you [U]want[/U] to do. Nevermind the fact that there are laws against murdering someone already on the books. The people that don't have a problem breaking that law are very unlikely to obey an "assault weapon" ban.
[QUOTE=shlver]Are you even comparing the two? Currently, [B]guns are one of the least regulated of any consumer product[/B].[/QUOTE]
Wait a minute, what?
If you are 21 years old with an id you can buy as much Vodka as you want. They even have drive-through liquor stores. Firearms, on the other hand, usually require a criminal background check and/or a waiting period to purchase.
I'm questioning if you understand what the word regulated means.
[QUOTE=Kobe 4 The Win]Do you understand that these rifles are not fully automatic and shoot a very small bullet one at a time? The reason that so many people want these rifles is because they are light, accurate and they can be set up in a variety of configurations depending on what the owner intends to use it for (target shooting, hunting, home defense, etc.).
You would [U]need[/U] one to protect yourself from an opressive government. People in the US these days don't think it's a possibility but if you would pick up a history book you would find that it happens all the time. All it takes is one bad apple to get elected and they could be rounding people up and putting them in death camps. The government will be armed with fully automatic machine guns. You are going to be severely outguned regardless but at least if you have an AR-15 or AK-47 you have a fighting chance. If you are fighting back with single shot, bolt action rifles you are going to be screwed.
While we are talking about what people need, does anyone need Ferrari? Do people need a $10,000 Lebron James rookie card? No, but it's (supposedly) a free country and you should be able to buy and do what you [U]want[/U] to do. Nevermind the fact that there are laws against murdering someone already on the books. The people that don't have a problem breaking that law are very unlikely to obey an "assault weapon" ban.[/QUOTE]
Are you freaking stupid or just trolling us?
Why don't you pick up a history book and realize that never before in history has there been more of a disparity between civilian militia and government military capabilities as in the first world today. Do you honestly think that rifles and machine guns operated by civilians would be able to stop the United States Military with tanks, planes, nukes, missiles, bombs, grenades, snipers, trained military professionals, etc? Seriously?
To even say that the U.S. government would or even could turn on its people like that is asinine and shows a deep rooted paranoia.
[QUOTE=D-Rose]Are you freaking stupid or just trolling us?
Why don't you pick up a history book and realize that never before in history has there been more of a disparity between civilian militia and government military capabilities as in the first world today. Do you honestly think that rifles and machine guns operated by civilians would be able to stop the United States Military with tanks, planes, nukes, missiles, bombs, grenades, snipers, trained military professionals, etc? Seriously?
To even say that the U.S. government would or even could turn on its people like that is asinine and shows a deep rooted paranoia.[/QUOTE]
Well the government has us outgunned so lets just all thow our weapons in the trash. F**k the Constitution.
I'm pretty sure the Jews in Germany didn't think that the government would turn on them like they did. That's ok though lets just trust politicians. After all they are well known for their honesty.
By the way, your reply was spoken like a true liberal. I make a post answering a direct question with an honest and logical answer and your reaction is "Are you freaking stupid". Nice.
[QUOTE=Kobe 4 The Win]Do you understand that these rifles are not fully automatic and shoot a very small bullet one at a time? The reason that so many people want these rifles is because they are light, accurate and they can be set up in a variety of configurations depending on what the owner intends to use it for (target shooting, hunting, home defense, etc.).
You would [U]need[/U] one to protect yourself from an opressive government. People in the US these days don't think it's a possibility but if you would pick up a history book you would find that it happens all the time. All it takes is one bad apple to get elected and they could be rounding people up and putting them in death camps. The government will be armed with fully automatic machine guns. [B]You are going to be severely outguned regardless but at least if you have an AR-15 or AK-47 you have a fighting chance. [/B] If you are fighting back with single shot, bolt action rifles you are going to be screwed.
While we are talking about what people need, does anyone need Ferrari? Do people need a $10,000 Lebron James rookie card? No, but it's (supposedly) a free country and you should be able to buy and do what you [U]want[/U] to do. Nevermind the fact that there are laws against murdering someone already on the books. The people that don't have a problem breaking that law are very unlikely to obey an "assault weapon" ban.[/QUOTE]
This:
[IMG]http://www.superiorweaponssystems.com/images/AR15E1Rifle1.gif[/IMG]
Vs
This (AKA what 'tyranny' is packing nowadays instead of single-shot muskets)
[IMG]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/06/06/article-2155099-0E294D5700000578-288_634x377.jpg[/IMG]
Is a fight that ends long before it begins. You would never see it coming.
The paranoia-driven, imaginary fight against the 'tyrannical government' is just about the silliest reason given to justify people needing automatic/semi-automatic killing machines.
These are the guns that the shooter used in Sandy Hook:
[IMG]http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/guns-used-by-adam-lanza-in-shooting-owned-by-nancy-lanza.jpg[/IMG]
Fighting the illuminati or whatever imagined 'tyrannical' government body justifies a suburban CT mother with a disturbed child having this in her home? :wtf:
[QUOTE=Kobe 4 The Win]
I'm pretty sure the Jews in Germany didn't think that the government would turn on them like they did. That's ok though lets just trust politicians. After all they are well known for their honesty.
[/QUOTE]
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler
[QUOTE=bmulls]Anyways I'm done here, it's obvious no amount of logic is going to work on people who don't appreciate or enjoy hunting/target shooting. They don't care about the rights of other people because it doesn't have any affect on them or the things they enjoy. Yet when you propose banning something they do enjoy (alcohol), they unleash some of the greatest mental gymnastics imaginable to justify their position.[/QUOTE]
I own guns, hunt, shoot clays and paper alike, and you're still being unreasonable when you say a gun isn't designed to kill things. Talk about "mental gymnastics.":oldlol:
[QUOTE=bmulls]Anyways I'm done here, it's obvious no amount of logic is going to work on people who don't appreciate or enjoy hunting/target shooting. They don't care about the rights of other people because it doesn't have any affect on them or the things they enjoy. Yet when you propose banning something they do enjoy (alcohol), they unleash some of the greatest mental gymnastics imaginable to justify their position.[/QUOTE]
i stopped hours ago. these people here do not understand period.
they accuse you of making a fallacy yet they are making the same one back at you. its tiresome and circular.
FYI: you people say guns are made for the intended purpose of killing. what is the intended purpose of alcohol? to make someone act like an idiot?
[QUOTE=Kobe 4 The Win]Well the government has us outgunned so lets just all thow our weapons in the trash. F**k the Constitution.
I'm pretty sure the Jews in Germany didn't think that the government would turn on them like they did. That's ok though lets just trust politicians. After all they are well known for their honesty.
By the way, your reply was spoken like a true liberal. I make a post answering a direct question with an honest and logical answer and your reaction is "Are you freaking stupid". Nice.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, ooookay. The United States is the longest standing democracy in the world without any dictators or monarchs in its history. One dictator as an enigmatic leader is a lot different than all three branches of government being a part of some mass conspiracy to oppress their own people. What possible motivation would they even have against the general populace? Usually it's religion or race...neither of which make sense in a multicultural and integrated society. Seriously the paranoia is RIDICULOUS!
Anyway, even if they did want to kill their own people, they'd use things like drones and fighter jets...your freaking handguns aren't going to do shit. You do realize the disparity between military and civilian capability in 21st century life? It's not the 18th century anymore, pal.
[QUOTE=MJ23forever][IMG]http://oi50.tinypic.com/2cjy20.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
This is ludicrous. What happens when a teacher has a melt down? Do you really want them within arms reach of a firearm?
Or are they kept unloaded in a safe where they are essentially useless as someone fires round after round into the class of students? I guess a teacher from another class can lock and load as the first class gets blown away. Guns solve gun problems!
[QUOTE=BMOGEFan]i stopped hours ago. these people here do not understand period.
they accuse you of making a fallacy yet they are making the same one back at you. its tiresome and circular.
FYI: you people say guns are made for the intended purpose of killing. what is the intended purpose of alcohol? [B]to make someone act like an idiot?[/B][/QUOTE]
No one is saying alcohol is a particularly good thing. This is the thing though. It doesn't matter if [B]everyone[/B] thought alcohol was great (when it isn't) and thought guns are bad (when they aren't always). Just because they are using a double standard doesn't mean that guns are good or better or should be untouched. Regardless of their opinions on alcohol, even if they are using double standards (which I don't think they are to the extent you think they are) it doesn't have any bearing on gun policy. Gun policy is gun policy. Alcohol policy is alcohol policy. They have nothing to do with each other.