Hologram wrote:Going with the U.S. (as I assume that this what it's pointed to) the Constitution should be interpreted at face value. The 2nd Amendment isn't that ambiguous. We have the right to bear arms. The only area of ambiguity is how powerful the guns we allow people to have are. In my personal opinion, there shouldn't be control over that aspect. If someone wants to spend thousands of dollars on a .50 cal. machine gun bought from military surplus, they should be allowed to.
On that note however, I believe there should be gun control in the sense that we don't want just everyone running around with weapons. Background checks, permits, and the whole nine yards should be enforced so as not to put those .50 cal. machine guns into the hands of some crazed killer out to shoot hundreds of people just because.
Anyway, that's my argument, and I think I'm gonna go sleep now.
So nuclear weapons would be OK for people to own? For self0defence, obviously. What about cluster bombs?
Would the kids who shot up all those other kids in columbine, Virginia tech etc have been flagged up with background checks? Would their parents?
And woudl teh worl dbe a sfare place if everyone had guns? Even if aonly governmt-approved™ owners had guns, would that make it easier or harder for whackos to get hold of them?
If someone can either produce a nuclear bomb on their own or the military is stupid enough to sell one on the open market (stealing is still against the law and therefore if they obtain it that way they shouldn't have it) then I'm all for allowing them to have it. However, I would probably move far away from any urban areas.
You are wrong in that sense. I'm sorry, but there is literally no argument for allowing nuclear weapons. What the hell are they going to use it for? Anyways, while banning guns altogether is a bad call I'm for banning semi-automatic (and automatic, naturally) weaponry. Frankly, for the US at least, no matter what you realistically possess, the government has the technology to take you out from a mile away. If the government wanted to repress us they could. So the only thing those weapons will ever be used for is killing other humans en masse. Anything that isn't semi-automatic is sometimes used for hunting (and is more than enough for self defense) so should be allowed. That's just my two cents.
So, no paintball or airguns that are semi or fully automatic?
Haha, nope. That promotes violence just like video games and war movies.
The inflation rate in Zimbabwe just hit 4 million percent. Some people say it is only 165,000, but they are just being stupid. -Scott Adams, artist and writer of Dilbert
muy_thaiguy wrote:So, no Gettysburg, The 300 Spartans, Band of Brothers, or anything else?
Nope. Those all go against the Christian values of non-violence. Speaking of which, we need to amend the Constitution to ban all forms of violence in the media. In fact, let's get all lewd conduct banned everywhere.
The inflation rate in Zimbabwe just hit 4 million percent. Some people say it is only 165,000, but they are just being stupid. -Scott Adams, artist and writer of Dilbert
muy_thaiguy wrote:So, no Gettysburg, The 300 Spartans, Band of Brothers, or anything else?
Nope. Those all go against the Christian values of non-violence. Speaking of which, we need to amend the Constitution to ban all forms of violence in the media. In fact, let's get all lewd conduct banned everywhere.
Oh crap! It's past 11:30, I need to sit down and read the Bible!
muy_thaiguy wrote:So, no Gettysburg, The 300 Spartans, Band of Brothers, or anything else?
Nope. Those all go against the Christian values of non-violence. Speaking of which, we need to amend the Constitution to ban all forms of violence in the media. In fact, let's get all lewd conduct banned everywhere.
Oh crap! It's past 11:30, I need to sit down and read the Bible!
Quickly! We must amend the Constitution to fit the will of God. It's what he wants!
I mean honestly, it says right there in the 1st Amendment:
1st Amendment wrote:JESUS ROCKS!
The inflation rate in Zimbabwe just hit 4 million percent. Some people say it is only 165,000, but they are just being stupid. -Scott Adams, artist and writer of Dilbert
Harijan wrote:
Did a little research on my own. The Australia citation above is total bunk.
I'm glad you corrected yourself with that one. I live in Australia, (Victoria, infact, the one with 300% homicide increase?) I can't say I've ever come across violence created by the dangerously low number of guns that are around. Also, the gun buyback was about 12 or 13 years ago now, not 12 months. But whatever
Please keep in mind I did not author the original post. It turns out that the gun buyback in Australia was in the 1990s and it only involved semi-automatic and pump action guns. The post also fails to mention that owning guns down under is limited to people who use guns in their profession such as ranchers, hunters, and anyone who could demonstrate a need for owning the weapon was allowed to keep them.
The Victoria stat about homicides going up 300% is false. Homicides involving firearms only increased by 171% which appears to be alarming. However, the population of Victoria was ~4.5million in 1997. There were 7 gun related homicides in 1996 and 19 in 1997. Presenting such small numbers as a % increase is statistically dishonest.
The only legitimately reported fact concerning Australia is that assaults on the elderly increased by 12% the first year after the gun buyback and an additional 10% over the next two years.
Harijan wrote:Please keep in mind I did not author the original post. It turns out that the gun buyback in Australia was in the 1990s and it only involved semi-automatic and pump action guns. The post also fails to mention that owning guns down under is limited to people who use guns in their profession such as ranchers, hunters, and anyone who could demonstrate a need for owning the weapon was allowed to keep them.
The Victoria stat about homicides going up 300% is false. Homicides involving firearms only increased by 171% which appears to be alarming. However, the population of Victoria was ~4.5million in 1997. There were 7 gun related homicides in 1996 and 19 in 1997. Presenting such small numbers as a % increase is statistically dishonest.
The only legitimately reported fact concerning Australia is that assaults on the elderly increased by 12% the first year after the gun buyback and an additional 10% over the next two years.
Well done for this admission. We need more honesty like this when people know they've made factual errors.
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
Harijan wrote:Please keep in mind I did not author the original post. It turns out that the gun buyback in Australia was in the 1990s and it only involved semi-automatic and pump action guns. The post also fails to mention that owning guns down under is limited to people who use guns in their profession such as ranchers, hunters, and anyone who could demonstrate a need for owning the weapon was allowed to keep them.
The Victoria stat about homicides going up 300% is false. Homicides involving firearms only increased by 171% which appears to be alarming. However, the population of Victoria was ~4.5million in 1997. There were 7 gun related homicides in 1996 and 19 in 1997. Presenting such small numbers as a % increase is statistically dishonest.
The only legitimately reported fact concerning Australia is that assaults on the elderly increased by 12% the first year after the gun buyback and an additional 10% over the next two years.
Well done for this admission. We need more honesty like this when people know they've made factual errors.
I agree comrade. Perhaps our illustrious leader wicked could pass some more legislation at the moderator's politburo conference with party secretary Twildo concerning those suspected of spreading a dishonest and subversive siono-capitalist message.
Napoleon Ier wrote:I agree comrade. Perhaps our illustrious leader wicked could pass some more legislation at the moderator's politburo conference with party secretary Twildo concerning those suspected of spreading a dishonest and subversive siono-capitalist message.
Shouldn't you be off practising your best handwriting or something?
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
Napoleon Ier wrote:I agree comrade. Perhaps our illustrious leader wicked could pass some more legislation at the moderator's politburo conference with party secretary Twildo concerning those suspected of spreading a dishonest and subversive siono-capitalist message.
Shouldn't you be off practising your best handwriting or something?
I dunno, shouldn't you be off doing whatever fascinating, "real-life experience" related job you do?
...What's that? You are wanking with a copy of "The Crusades from an Arab Perspective" you got last Christmas in your left-hand and a tub of KFC's super meal-deal next to you as you type?
