Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
SFB"fuck your freedoms because they make me uncomfortable"
more like "its insane for random citizens to own extremely deadly weapons for no reason and obviously the second amendment is being misinterpreted." Besides, the same argument could be used for gay marriage. Luckily that became legal.
Nikolausmore like "its insane for random citizens to own extremely deadly weapons for no reason and obviously the second amendment is being misinterpreted." Besides, the same argument could be used for gay marriage. Luckily that became legal.
A car is an extremely deadly weapon.... look at the lady in Oklahoma, or watch Tosh.0... A car in the hands of many elderly people out there is an extremely dangerous weapon, but at what point does taking them away violate rights unless there is significant circumstantial evidence behind it?
Nikolausmore like "its insane for random citizens to own extremely deadly weapons for no reason and obviously the second amendment is being misinterpreted." Besides, the same argument could be used for gay marriage. Luckily that became legal.
oh well, your sentiments dont impede my right to defend myself
CoreyTrevorA car is an extremely deadly weapon.... look at the lady in Oklahoma, or watch Tosh.0... A car in the hands of many elderly people out there is an extremely dangerous weapon, but at what point does taking them away violate rights unless there is significant circumstantial evidence behind it?
Surely, you must be joking.
A gun is, quite literally, a weapon. It was designed to killing things. You can use it for sport, for hunting, what have you; in the end, the concept of a firearm is to inflict damage on its target.
A car, on the other hand, is a form of transportation. Unfortunately yes, there are many, many motor vehicle related deaths due to a variety of factors (accidents, impaired driving) and riding in a metal cage at 60mph does come with some inherent risk and danger, but in the end, a car intended use is to get the driver from point A to point B in an efficient manner.
Of course you can use a car as a weapon to harm, injure, or kill others, and yes, it happens. You can use a baseball bat in a lethal way, too. Hell, the dildos in everyone's butts over this topic (on both sides of this argument, my god) can be used to kill a man if you tried hard enough!
Should we consider the danger of the wrong person getting behind the wheel of a car, and possibly take measures to prevent this from happening? Absolutely! Does the number of intentional vehicular homicides warrant a significant debate? Not quite.
A gun is, quite literally, a weapon. It was designed to killing things. You can use it for sport, for hunting, what have you; in the end, the concept of a firearm is to inflict damage on its target.
A car, on the other hand, is a form of transportation. Unfortunately yes, there are many, many motor vehicle related deaths due to a variety of factors (accidents, impaired driving) and riding in a metal cage at 60mph does come with some inherent risk and danger, but in the end, a car intended use is to get the driver from point A to point B in an efficient manner.
Of course you can use a car as a weapon to harm, injure, or kill others, and yes, it happens. You can use a baseball bat in a lethal way, too. Hell, the dildos in everyone's butts over this topic (on both sides of this argument, my god) can be used to kill a man if you tried hard enough!
Should we consider the danger of the wrong person getting behind the wheel of a car, and possibly take measures to prevent this from happening? Absolutely! Does the number of intentional vehicular homicides warrant a significant debate? Not quite.
Correct, the concept of a firearm IS to inflict damage on it's target. It is today, and it was in the 18th century when the second ammendment was adopted.
The man behind the counter had as much intention of selling me an AR to shoot up a mall as a car salesman did to sell a car to be used to intentionally run over 30 pedestrians. The difference (in my opinion) is that my AR is locked away in a gun safe at home and is never readily available for me to make some stupid spur of the moment mistake where as cars are known to raise peoples "rage" levels and are readily available to unleash uncalled for rage. I know more motorcyclists who have been ran over by road raging car drivers (2) than I do victims/bystanders of mass shootings (0) and I live in Colorado..
It's the fucking media. With the growth of population generally comes the increase of numbers of shootings/crime (per occurrence, not per capita)
A gun is, quite literally, a weapon. It was designed to killing things. You can use it for sport, for hunting, what have you; in the end, the concept of a firearm is to inflict damage on its target.
A car, on the other hand, is a form of transportation. Unfortunately yes, there are many, many motor vehicle related deaths due to a variety of factors (accidents, impaired driving) and riding in a metal cage at 60mph does come with some inherent risk and danger, but in the end, a car intended use is to get the driver from point A to point B in an efficient manner.
Of course you can use a car as a weapon to harm, injure, or kill others, and yes, it happens. You can use a baseball bat in a lethal way, too. Hell, the dildos in everyone's butts over this topic (on both sides of this argument, my god) can be used to kill a man if you tried hard enough!
Should we consider the danger of the wrong person getting behind the wheel of a car, and possibly take measures to prevent this from happening? Absolutely! Does the number of intentional vehicular homicides warrant a significant debate? Not quite.
Both are inanimate fucking objects. It really is the intent. a serial killer is more deadly with a newspaper than most folks are with an Uzi. Why, one is willing to kill, the other is less so. It is however easy to kill someone by neglect with either a car or gun.
cobra_commanderBoth are inanimate fucking objects. It really is the intent. a serial killer is more deadly with a newspaper than most folks are with an Uzi. Why, one is willing to kill, the other is less so. It is however easy to kill someone by neglect with either a car or gun.
That guy in New Mexico must have not had a newspaper so he had to kill his friend with a microwave
cobra_commanderBoth are inanimate fucking objects. It really is the intent. a serial killer is more deadly with a newspaper than most folks are with an Uzi. Why, one is willing to kill, the other is less so. It is however easy to kill someone by neglect with either a car or gun.
It is certainly true that if left in a garage a car and a gun do no harm on their own. They require the will of a person to make them good or bad. But we would definitely be mistaken to say they are the same thing or equally harmless/harmful. As with all tools, their is a purpose built into the tool. As 1337 noted, a gun is a weapon and a car is a mode of transportation. Sure both can be used for bad and be used to kill someone. But there is an obvious reason why if someone was going to attack you with a baseball bat while you are in your garage next to your car and gun, you don't start up your car. You reach for your gun because its primary purpose is to be used as a weapon. The "gun is a just a tool, like any other tool" argument is only true to a certain extent and its truth is limited by the purpose that is built into it.
SFBlol thats sucks man, isnt everything capped off at a max of 10 rounds in NY? unfortunately colorado is heading down the same path they keep gradually implementing more and more restrictions.
Yup, 10 round limit. It was originally 7 which is even more retarded because they wanted people to be able to have 10 rounders, but only load 7.
Also all sorts of restrictions on cosmetic stuff. No pistol grips, muzzle brakes, bayonet lugs, collapsible stocks or detachable magazines on semi automatic rifles. Having two of these makes it an illegal "assault weapon."
So if I take a ruger 10/22 and put a pistol grip stock on it, it's illegal.
CirilloYup, 10 round limit. It was originally 7 which is even more retarded because they wanted people to be able to have 10 rounders, but only load 7.
Also all sorts of restrictions on cosmetic stuff. No pistol grips, muzzle brakes, bayonet lugs, collapsible stocks or detachable magazines on semi automatic rifles. Having two of these makes it an illegal "assault weapon."
So if I take a ruger 10/22 and put a pistol grip stock on it, it's illegal.
I thought the SAFE act broadened the term of "assault weapon" to one feature?
The ability of liberals to passionately try to ban an honest hobby of a large number of people and feel good about themselves while doing it is quite amazing
The right to defend yourself is as important as any other freedom. And I am not talking about from the government. I am talking about the criminals who will always have guns and you need to protect your family. Calling 911 is not going to stop a criminal from having his way in most situations. In some areas cops can takes upwards of 10-20 mins to arrive.
.lencon1) you think the rich should be taxed a ridiculously high amount?
No, I think their private property (but not personal property) should be forcibly expropriated, the means of production should be seized by the working class, and any counterrevolutionary forces should be put into a fun camp where there will be movies and eye drops.
There's no use restricting gun laws even more. If some criminal wants a AR-15, a thirty round magazine, a suppressor (hell I've made my own), a handgun, or a full auto, they will get one. Yes, more gun restrictions would make those types of weapons and accessories harder for criminals to find, but if a criminal really wants one, they're going to get one. If the founding fathers of America created the Second Amendment which has been around since the 1791 to present day, it should probably remain in the constitution, and "the right to bear arms" should not be restricted to the point that a person can not carry a concealed weapon for the sake of his or her safety if they please.
whiteboiThere's no use restricting gun laws even more. If some criminal wants a AR-15, a thirty round magazine, a suppressor (hell I've made my own), a handgun, or a full auto, they will get one. Yes, more gun restrictions would make those types of weapons and accessories harder for criminals to find, but if a criminal really wants one, they're going to get one.
I think you're right that a certain percentage of people/criminals will be able to find or procure an illegal weapon, but what is that percentage? I think it's a bit lower than you assume. Most of the people who committed the mass shootings over the last 20 years have not been criminal masterminds with access to the black market. They mostly have been legal gun owners assumed to be in the proper mental capacity to own such weapons. To say that "if a criminal really wants one they are going to get one" is definitely harder than it seems for the majority of would-be shooters.
whiteboiThere's no use restricting gun laws even more. If some criminal wants a AR-15, a thirty round magazine, a suppressor (hell I've made my own), a handgun, or a full auto, they will get one. Yes, more gun restrictions would make those types of weapons and accessories harder for criminals to find, but if a criminal really wants one, they're going to get one. If the founding fathers of America created the Second Amendment which has been around since the 1791 to present day, it should probably remain in the constitution, and "the right to bear arms" should not be restricted to the point that a person can not carry a concealed weapon for the sake of his or her safety if they please.
Yeah, I call BS.
If they're going to restrict gun laws efficiently, then they're also going to heavily crack down on illegal guns. That's something everyone agrees with: that illegal firearms are bullshit. Thats why the government already cracks down pretty harshly, but if laws were put in place that made the crackdown more efficient and serious - like, take funding from the DEA trying to find pot farmers (or other wasteful spending direction) and direct it to more efficiently enforcing illegal firearms and other illegal weapons trades - then it will be that much harder for these dingdong columbine copycats to get guns in order to shoot up a school.
Yes, I know, you probably say 'well they'll just bring a bow & arrow or sword instead'. To which I say, go ahead... because then we'll have fucking Samurai police to defend us, and if you don't think that would be tight as shit then get out of my face.
Guns are more efficient than bows and swords. Thats why they were invented. I'm not worried about an asshole 'hammering' up a school. \\
onenerdykidMost of the people who committed the mass shootings over the last 20 years have not been criminal masterminds with access to the black market.
Regardless, it is very easy to find an illegal gun. VERY easy. You literally just have to ask around, or be in the right area. I've had people offer me guns with serial numbers scratched off before, and I was just a white kid in college, not some "criminal mastermind". The black market isn't some hidden underground marketplace, it's any kind of illegal dealing.
DingoSeanYeah, I call BS.
If they're going to restrict gun laws efficiently, then they're also going to heavily crack down on illegal guns. That's something everyone agrees with: that illegal firearms are bullshit. Thats why the government already cracks down pretty harshly, but if laws were put in place that made the crackdown more efficient and serious -
Crackdowns are already super serious to begin with, felonies are handed out like candy for those caught with illegal firearms, and it happens all the time. I don't see how making more laws for illegal firearms are going to help. You can't really make them more illegal.
To the people who say their right to own a gun is in the second amendment. The second amendment also says a well regulated militia. Now this may be my liberal bias in interpretation by doesn't well regulated also translate to gun control of some sort???
S.J.WTo the people who say their right to own a gun is in the second amendment. The second amendment also says a well regulated militia. Now this may be my liberal bias in interpretation by doesn't well regulated also translate to gun control of some sort???
It's more about the organization of the militia itself since there was reluctance to have official standing armies. It must be well trained and possess the proper training and discipline.
cobra_commanderWe couldn't put a dent in drugs and folks think banning guns would have any meaningful reduction in the number out there...
I don't think folks understand how hard we went after drugs in the 80s and 90s either.
You can't grow guns in your kitchen or backyard. Guns are not being imported into this country by the tonne. People don't snort guns to get high and escape reality.
But go on comparing two completely different things because that doesn't derail the conversation at all... fucking idiot.
JaybrtnCrackdowns are already super serious to begin with, felonies are handed out like candy for those caught with illegal firearms, and it happens all the time. I don't see how making more laws for illegal firearms are going to help. You can't really make them more illegal.
It's not about making them more illegal.. I mean meth is as illegal as anything but people still have it all over the place.
The point is targeting those who deal illegal firearms even harder so this question of 'if a criminal wants a gun he's gonna get a gun whether it's illegal or not' isn't even a thing.
Regardless... at this stage, it's already difficult for casual criminals to just get a gun on a whim in many states, but it's still way way too easy, and it's obvious based on the amount of criminal gun violence we see. thats the whole reason i'm for tighter regulations...
(i'm not for making firearms illegal outright... though... that's a prohibition that would be downright badnews)
louie.miragsThe right to defend yourself is as important as any other freedom. And I am not talking about from the government. I am talking about the criminals who will always have guns and you need to protect your family. Calling 911 is not going to stop a criminal from having his way in most situations. In some areas cops can takes upwards of 10-20 mins to arrive.
The right to self defense is not the same as the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is drawn from the right to self defense.
JaybrtnSo do you think we shouldn't have anyone enforcing laws? Keeping chaos from enveloping the country? Arresting murderers, rapists, molesters, etc?
Who will arrest the cops who are murderers, rapists, and molesters?
Bill.NyeWho will arrest the cops who are murderers, rapists, and molesters?
Other cops, federal officials, etc. Not saying they all get caught, they don't, but police are here for a reason. What would you suggest happen? Police forces be disbanded?
Bill.NyeI didn't say "evil" I said "bastards" and I didn't realize you made any points or that I was making an argument....
You're right, although by the way you talk about them, anyone could assume you'd think they were evil as well. Well, debating back and forth on a topic includes making points and creating arguments, just as we have done. I honestly can't tell if you're trolling at this point or not.
mirozThe right to self defense is not the same as the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is drawn from the right to self defense.
For those who have the time and are interested:
That is also a good debate from Intelligence Squared. At times both sides do get a little off topic or go on their own agenda for a bit, but for the most part pretty good.
While the exact capitalization of words and punctuation usage in the 2nd amendment actually varies from version to version, the debate does touch upon actually changing the wording of the amendment to be more "modern" with an emphasis on the right to self defense rather than focusing on the need of a well regulate militia. IMO, that would be a helpful way to move forward as our technology and our societies evolve.
I buy a gun from an authorized dealer. In most states, I can go privately sell that gun to anyone. Brilliant. I'm suppose to use "discretion" to make sure the person I'm selling the gun to is at least 18 or doesn't look like someone who is about to snap and go shoot up a place. But there is no need to provide proof of sale or no documentation required of you transferring that fire are to someone else. We act like criminals who couldn't pass a background check are buying guns from illegal firearms dealers, when really they can just buy it from anyone privately selling a gun.
Hey fellas, another mass shooting- this time in Colorado Springs. Fantastic. Another mass shooting to ignore and learn nothing from because the Constitution.
Yup, our current and very pathetic gun control measures are really doing the job!
skiermanHey fellas, another mass shooting- this time in Colorado Springs. Fantastic. Another mass shooting to ignore and learn nothing from because the Constitution.
Yup, our current and very pathetic gun control measures are really doing the job!
CoreyTrevorA car is an extremely deadly weapon.... look at the lady in Oklahoma, or watch Tosh.0... A car in the hands of many elderly people out there is an extremely dangerous weapon, but at what point does taking them away violate rights unless there is significant circumstantial evidence behind it?
I'm pro gun. However I'm also against open carry. If you think it's going to deter a criminal, then you're wrong. If anything, then the criminal will now know who to shoot first.
Nikolausvery few people actually need guns and very few people should have them. fuck the nra and thank god for gun control
omg you're so stupid. My family has owned guns for my whole life and we have never killed people. And I know lots of other families who are the same. You just have to not be stupid and you can have a gun and not be a criminal. Nobody needs skis. By ur logic then nobody should have skis.