Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/17/06 08:00 PM, SteelSwilla wrote:

At 3/17/06 07:33 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote:

How about a bazooka? (Awwww, too much firepower, princess?)

I'm just teasing you. I think you make an excellent point about murder as a form of self-defense being unnecessary.

At 3/17/06 07:33 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote:

No, because I've heard this argument before and it makes no sense. Regulating guns further will make it harder for legal firearm buyers to get their guns. Whereas those who don't care about the rules, still don't follow them.

It does make perfect sense. Where do you think these "Illegal" firearms come from? Nobody's going to bother importing them when they can get them in gun stores. Getting rid of guns means a lot of criminals will still be armed, but not as many. You shouldn't need a lethal weapon to defend yourself, anyway, it works out more dangerous to you and your loved ones in the long run. Invest in a pellet gun or taser. You don't need to KILL someone for it to be self defense.

LOL do you have any concept of how things work? Trust me you aren't going to be stopping a potential murder by shooting them with a pellet gun. As for tasers they either require one to be within arms reach, or they require probes to attach to the target, which is a difficult task espically considering that you only have one shot.

Less then leathal altenatives are less then reliable, why do you think police officiers only use less then leathal weapons in special cases? It's because it's the most effective way to stop a dangerous invididuals.

Not to mention that one of the biggest reasons for gun control is to prevent accidental injury and death, not necessarily murder.

At 3/17/06 07:33 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: It does make perfect sense. Where do you think these "Illegal" firearms come from? Nobody's going to bother importing them when they can get them in gun stores. Getting rid of guns means a lot of criminals will still be armed, but not as many. You shouldn't need a lethal weapon to defend yourself, anyway, it works out more dangerous to you and your loved ones in the long run. Invest in a pellet gun or taser. You don't need to KILL someone for it to be self defense.

Getting rid of access to new guns will in no way shape or form affect those who have guns. And adding new hoops to jump through does not affect those who steal weapons (which is becoming more prevalent), nor those who have weapons, or illegal ways to get them. You have ONE shot with a tazer, and if your miss, you're screwed. And piss on a pellet gun. It hurts, but it's not enough to really stop someone. Especially someone on drugs. If it's my family, I'm killing the intruder. My family comes before some stranger who has the intent to rob and/or hurt us. And I take no chances with their lives. He goes down, he stays down.

Not to mention that one of the biggest reasons for gun control is to prevent accidental injury and death, not necessarily murder.

And yet, the numbers don't go down with new legislation. Fascinating.

SO......

Oh that reminds me,
1) get the M16 with M203 nade launcher
2)add laser and silencer to M9
3)replace kevlar
4) pick up dry cleaning

Without guns we'd be no better than those pansy-ass hippies.

Most gun owners are completely lawful citizens and own them/store them completely within the law. Gun control doesn't do jack shit, the criminal is still getting the freaking weapon.

What are you going to do; ban cars, kitchen knives, etc.

ban guns, etc. You're proving his point.

At 3/18/06 01:40 PM, MindControlFun wrote:

What are you going to do; ban cars, kitchen knives, etc.

ban guns, etc. You're proving his point.

How could I possibly be proving his point?
Guns are inanimate objects........ just like all those other objects. My point is, if guns NEVER existed, people would STILL get murdered! Guns are not demonic objects that put murderous intent into a decent person's mind. If you don't address the issue of a murderous mentality, the world will continue to reman an Fd-up place to be.

Guns are inanimate objects........ just like all those other objects. My point is, if guns NEVER existed, people would STILL get murdered! Guns are not demonic objects that put murderous intent into a decent person's mind. If you don't address the issue of a murderous mentality, the world will continue to reman an Fd-up place to be.

Nukes are inanimate objects...just like all those other objects. My point is, if nukes NEVER existed, people would STILL get mass murdered! Nukes are not demonic objects that put mass murderous intent into a decent person's mind. If you don't address the issue of a mass murderous mentality, the world will continue to remain an f-d up place to be.

By your logic, should we give people nukes?

I'm not proposing that you can't own a shotgun or a hunting rifle! I'm saying that potentially concealable weapons (i.e. pistols) should be illegal and not manufactured for civillian use any more and the same goes for assault weapons (M16, CAR-15 etc.)

At 3/17/06 08:09 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 3/17/06 07:33 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote:

If it's my family, I'm killing the intruder. My family comes before some stranger who has the intent to rob and/or hurt us. And I take no chances with their lives. He goes down, he stays down.

That would be justifiable homicide, so you'd beat the murder charge on a technicality. Just to err on the side of the law, though, aim for his limbs.

At 3/18/06 04:25 PM, Begoner wrote:

Guns are inanimate objects........ just like all those other objects. My point is, if guns NEVER existed, people would STILL get murdered! Guns are not demonic objects that put murderous intent into a decent person's mind. If you don't address the issue of a murderous mentality, the world will continue to reman an Fd-up place to be.

Nukes are inanimate objects...just like all those other objects. My point is, if nukes NEVER existed, people would STILL get mass murdered! Nukes are not demonic objects that put mass murderous intent into a decent person's mind. If you don't address the issue of a mass murderous mentality, the world will continue to remain an f-d up place to be.

By your logic, should we give people nukes?

LOL .............. Once again, your ignorance amuses me. We are NOT talkng about giving people weapons. We are talking about the ridiculous notion that if you BAN or take away peoples guns (legtimate self-defense tools, compared to nukes wich are not) then violent crimes, such as homicide or murder, WILL continue! Since the real problem of MENTALITY or MURDEROUS INTENT is being ignored, in favor of blaming inanimate objects as the cause of violence in Society. To me, it's a completely ridiculous idea. That was the point that I was illustrating in my post. Not a hard concept to understand....... Well, except for you, obviously.

At 3/18/06 05:14 PM, Gunnery_Sergeant wrote: I'm not proposing that you can't own a shotgun or a hunting rifle! I'm saying that potentially concealable weapons (i.e. pistols) should be illegal and not manufactured for civillian use any more and the same goes for assault weapons (M16, CAR-15 etc.)

Once again, only violent criminals will continue to own and use handguns. Since they don't give a damn about Gun-control laws! (How difficult of a concept is that to understand)?

Under your idea, people would be safe......... until they go outside; where they can't take a concealable weapon for self-protection.

Since the real problem of MENTALITY or MURDEROUS INTENT

Let's say I wanted to kill 10000 people. Could I do that without a nuke? Let's say I wanted to shoot up a school. Could I do that with a knife, or would I need a gun? Guns don't kill people; they just make it a lot easier to. The mentality is nothing without the means.

At 3/18/06 11:28 PM, Begoner wrote:

Since the real problem of MENTALITY or MURDEROUS INTENT

Let's say I wanted to kill 10000 people. Could I do that without a nuke? Let's say I wanted to shoot up a school. Could I do that with a knife, or would I need a gun? Guns don't kill people; they just make it a lot easier to. The mentality is nothing without the means.

Let's say they did ban guns, and I still wanted to kill a bunch of people at school, or anywhere for that matter. All I have to do is make a bomb, it's realtivley to make using a propane tank and with instructions from the internet. Using that I could kill a lot more people then you could using a gun, so does that mean you should ban propane tanks? I mean if somebody really wants to go commit a murder, or even a mass murder they'll find a way to do it.

At 3/17/06 12:23 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 3/17/06 03:21 AM, WolvenBear wrote: A better example is a can of spray paint. It has a purpose. To paint things.

Blah blah blah. Add something to the conversation, I've heard all of this before. You do realize the purpose of a firearm, right? It's to kill things. Yes, people might shoot at targets. But the primary and original purpose was to kill. It is nothing like a spray can. When you use a gun to shoot and kill a person, you're using it for its original purpose.

I've noticed you take from the stick fingers in ear and ignore everything school of debate. Seriously I've never seen you once adress anything directly, you always seem to ignore whatevers been said play it off and just spout whatever it is you really want to say. It's like you're reading your next reply from somewhere and you can't adapt to anything changing in a conversation. Some people I find just anoying and I can deal with that, but for some reason every post I've ever read from you gives me that feeling like listening to some annoying 14 year old and trying my best not to punch him in the face.

wonder y there is guns....if there is no guns there will not be people being shot....wad a mystery!!

At 3/18/06 09:13 PM, Monocrom wrote:

At 3/18/06 05:14 PM, Gunnery_Sergeant wrote: I'm not proposing that you can't own a shotgun or a hunting rifle! I'm saying that potentially concealable weapons (i.e. pistols) should be illegal and not manufactured for civillian use any more and the same goes for assault weapons (M16, CAR-15 etc.)

Once again, only violent criminals will continue to own and use handguns. Since they don't give a damn about Gun-control laws! (How difficult of a concept is that to understand)?

I recognize your argument. I hear it all the time. But if we stop the MANUFACTURE of these guns except for the police and the military, it's certainly BETTER than before. And criminals will have guns, sure. Yes, I know that. But, I'm sure that LESS criminals will have guns because there will be less NEW guns on the market. Less manufacturing=less guns on the market. Less guns on the market=less criminals who can get new or their first gun.

Under your idea, people would be safe......... until they go outside; where they can't take a concealable weapon for self-protection.

In the United States, rates of violent crimes have gone DOWN. People are SAFER!

At 3/18/06 11:42 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 3/16/06 10:13 PM, 1WingedDragon wrote: It's ironic how most liberals want to take away a person's right to bare arms.

No, Democrats want to do that, liberals embrace guns.

No, liberals don't support the "right" to BEAR arms. By the way, it's not a right, at least, if you look at it in context or without the NRA's editing.

At 3/20/06 06:07 AM, Mr_Mystezi wrote: wonder y there is guns....if there is no guns there will not be people being shot....wad a mystery!!

Okay, then people would get stabbed, run over with cars, beaten to death, or blown up with pipe-bombs; instead! ..........

The real mystery is why a 14 year-old would post in a topic that he clearly knows nothing about.

At 3/20/06 07:08 AM, Gunnery_Sergeant wrote: By the way, it's not a right, at least, if you look at it in context or without the NRA's editing.

The context of the Bill of Rights doesn't make it a right? Explain please.

"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."

Let's break it down:

"A well regulated militia". That refers to an ORGANIZED militia, like the national guard. "being necessary to the security of a free state." I.E. we need an organized militia. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Which means that we can have guns if we're members of an organized militia. So, therefore, let's look at it a little more. No member of the national guard, to my knowledge, keeps a government issue M-16A2 in their house. They have them at armories. So there you go.

At 3/20/06 04:21 PM, Gunnery_Sergeant wrote: Which means that we can have guns if we're members of an organized militia.

If that's the case, then why does it read "the people" and not "the militia?"

I think it's because people can join a militia.

.....
Do you understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment?

If that's the case, then why does it read "the people" and not "the militia?"

I think the whole 2nd Amendment was a big practical joke. They knew that guns would become a big issue in a couple of centuries, so they used extremely vague wording so that no one could understand what they were really trying to say. I mean, come on, it's not even a complete sentence.

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.

That's a sentence and a half right there -- a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...please, go on. You can't end a sentence without a verb. They purposely did this to mess with our minds. If they wanted to be clear, they could have said either:

the right of the people to join an armed militia, being necesary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed upon or the right of the people to bear arms or join the militia, being necesary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed upon. But, no, they were intentionally unclear. They probably laughed their heads off when they wrote that. Either that, or they were very high.

At 3/20/06 05:53 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: .....
Do you understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment?

Yes. To ensure that the federal government did not infringe upon the right of the citizens to keep and be...Almost had me there. To be part of organized, state run militias (subject to the final authority of the feds, of course)

Yes. To ensure that the federal government did not infringe upon the right of the citizens to keep and be...Almost had me there. To be part of organized, state run militias (subject to the final authority of the feds, of course)

The point of it was to ensure that the federal government does not usurp the power of state governments. To make sure that there cannot be a dictatorship, the military might of the US was spread out to the different states. Each state militia could act independently of the national army and the other state armies. If the federal government tried to get all the power, the state militias could fight against it. The federal government was never supposed to have any control whatsoever over the state militias.

At 3/20/06 05:54 PM, Begoner wrote:

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.

Here's a well regulated militiahttp://www.miciganmilitia.com/

At 3/20/06 06:04 PM, SteelSwilla wrote:

At 3/20/06 05:54 PM, Begoner wrote:

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.

Here's a well regulated militiahttp://www.michiganmilitia.com/

*sighs* misspelled michiganhttp://www.michiganmilitia.com/