Firearms/Second Amendment
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-01-2011, 10:58 AM
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
Quote:They we should not ban rape or murder any more, because Criminals will just do it anyways.. No reason to make it illegal anymore, as Buddy states
I'll explain again: Rape and murder harm other people. Owning a gun doesn't. See the difference?
Quote:Drinking doesn't hurt others, which is why Prohibition didn't work.
Owning a gun doesn't hurt others. And drinking can hurt others.
Quote:It was the Christian Right who thought it was evil..
In the beginning, yes you are correct.. Over time, as less people have less guns, that is less of a factor. You are using a fear based argument to justify your point. Anytime you need to try to fear people into your side, you loss your argument.
Using fear to get people on ''my side''? I'd rather have you address the point.

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2011, 11:16 AM
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
I haven't changed the argument to fit my needs at all.

You said, "They we should not ban rape or murder any more, because Criminals will just do it anyways.. No reason to make it illegal anymore, as Buddy states."

My point was that we ban rape, not the device used to commit the act.
We ban shooting people, holding up stores etc., but that doesn't justify banning the device used to commit these acts.

Your argument here is flawed because you're comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing an act to a device. So to use this argument you need to justify banning any device used to commit rape, not rape itself.

Again, I'm not saying that there aren't valid arguments to both sides of the discussion. This just isn't presented as one of them.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2011, 11:19 AM
 
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
Quote:I'll explain again: Rape and murder harm other people. Owning a gun doesn't. See the difference?
You are missing your point, of Don't ban them because criminals will have them. Is the same thing..

Quote:Owning a gun doesn't hurt others. And drinking can hurt others.
Prove it, if I/you/someone else drinks.. it will hurt others.

Quote:Using fear to get people on ''my side''? I'd rather have you address the point.

Yes fear, of what might happen.. for the justification for keeping guns. Its like stating from you, you should not go outside, because you MIGHT get hit by a car.. so there we should not go outside. There is no proof you will get hit by a car, just you might.. So don't go outside.
(24-01-2011 11:16 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  I haven't changed the argument to fit my needs at all.

You said, "They we should not ban rape or murder any more, because Criminals will just do it anyways.. No reason to make it illegal anymore, as Buddy states."

My point was that we ban rape, not the device used to commit the act.
We ban shooting people, holding up stores etc., but that doesn't justify banning the device used to commit these acts.

Your argument here is flawed because you're comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing an act to a device. So to use this argument you need to justify banning any device used to commit rape, not rape itself.

Again, I'm not saying that there aren't valid arguments to both sides of the discussion. This just isn't presented as one of them.

You missed the point and my argument is valid. You are looking too much at the context than the overall argument. And that is the problem.

Again, for the 1000000th time, Kiko/Buddy and others whole point is.. We should not ban Guns because criminals would then have them. In other words, don't ban something because a criminal would have/do it. I used the Rape and Murder as extremes. Should I state that any immoral thought/action..etc should not be ban, would that be better, since Criminals will just do it anyways? To showcase how complete asinine that idea is. and it is not a valid point to keep guns.

So, I stand by my original post, that I have yet to hear/read a valid idea/point of why we need to keep guns in American Society in 2011
Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2011, 11:30 AM
 
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
cars don't cause accidents (unless you own a Toyota)... people do... should we ban driving to protect all from a potential accident?? of course not.... the exact same applies to a gun... it only will hurt another when a person is added to the mix... that person needs to be responsible for his/her actions, not me or you nor the gun.
Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2011, 11:37 AM
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
If then, you are given a valid reason why guns can be used to make a positive impact (in the hands of John Q. Public of course. I don't think anyones saying they should be banned from law enforcement etc.) will your opinion change?

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2011, 11:37 AM
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
(24-01-2011 11:19 AM)AnthraxFan93 Wrote:  So, I stand by my original post, that I have yet to hear/read a valid idea/point of why we need to keep guns in American Society in 2011


Anthrax... are you ShockofGod?

You use the exact same "logic" in your arguments. You put out a statement (i.e. prove that atheism is accurate and correct) and then despite the hailstorm of insightful and rational responses, you continue to chant your original post like a mantra in an apparent "victory"... when really you just don't seem to get anyone's arguments.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2011, 12:39 PM
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
I don't understand how every time the topic of gun control comes up we on the side of more controls being needed always get baited into a discussion of banning guns.

When the second amendment was written, fire arms were muskets and single round inaccurate pistols. Today, the second amendment still reads that the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, yet nobody really argues that this means that people should have the right to privately own ICBMs. We all recognize that there is a limit to how broadly the amendment can be interpreted. The disagreement comes in when we are trying to determine where that line should be drawn.

Here's my take. Disregarding for the moment the FACT that the amendment specifically mentions militia for a very good reason, the word infringe is the word we should focus on. Now, there is no specific constitutionally protected right to keep and bear automobiles, however, a car can be used as a weapon. Therefore, it can be argued that the second amendment refers to cars. Also to knives and arrows. Yet we do require licensing and registration for cars. We do disallow certain types of knives (switchblades for example.) Also a person carrying a bow and arrow down the street (especially if loaded and drawn back) would be detained by the police, and nobody would bat an eye. And what about flame throwers, poison tipped darts, zip guns, dirty bombs?

Limiting weaponry and requiring registration and restricting access to weapons one owns are all things we allow in our society. As far as I'm concerned, if the law was to suddenly become, the only fire arms you are allowed to keep and bear are muskets and barrel loaded pistols, and only if you join a militia and receive government sanctioned training, this would be in keeping with the second amendment. Personally, I don't think we need to go that far, but the Constitution cannot be held up as an excuse for why that would be wrong. And unless you are willing to make the argument that disallowing me to own a flame thrower, to carry a dirty bomb into the library, or to drive an unregistered car around in case I need to thwart a crime by running over a perp is an infringement on my second amendment rights, then it's all contingent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2011, 12:54 PM
 
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
(24-01-2011 11:37 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  
(24-01-2011 11:19 AM)AnthraxFan93 Wrote:  So, I stand by my original post, that I have yet to hear/read a valid idea/point of why we need to keep guns in American Society in 2011


Anthrax... are you ShockofGod?

You use the exact same "logic" in your arguments. You put out a statement (i.e. prove that atheism is accurate and correct) and then despite the hailstorm of insightful and rational responses, you continue to chant your original post like a mantra in an apparent "victory"... when really you just don't seem to get anyone's arguments.

No, I have no idea who that is.

I get your "point" but its just not very valid. Just because you make a point, doesn't mean I don't get it, I get it fine.. It just not very good argument for why we need to keep them. You are using the same logic and points, that Christianity uses to believe in god and their way of life.. Fear. I don't believe a rational/thought out response should come for an emotional state, which is what you are doing.
Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2011, 01:08 PM
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
gamutman pretty much sums up my view on this. Nicely done, btw. I'm not particularly bothered by people owning guns and I'm fine if it's legal. However, I do think that regulating the types of weapons that are available to the general public is perfectly reasonable. Different people will obviously disagree on where to draw the line, and I don't think that automatically makes one side of the argument any more right or wrong then another. They are just different points of view.

For me, it comes down to this: we, as a society, can focus on an individuals right to go out in public with limited risk of being killed by some lunatic or we can focus on an individuals right to own a semi-automatic weapon that can fire off 30 rounds in .0002 seconds and cause the maximum amount of carnage. In the US, we have decided, to this point, to focus on the latter. We've also decided to draw the line at letting that person own their own bazooka, but that really is just a choice. We could easily go that way if we really wanted to.

Personally, I'd like to see it scaled back the other way. You want to own a gun, fine own a gun. Whatever makes you happy. However, the right to own a gun that can do that kind of damage we saw two weekends ago, or what happened at the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007 where some deranged idiot managed to murder 32 people and was able to fire so many rounds so quickly that there was no chance to even grab the guy is something I have an issue with.

The right to own a gun is one thing. However, that does not mean that we, as a society, cannot put restrictions on how much destructive fire power one person can have at a time.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2011, 01:28 PM
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
Support the 2A? I do.

[Image: IMAG0010.jpg]

Liberty loving, gun owning Atheist. Don't worry it confuses the right as well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: