Conquer Club

Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby thegreekdog on Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:02 pm

Symmetry wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:Ok- you have the floor, what is the second amendment (you can pick which of the two versions you want) saying clearly?


Why would I want to have the floor in a discussion with you regarding the second amendment? Your motivations for engaging in such a discussion are suspect at best. I'm not keen on submitting myself to your particular brand of argument anymore.


Your argument, I offered for you to explain, you refused.


I wasn't clear. Sorry.

I'm not going to engage in any substantive discussions with you on this or any other issue because you aren't interested in having a discussion.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6571
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby KoolBak on Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:12 pm

Let's ask the Aussies

"Gypsy told my fortune...she said that nothin showed...."

Neil Young....Like An Inca
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class KoolBak
 
Posts: 4073
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:03 pm
Location: I can't tell you or they'll find me.
Medals: 29
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Challenge Achievement (1)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Symmetry on Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:13 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:Ok- you have the floor, what is the second amendment (you can pick which of the two versions you want) saying clearly?


Why would I want to have the floor in a discussion with you regarding the second amendment? Your motivations for engaging in such a discussion are suspect at best. I'm not keen on submitting myself to your particular brand of argument anymore.


Your argument, I offered for you to explain, you refused.


I wasn't clear. Sorry.

I'm not going to engage in any substantive discussions with you on this or any other issue because you aren't interested in having a discussion.


You could have simply not replied. The only other poster who tells me when his temper tantrums dicate whther he's not talking to me or not is PhatScotty.
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 2055
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am
Medals: 2
Standard Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby chang50 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:25 pm

KoolBak wrote:Let's ask the Aussies



Correction,let's ask a small sample of Aussies..
User avatar
Lieutenant chang50
 
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:54 am
Location: pattaya,thailand
Medals: 16
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Polymorphic Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Beta Map Achievement (2) Bot Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby KoolBak on Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:26 pm

The statistics they quote were from a small sample?
"Gypsy told my fortune...she said that nothin showed...."

Neil Young....Like An Inca
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class KoolBak
 
Posts: 4073
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:03 pm
Location: I can't tell you or they'll find me.
Medals: 29
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Challenge Achievement (1)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby chang50 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:44 pm

KoolBak wrote:The statistics they quote were from a small sample?


I've no idea how the statistics were compiled,but anyone can see the video you posted only presented the opinions of an extremely small number of Aussies.There are in excess of 20 million Aussies,inevitably some will be in favour of their gun laws,and some against,like anywhere else.
User avatar
Lieutenant chang50
 
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:54 am
Location: pattaya,thailand
Medals: 16
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Polymorphic Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Beta Map Achievement (2) Bot Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby KoolBak on Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:58 pm

chang50 wrote:
KoolBak wrote:The statistics they quote were from a small sample?


I've no idea how the statistics were compiled,but anyone can see the video you posted only presented the opinions of an extremely small number of Aussies.There are in excess of 20 million Aussies,inevitably some will be in favour of their gun laws,and some against,like anywhere else.


Ah....I'm sorry then :D

....you know the employees at our local Thai food restaurant are surly too....... :lol:
"Gypsy told my fortune...she said that nothin showed...."

Neil Young....Like An Inca
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class KoolBak
 
Posts: 4073
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:03 pm
Location: I can't tell you or they'll find me.
Medals: 29
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Challenge Achievement (1)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby comic boy on Thu Jan 10, 2013 2:05 pm

KoolBak wrote:The statistics they quote were from a small sample?


I am loathe to argue with any Neil Young fan but you know full well that there are lies , damn lies and then statistics. The NRA were forced to issue a retraction because they misrepresented Aussie crime stats yet the same misinformation gets repeated time and again. We are also told that violent assualts rocketed in the UK following gun restrictions but again not true , in actual fact what changed ( some years after the ban ) was the way in which crime statistics were defined , for example a domestic slap was upgraded to become a violent assault.
This change was purely cosmetic in order to make the government of the day appear tough on violent crime and to massage police arrest stats , I posted links to this effect a couple of years ago and they were of course ignored by the gun enthusiasts on this forum , why was that do you think ?
Im a TOFU miSfit
User avatar
Brigadier comic boy
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:54 pm
Location: London
Medals: 28
Conqueror Achievement (1) Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2)
Terminator Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
Ratings Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby KoolBak on Thu Jan 10, 2013 2:11 pm

Agreed (on Neil and the other stuff)....just thought it would be interesting to post. A few buds I have in Oz Land have never mentioned any of that crap as a matter of fact ;)
"Gypsy told my fortune...she said that nothin showed...."

Neil Young....Like An Inca
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class KoolBak
 
Posts: 4073
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:03 pm
Location: I can't tell you or they'll find me.
Medals: 29
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Challenge Achievement (1)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby chang50 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 2:14 pm

KoolBak wrote:
chang50 wrote:
KoolBak wrote:The statistics they quote were from a small sample?


I've no idea how the statistics were compiled,but anyone can see the video you posted only presented the opinions of an extremely small number of Aussies.There are in excess of 20 million Aussies,inevitably some will be in favour of their gun laws,and some against,like anywhere else.


Ah....I'm sorry then :D

....you know the employees at our local Thai food restaurant are surly too....... :lol:


Apology accepted,but I'm baffled as to the relevance of the reference to the employees at a Thai restaurant,are you under the misapprehension I am Thai?
User avatar
Lieutenant chang50
 
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:54 am
Location: pattaya,thailand
Medals: 16
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Polymorphic Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Beta Map Achievement (2) Bot Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby DoomYoshi on Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:51 pm

Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 5539
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Termina Field
Medals: 73
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (8) Clan Achievement (16)
Tournament Contribution (6) General Contribution (5)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Juan_Bottom on Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:22 pm

thegreekdog wrote:Juan - do you support the current plan provided by gun control advocates? If so, why? If not, why not?

Depends which advocates. I agree with a whole bunch of ideas, but I don't support the idea of just reinstating the Assault Rifle ban that expired in 2004. To my knowledge, the only plan that has been taken to Congress was that bill submitted/read 5 days ago to ban sales of large clips. I support that, but that bill alone isn't going to do anything to lower the number of fatal shootings. Hypothetically speaking, it should make mass shootings safer, if there is such a thing, but it's not gonna stop a potential shooter.
The Obama administration is also requiring that gun dealers notify the Executive when they sell 2 or more assault-type rifles to a single purchaser in the states along the Mexican border. This is contrary to what I just read that NS wrote, and I'm reading that our American gun manufacturers may sue Obama citing a violation of the Constitution. Luckily this is probably the perfect time for them to sue, if they want public opinion to turn against guns even more.
But I support this requirement as well. These Assault Rifle-style guns aren't typically used in crime here in the US (something like 380 murders a year), but they are trucked over the border and used to kill Mexicans. I believe we ultimately have a duty to our Southern neighbors to not just sit back and watch the violence that we help fuel with our guns and drug appetite. And this requirement seems to me to be the bare minimum of what we can/should do. I'd also like to hear some ideas about how to end those 380 or so American deaths each year as well. As our population continues to grow, I'm afraid that the numbers of shootings are going to increase as well.



I also agree with Sym that the language of the 2nd Amendment as written isn't very clear as to where lines are supposed to be drawn.

    Does a state armory not mean that the people have arms to bear?

    Why would Congress add the phrase "Well-Regulated Militia" if Militia's are irrelevant?

    And if a citizen is not a part of a "well-regulated militia," do they have the right to carry a gun, ever?

    Did not the battles of Lexington & Concord happen because the British were on route to capture an American armory, but not to take away individual's guns? The British had always permitted Americans to own their own guns, what they did not want to permit was state and local armories. So doesn't it make sense that these State Militia weapon's caches were what Congress was trying to protect?

    Did not George Washington himself head an American Army to conquer rural American farmers? Was he trying to attack the security of a free state, or protect it?
Ignore the Supremer Court's split decision of 2008 for a moment. Ask yourself what you think Congress meant in 1779.

As Congress passed it;
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is not a self-defining absolute.
The best example of what I'm trying to say is the first amendment, which states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
And this sounds like a self-defining absolute. But it's not either. You don't have the absolute Freedom to say whatever you want. You cannot defame a person with false slanders, and you cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, you cannot sell child porn, you cannot threaten to kill someone, you can't blast music at 3AM in a suburb, etc etc.

History, b*tches
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!
Medals: 21
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (3)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby thegreekdog on Thu Jan 10, 2013 10:51 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:Depends which advocates. I agree with a whole bunch of ideas, but I don't support the idea of just reinstating the Assault Rifle ban that expired in 2004. To my knowledge, the only plan that has been taken to Congress was that bill submitted/read 5 days ago to ban sales of large clips. I support that, but that bill alone isn't going to do anything to lower the number of fatal shootings. Hypothetically speaking, it should make mass shootings safer, if there is such a thing, but it's not gonna stop a potential shooter.
The Obama administration is also requiring that gun dealers notify the Executive when they sell 2 or more assault-type rifles to a single purchaser in the states along the Mexican border. This is contrary to what I just read that NS wrote, and I'm reading that our American gun manufacturers may sue Obama citing a violation of the Constitution. Luckily this is probably the perfect time for them to sue, if they want public opinion to turn against guns even more.
But I support this requirement as well. These Assault Rifle-style guns aren't typically used in crime here in the US (something like 380 murders a year), but they are trucked over the border and used to kill Mexicans. I believe we ultimately have a duty to our Southern neighbors to not just sit back and watch the violence that we help fuel with our guns and drug appetite. And this requirement seems to me to be the bare minimum of what we can/should do. I'd also like to hear some ideas about how to end those 380 or so American deaths each year as well. As our population continues to grow, I'm afraid that the numbers of shootings are going to increase as well.


I don't disagree with most of that.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Does a state armory not mean that the people have arms to bear?

Why would Congress add the phrase "Well-Regulated Militia" if Militia's are irrelevant?

And if a citizen is not a part of a "well-regulated militia," do they have the right to carry a gun, ever?

Did not the battles of Lexington & Concord happen because the British were on route to capture an American armory, but not to take away individual's guns? The British had always permitted Americans to own their own guns, what they did not want to permit was state and local armories. So doesn't it make sense that these State Militia weapon's caches were what Congress was trying to protect?

Did not George Washington himself head an American Army to conquer rural American farmers? Was he trying to attack the security of a free state, or protect it?

Ignore the Supremer Court's split decision of 2008 for a moment. Ask yourself what you think Congress meant in 1779.

As Congress passed it;
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is not a self-defining absolute.
The best example of what I'm trying to say is the first amendment, which states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
And this sounds like a self-defining absolute. But it's not either. You don't have the absolute Freedom to say whatever you want. You cannot defame a person with false slanders, and you cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, you cannot sell child porn, you cannot threaten to kill someone, you can't blast music at 3AM in a suburb, etc etc.


Okay, let me ask a related question regarding the First Amendment. When was it determined and who determined that the First Amendment was not absolute? When was it determined and who determined that the Second Amendment was to be interpreted the way it is currently interpreted? How was the amendment interpreted prior to 2008?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6571
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Night Strike on Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:34 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:As Congress passed it;
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is not a self-defining absolute.


No, but "shall not be infringed" is about as absolute as one can get.

Juan_Bottom wrote:The best example of what I'm trying to say is the first amendment, which states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
And this sounds like a self-defining absolute. But it's not either. You don't have the absolute Freedom to say whatever you want. You cannot defame a person with false slanders, and you cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, you cannot sell child porn, you cannot threaten to kill someone, you can't blast music at 3AM in a suburb, etc etc.


You also can't use arms (guns) to intimidate, threaten, or kill others. So why should you even further be banned from owning them?

Furthermore, what if we treated the First Amendment like we treat the Second Amendment? Why don't we only allow people to speak if they attend government-approved classes and get government-issued licenses? Why don't we allow the government to decide which people are responsible enough to be members of the press? We force each of those things on the Second Amendment and people want even more restrictions and bans. Why aren't those things forced on the First Amendment also?
Image
User avatar
Captain Night Strike
 
Posts: 8627
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Medals: 79
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (11) Tournament Contribution (12) General Contribution (18)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby AndyDufresne on Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:01 am

Night Strike wrote:You also can't use arms (guns) to intimidate, threaten, or kill others. So why should you even further be banned from owning them?

Furthermore, what if we treated the First Amendment like we treat the Second Amendment? Why don't we only allow people to speak if they attend government-approved classes and get government-issued licenses? Why don't we allow the government to decide which people are responsible enough to be members of the press? We force each of those things on the Second Amendment and people want even more restrictions and bans. Why aren't those things forced on the First Amendment also?

Quick, duck! I'm going to let loose a bunch of word projectiles in this topic, and I will not be held responsible for my lack of accuracy!

Duck! Now!


--Andy
User avatar
Sergeant AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 26155
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo
Medals: 20
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) General Achievement (4) General Contribution (2)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby TA1LGUNN3R on Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:30 am

Juan wrote:You're seeing it here in this thread. I've answered everything that the pro-gun side has thrown at us. Posters, quotations, facts, arguments,.. I accepted the challenge from anything they could throw at me. Yet for 58 pages, they keep repeating the same retarded stuff over and over that I've already refuted.


From your perspective, perhaps- that of an altruist who believes in some moral obligation and responsibility to society and the population as a whole, who, as Saxi stated earlier, has never been outside of the auspices of law enforcement (or been under negligent law enforcement). Your proposal is silly and bespeaks your true designs- that of indignation which affronts you and so you react haphazardly. If you were truly against gun violence, you would be for complete gun banning and even 86'ing gun smiths, because your proposed 'let's stop manufacture of new handguns and fancy rifles but you can still purchase existing ones' idea won't do diddly. These disturbed people who shoot up schools and commit murder-suicides, do you think because they can't buy the latest shiny .38 will just say "Welp, guess I can't blow my lover's brains out, guess I'll take up whittling"?

But why are you concerned with just handguns and other firearms with high capacity? Shouldn't all gun perpetrated violence offend you? Or is it just some arbitrary number of gun-related deaths that tickles your fancy? You said that you wouldn't be opposed to shotguns, yet you can fit 9 shells in a Remington Model 870, and in close range a shotgun beats a handgun every time.

And before you start I'll lay this out: yeah, it's sad when these things happen, but you're right, I'm selfish and I don't really give two shits about others outside of my area and it isn't my problem.

-TG
ImageEight-year olds, Dude.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class TA1LGUNN3R
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:52 am
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue
Medals: 5
Standard Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby SirSebstar on Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:46 am

I come from a country with reasonably strict gun control. After the last incedent, i thought that removing guns would solve something. But then it got a chance to settle in my brain, and i am going to revert to my previous point of view.
Driving while intoxicated is attempted murder. Using a gun inappropriotly should carry a automatic life sentence. inappropriatly means shooting your sun when he comes home unannounced to a burgler shooting the family, to a cop shooting an unarmed minor in the back. basicly everything. yes you can have your gun, and you get to abuse it only once. It wont stop all abuse, but you never should get a chance to do it twice.
User avatar
Major SirSebstar
 
Posts: 7329
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:51 am
Location: SirSebstar is BACK. Highscore: Colonel Score: 2919 21/03/2011
Medals: 95
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (23) General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (9) Training Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (4)
General Contribution (11)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby stahrgazer on Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:22 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:Juan - do you support the current plan provided by gun control advocates? If so, why? If not, why not?

Depends which advocates. I agree with a whole bunch of ideas, but I don't support the idea of just reinstating the Assault Rifle ban that expired in 2004. To my knowledge, the only plan that has been taken to Congress was that bill submitted/read 5 days ago to ban sales of large clips. I support that, but that bill alone isn't going to do anything to lower the number of fatal shootings. Hypothetically speaking, it should make mass shootings safer, if there is such a thing, but it's not gonna stop a potential shooter.
The Obama administration is also requiring that gun dealers notify the Executive when they sell 2 or more assault-type rifles to a single purchaser in the states along the Mexican border. This is contrary to what I just read that NS wrote, and I'm reading that our American gun manufacturers may sue Obama citing a violation of the Constitution. Luckily this is probably the perfect time for them to sue, if they want public opinion to turn against guns even more.
But I support this requirement as well. These Assault Rifle-style guns aren't typically used in crime here in the US (something like 380 murders a year), but they are trucked over the border and used to kill Mexicans. I believe we ultimately have a duty to our Southern neighbors to not just sit back and watch the violence that we help fuel with our guns and drug appetite. And this requirement seems to me to be the bare minimum of what we can/should do. I'd also like to hear some ideas about how to end those 380 or so American deaths each year as well. As our population continues to grow, I'm afraid that the numbers of shootings are going to increase as well.


Interesting: "As our population continues to grow... the numbers of shootings are going to increase as well."

Why do you believe that a larger population has to mean more violence? You may be right, and if you are, maybe the government should be doing population control like China did, rather than banning guns.

I disagree with you that a lawsuit will cause public opinion to turn against guns. In fact, since all this hooplah started because of the most recent maniac, more people are buying than were before.

Juan_Bottom wrote:I also agree with Sym that the language of the 2nd Amendment as written isn't very clear as to where lines are supposed to be drawn.
    Does a state armory not mean that the people have arms to bear?
    Why would Congress add the phrase "Well-Regulated Militia" if Militia's are irrelevant?
    And if a citizen is not a part of a "well-regulated militia," do they have the right to carry a gun, ever?
    Did not the battles of Lexington & Concord happen because the British were on route to capture an American armory, but not to take away individual's guns? The British had always permitted Americans to own their own guns, what they did not want to permit was state and local armories. So doesn't it make sense that these State Militia weapon's caches were what Congress was trying to protect?


Yes, it makes sense, but only when you remember, and as you said: they didn't feel they had to protect an individual's right to guns because THAT WAS A GIVEN.

And yet, here is our government trying to do what the British didn't even try to do, and you wonder why gun supporters are UP IN ARMS :lol:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Did not George Washington himself head an American Army to conquer rural American farmers? Was he trying to attack the security of a free state, or protect it?
Ignore the Supremer Court's split decision of 2008 for a moment. Ask yourself what you think Congress meant in 1779.

As Congress passed it;
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Interpret who "we the people" are. Are "we the people" only the founding fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence, or are they the people who can legally claim the United States is their country?

Because if "we the people" are only the founding fathers who signed the Declaration, then the Constitution applies to no one living today. but if "We the People" meant the people who legally claim the US is their country, then, the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms is already defined.

Juan_Bottom wrote:"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is not a self-defining absolute.

Yes, it is.

Juan_Bottom wrote:The best example of what I'm trying to say is the first amendment, which states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
And this sounds like a self-defining absolute. But it's not either. You don't have the absolute Freedom to say whatever you want. You cannot defame a person with false slanders, and you cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, you cannot sell child porn, you cannot threaten to kill someone, you can't blast music at 3AM in a suburb, etc etc.History, b*tches


Except that, with each of your exceptions, there is a valid argument that it's not a peaceful assembly and so forth that means whatever your exceptions are, aren't even covered.

If you give false slanders, you're provoking, that's not peaceful. If you yell Fire! in crowded theatres, you're provoking, that's not peaceful. Likewise threatening to kill someone is provoking, not peaceful.

Are you trying to claim that child porn is a reasonable use of freedom of the press, and that that should usurp the need to protect children?

And blasting music at 3 a.m. isn't covered in this at all, because music isn't speech; no religion requires blasting music at 3 a.m. to worship their deity; by definition "the press" is written word, not radio, etc.

Bottom line, Juan, you may think you're refuting arguments just fine, but I think I can poke holes in your refutes... and just did so.

SirSebstar wrote:I come from a country with reasonably strict gun control. After the last incedent, i thought that removing guns would solve something. But then it got a chance to settle in my brain, and i am going to revert to my previous point of view.
Driving while intoxicated is attempted murder. Using a gun inappropriotly should carry a automatic life sentence. inappropriatly means shooting your sun when he comes home unannounced to a burgler shooting the family, to a cop shooting an unarmed minor in the back. basicly everything. yes you can have your gun, and you get to abuse it only once. It wont stop all abuse, but you never should get a chance to do it twice.


Agree with most of this except, I'd like to see some death penalties carried out for these acts of implied violence because I'm tired of my tax dollars going to house incorrigible criminals with their special privies, cable, eating better than those on foodstamps, free healthcare, etc., for 3 to 5 decades.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1424
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...
Medals: 57
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Bot Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (8)
Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (7)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Juan_Bottom on Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:30 pm

thegreekdog wrote:Okay, let me ask a related question regarding the First Amendment. When was it determined and who determined that the First Amendment was not absolute? When was it determined and who determined that the Second Amendment was to be interpreted the way it is currently interpreted? How was the amendment interpreted prior to 2008?

Point taken.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:
Juan wrote:You're seeing it here in this thread. I've answered everything that the pro-gun side has thrown at us. Posters, quotations, facts, arguments,.. I accepted the challenge from anything they could throw at me. Yet for 58 pages, they keep repeating the same retarded stuff over and over that I've already refuted.


From your perspective, perhaps- that of an altruist who believes in some moral obligation and responsibility to society and the population as a whole, who, as Saxi stated earlier, has never been outside of the auspices of law enforcement (or been under negligent law enforcement). Your proposal is silly and bespeaks your true designs- that of indignation which affronts you and so you react haphazardly. If you were truly against gun violence, you would be for complete gun banning and even 86'ing gun smiths, because your proposed 'let's stop manufacture of new handguns and fancy rifles but you can still purchase existing ones' idea won't do diddly. These disturbed people who shoot up schools and commit murder-suicides, do you think because they can't buy the latest shiny .38 will just say "Welp, guess I can't blow my lover's brains out, guess I'll take up whittling"?

But why are you concerned with just handguns and other firearms with high capacity? Shouldn't all gun perpetrated violence offend you? Or is it just some arbitrary number of gun-related deaths that tickles your fancy? You said that you wouldn't be opposed to shotguns, yet you can fit 9 shells in a Remington Model 870, and in close range a shotgun beats a handgun every time.

And before you start I'll lay this out: yeah, it's sad when these things happen, but you're right, I'm selfish and I don't really give two shits about others outside of my area and it isn't my problem.

-TG

When did you get all-Christiany? Why ask questions when your mind is already made up?
And why are all of you people being so heavily influenced by Saxi? He's an Anarchist-Communist caricature. This is ridiculous. Do you see me taking my cues from Mikey Mouse?

stahrgazer wrote:Interesting: "As our population continues to grow... the numbers of shootings are going to increase as well."

Why do you believe that a larger population has to mean more violence? You may be right, and if you are, maybe the government should be doing population control like China did, rather than banning guns.

I disagree with you that a lawsuit will cause public opinion to turn against guns. In fact, since all this hooplah started because of the most recent maniac, more people are buying than were before.

No, I only mean that if nothing is done we will continue to have the exact same problems we have now, but more people will be killed annually simply because there will be more of us.

I've read numbers as high as 65% of Americans are in favor of stiffer gun control.

stahrgazer wrote:Yes, it makes sense, but only when you remember, and as you said: they didn't feel they had to protect an individual's right to guns because THAT WAS A GIVEN.

And yet, here is our government trying to do what the British didn't even try to do, and you wonder why gun supporters are UP IN ARMS :lol:


Neither of these are arguments to make. My point was that if the second amendment was written for Militias &/or state's, then you can't cry "2nd Amendment rights!" Nobody in this thread knows anything about the history of the 2nd Amendment, save me I guess, and you guys are all going by what the Supreme Court said in it's 5-4 split decision in '08.

The right to bear arms was actually English to begin with. The Crown had no need to take arms away from loyal subjects living on the American frontier. But they did take them away from everyone in the UK who was not a Protestant. And English law only said that you could own a gun "as allowed by law." That was the extent... So even if you were a Protestant your guns could be regulated to death & taken away whenever.
Americans shaped the 2nd Amendment from the old English law. They knew that guns were necessary to protect freedom, and they also new that a standing army could be used as a tool of oppression. Their answer to this was to limit the size of our army to the absolute minimal, and then allow the states to run their own Militias. The Feds would keep the right to call upon the state Militias to serve as soldiers, but the State's were in charge of everything else. Each state was to elect officers, train their militia, and arm their militia.
You can see where this is going?
Alexander Hamilton*, Samuel Adams, and many others argued that anyone (except blacks I guess) who could fire a gun should be armed, and should be a member of their State Militia. These arguments of theirs make sense given the war period they lived in... they were all highly mistrustful of the government. Some states did not agree; New York, Maryland, Virginia, and Massachusetts did not include a right for all individuals to bear arms in their Constitutions, even though it was discussed. Instead they provided for their state Militias.
The first draft of the second amendment said:
A well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.


So I would argue that yes, individuals may own guns, but to do so they should be a part of a State Militia, with training and regulatin'.


*He later hypocritically raised a giant American army and attempted to attack Spanish Florida, which would have been a declaration of war against Napoleon (cool facts bro)

stahrgazer wrote:Except that, with each of your exceptions, there is a valid argument that it's not a peaceful assembly and so forth that means whatever your exceptions are, aren't even covered.

If you give false slanders, you're provoking, that's not peaceful. If you yell Fire! in crowded theatres, you're provoking, that's not peaceful. Likewise threatening to kill someone is provoking, not peaceful.

Are you trying to claim that child porn is a reasonable use of freedom of the press, and that that should usurp the need to protect children?

And blasting music at 3 a.m. isn't covered in this at all, because music isn't speech; no religion requires blasting music at 3 a.m. to worship their deity; by definition "the press" is written word, not radio, etc.

Bottom line, Juan, you may think you're refuting arguments just fine, but I think I can poke holes in your refutes... and just did so.


These are not my examples. These are all things that have been argued in court. And all of them were legal when this country was founded. Newspapers actually did make up lies about Jefferson and Adams and call for mobs to drag them into the street and hang them. This is why our 2nd president was also our first president with a dedicated guard. And I'd bet that it's at least partly responsible for the most controversial legislation a president ever signed; the Alien and Sedition Act. Every American should know this.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!
Medals: 21
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (3)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Juan_Bottom on Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:38 pm

What's been going on in America lately, Juan?

Police Shoot Armed Man in Calif. Movie Theater

Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun Measure (VIDEO)

Ted Nugent: Gun Owners Next Rosa Parks, Will Sit Down On 'Front Seat Of The Bus'

Biden's gun proposals will come on Tuesday, but for sure he is proposing to ban the sale of high-capacity clips and ending the Ronald-Reagan era gun show loophole.
I like that Joe Biden.

EDIT: and don't forget that last school shooter. A teacher talked him into laying down his weapon. Cool teachers.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!
Medals: 21
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (3)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby TA1LGUNN3R on Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:59 pm

Juan wrote:When did you get all-Christiany? Why ask questions when your mind is already made up?


What does Christianity have to do with this? I've made my distaste for religion clear in the past.

-TG
ImageEight-year olds, Dude.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class TA1LGUNN3R
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:52 am
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue
Medals: 5
Standard Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Juan_Bottom on Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:56 pm

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:
Juan wrote:When did you get all-Christiany? Why ask questions when your mind is already made up?


What does Christianity have to do with this? I've made my distaste for religion clear in the past.

-TG

I say that because you're doing what they do. You're acting like you're asking questions, but you're not open-minded enough to listen to the logical answers.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!
Medals: 21
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (3)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby stahrgazer on Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:08 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:Neither of these are arguments to make. My point was that if the second amendment was written for Militias &/or state's, then you can't cry "2nd Amendment rights!" Nobody in this thread knows anything about the history of the 2nd Amendment, save me I guess, and you guys are all going by what the Supreme Court said in it's 5-4 split decision in '08.


My point is, the only reason the wording might be ambiguous enough to be interpreted as meaning, "the right to have regulated militia" is because the individual's right to bear was already understood as THE PEOPLE so yes you most certainly CAN cry "2nd Amendment rights!"

As for what the yellow press did, what someone does, and what is legal, are not always the same. Take, for example, the maniac who shot up a kindergarten or first grade.... he did it. It wasn't legal. And when he did, he was ILLEGALLY in possession of some guns and ammo.

So, making more guns and ammo illegal isn't going to stop the maniacs.

Also, don't assume that because we don't interpret history with your skewed viewpoint must mean that we don't understand history. It might just mean we interpret it differently.

Your issue about the Supreme Court? Obviously, they are interpreting things differently themselves, otherwise there wouldn't be a "split decision" on it, now would there?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1424
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...
Medals: 57
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Bot Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (8)
Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (7)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Juan_Bottom on Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:18 pm

stahrgazer wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:Neither of these are arguments to make. My point was that if the second amendment was written for Militias &/or state's, then you can't cry "2nd Amendment rights!" Nobody in this thread knows anything about the history of the 2nd Amendment, save me I guess, and you guys are all going by what the Supreme Court said in it's 5-4 split decision in '08.


My point is, the only reason the wording might be ambiguous enough to be interpreted as meaning, "the right to have regulated militia" is because the individual's right to bear was already understood as THE PEOPLE so yes you most certainly CAN cry "2nd Amendment rights!"


"Understood" is not the same thing as lawful. It's 'understood' that all men are born free & equal, yet the founding fathers had no intentions of freeing the slaves, despite what the Constitution said. Later courts even determined that slaves were property and had no rights under the Constitution. So there are multiple ways to interpret each amendment, with no "absolutes. And also, that makes the founder's intentions important. But either way the argument goes, the executive branch does have the right to regulate firearms.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!
Medals: 21
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (3)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby TA1LGUNN3R on Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:24 am

Juan_Bottom wrote:
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:
Juan wrote:When did you get all-Christiany? Why ask questions when your mind is already made up?


What does Christianity have to do with this? I've made my distaste for religion clear in the past.

-TG

I say that because you're doing what they do. You're acting like you're asking questions, but you're not open-minded enough to listen to the logical answers.


Ah. Well, like I said, the answers are only 'logical' from your world-view, not of mine, and even then I find them contradictory. They are poor fixes and and the proposals you've made are counter to what you're advocating in general, and ultimately are knee-jerk reactions. My questions were perfectly valid.

-TG
ImageEight-year olds, Dude.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class TA1LGUNN3R
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:52 am
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue
Medals: 5
Standard Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1)

PreviousNext

Return to Don't Panic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Login