Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/23/06 08:46 PM, EKublai wrote:

Conveniently, age 18 is when you can legally own a rifle.

Don't see the relevance because that's also the age that you're not a minor anymore and are therefore subject to the death penalty, joining the army, legally smoking cigarrettes, driving, owning a rifle, people go off to college, yadayadayada, it's the age of responsibility being thrust upon you... Just knowledge from me and my friends personal experiences.

The knowledge that if you possess a fire arm legally and licensed, you will take the time to learn how to use it. If you don't learn how, and something happens, you have no one to blame but yourself, and no gun rights supporter is going to be on your side for committing a crime with a gun, injuring or killing someone through careless use of a gun, or hurting yourself because of ignorance towards how a gun operates.

Just cuz the law says doesn't mean it's followed. This goes especially for hunting where the probability of you getting caught by law enforcment, park rangers, or other is drastically reduced. Five of my friends have been going to Montana to hunt since they were 10 every summer. I don't know how old you have to be to get a permit, but that's definitely never been an issue for them since there is not enough law enforcement to watch their every move.

I don't stand behind their actions, and I highly doubt many gun advocates would. We stand behind those who follow the laws, not those who break them or find sneaky ways to get around them. Now, hunting as a child can be a great experience if you are with adults who are trained and responsible, and are willing to explain to you the ins and outs of gun handling. It's a proud tradition in our country. But those who do not follow the law should not expect to find any support from those who seek to defend the rights of responsible owners.

Smith and Wesson imports its guns? Remington imports its guns? Winchester imports its guns? And here I thought these were American industries.

Save the outsourcing arguments for a different thread.

You made some weird crack about importing guns. None of these companies are import guns, and they are among the largest companies in the nation dealing in firearms and firearm supply. They are a major source of law enforcement weapons and supply, and have an incredibly significant impact on the economy of the nation, enough to have their own industry on international stock markets and an exclusive index on the American markets. The gun industry isn't run by a bunch of hicks with pickup trucks.

If they legally own the gun and then commit a crime with it, they go to jail and don't get to own guns anymore.

That's frighteningly inaccurate Im afraid. Many cases in Chicago go cold because guns are traced back to owners, not the actual killers.

No one is defending the right of criminals to own illegal guns or use them in crimes. In fact, others and myself strongly support getting rid of a lot of bureaucratic red tape that hinders the abilities of law enforcement to effectively raid illegal deals and keep illegal guns off the streets. However, the responsible gun owners in this coutnry should not be punished for the actions of a minority of people who intend to perpetuate an illegal trade.

Restricting an entire nation because of the misguided actions of one is collective punishment of the worst form.

If the punishment is the saved life of another human being than I accept it.

Sadly, that's not how the majority rule of the United States works, as much as misguided idealism might lead you to believe so.

I'm not entirely against guns, they're are exhilerating to watch in movies because we know they're real life threats. I'm not sure about the inner working of achieving hunting licenses, but for the love of god I hope it's a difficult procedure that has lots of security protocol behind it.

The hunting license isn't difficult, since you already presumably own a gun, bow, or some other tool for hunting at that point. It's the buying the gun that requires some background checks and a waiting period for your name to be run through law enforcement filters.

My main point is, is I don't think ANYONE besides military, law enforcement, and other governmental bodies should have the right to own guns if they first don't have a well-deserved hunting license. It would make me belive a person's intent more.

That's completely counter to one of the founding ideas of our nation.

it's actually very lucrative because the law states that the illegal gun dealer is not responsible for any gun violence carried out by the new owner. There is a heavy fine believe it. And jail time for criminal dealing. But in reality it's a very good way of making a good profit without showing "1st degree murder" on their background check.

As I said, no one is defending criminal dealers.

I actually live on one of the most populated areas in the country, about 20 minutes south of Washington D.C., despite your attempts to label gun owners as backwoods hicks.

I wasn't using the word "you" in actually describing you since of course I have no idea who you are. I live in downtown Chicago. The third most populated city in the country. And I'm not labeling gun owners as backwoods hick. I'm labeling the majority of hunters as backwoods hicks because most of them already live in the place where they hunt.

How many hunters have you actually met in downtown Chicago that would allow you to so effectively smear an entire population of people? Just because you use the word "most" to water down your insult to gun owners and hunters doesn't make it any more excusable that you're writing off hunters as hicks.

At 7/23/06 08:46 PM, EKublai wrote:

sorry forgot to do the first part. PM me if you want to continue this.

And it is right to legislate morality in this case, but not in the case of abortion or gay marriage?

No. your right. my bad. But still I'm talking about something that more has to do with the human life. No doubt abortion and hunting can be simplified to read out as, "The taking of a life that is all but powerless." Hunting could be called playing god. But we can't do that because then a slaughterhouse would be playing god. That's why I think it's more important to legalize things that are relative to a person's life and their right to choose their own lifesytle and illegalize things that damage THEM unnessesarily. Now you could call me a hypocrite because some call hunting a lifestyle. But I don't think so. Whether you call it a sport, lifestyle, means of getting meat (the only justifyable use for hunting) it is first and foremost, ever since we declared ourselves rulers of the world and had enought eat to make our bellies full... It's a hobby. A hobby that to a point is as unnessessary as stamp collecting. The only reason we don't outlaw stamp collecting is because stamps are not as famous for killing other people and animals as guns are.

:That still doesn't explain why Amendment 2 is so strictly interpreted by liberal groups while they allow the broadest of interpretations of the other 9.

That's why liberals are called liberals. Because they have opinions that are strangely enough. Liberal and pro-more people power less government. We tend to limit things that stand for what we believe to be a greater (notice I'm not saying conservative don't either) But liberals also like change. Update what's been outdated as we believe the 2nd amendment is outdated for the times. Conservatives may also agree that some of the amendment likes the 4th are slightly outdated, but for liberals the greater is not usually US, but THEM. See it goes like this in the priority list. US is the American people, them is what was here before us, namely the environment, the old relics with valuable history and foresight for the future. Those guys are the ones that we try to help. Enemies are obvious.

1. US - THEM
2. Those Guys- Enemies

for conservatives it seems to be

1. US- Enemies
2. Those Guys
3. THEM

That's why we argue I guess.

It says it very clearly, "The right to bear arms," short for sidearms such as rifles and pistols.

I'm not trying to knock down (because I'm actually curious) do you have a source for that interpretation. Specifically from the supreme court?

No protection value to a handgun? What?

A handgun is, without, a doubt the worst weapon for protection. Inaccurate, liable for breaking, and most of all, are too small. Why? because although they are convenient to hold with thier lighter weight, consider that the first action to protect with a gun should not be to kill, but to threaten and scareaway, same as an alarm system. Handguns are infamously inaccurate and cause most of the fatal home shootings you hear about. Also, the bullets of the guns are too powerful. Recently, there was a case where a sister accidently shot her brother at home with their parents handgun. The bullet first went through the boys head at close range, through their window, through their neighbor's window and hitting the neighbor's wife. Also they are more prone than any other gun to break down or possibly even backfire when damaged or gotten wet.

Any source for this, or are you just spewing it out your ass?

You're just trying to get me to say something about the washington D.C snipers or Columbine and Michegan and all the other disasterous shootings. You can't wait so you can do your "cliche dance." whatever that's your opinion. I believe that it is not that hard to shoot a gun, if it was people wouldn't be dying from them, therefore it's not very time-consuming in learning to shoot many different kinds. But in answer to your question, no I have no direct source, but it's definitely not a spew.

At 7/23/06 09:28 PM, EKublai wrote:

At 7/23/06 08:46 PM, EKublai wrote:

Now you could call me a hypocrite because some call hunting a lifestyle. But I don't think so. Whether you call it a sport, lifestyle, means of getting meat (the only justifyable use for hunting) it is first and foremost, ever since we declared ourselves rulers of the world and had enought eat to make our bellies full...

I don't see it as your right, or any one person's right, or any committee's right, to say what is a justifiable lifestyle for an American citizen. To do that stretches so far beyond what was intended by the Constitution. Given the rich history of America's hunting life, I would not hesitate to say that for many it is a lifestyle.

That still doesn't explain why Amendment 2 is so strictly interpreted by liberal groups while they allow the broadest of interpretations of the other 9.

That's why liberals are called liberals. Because they have opinions that are strangely enough. Liberal and pro-more people power less government.

Yeah, tell FDR that. Some of the greatest expansions in government power have come from liberal presidents and programs.

See it goes like this in the priority list. US is the American people, them is what was here before us, namely the environment, the old relics with valuable history and foresight for the future. Those guys are the ones that we try to help. Enemies are obvious.

Even though the majority of the American people support the right to own a gun, you're going to go against them because, in truth, the foundaiton for this argument isn't that liberal gun control advocates support the people, but only the people who agree with them.

It says it very clearly, "The right to bear arms," short for sidearms such as rifles and pistols.

I'm not trying to knock down (because I'm actually curious) do you have a source for that interpretation. Specifically from the supreme court?

America's Constitution, Akhil Amar.

No protection value to a handgun? What?

A handgun is, without, a doubt the worst weapon for protection. Inaccurate, liable for breaking, and most of all, are too small. Why? because although they are convenient to hold with thier lighter weight, consider that the first action to protect with a gun should not be to kill, but to threaten and scareaway, same as an alarm system.

Mm, no one has ever complained that a .45 caliber Smith and Wesson handgun was too small to protect the home.

Recently, there was a case where a sister accidently shot her brother at home with their parents handgun. The bullet first went through the boys head at close range, through their window, through their neighbor's window and hitting the neighbor's wife.

The parents ought to be held strictly liable for it, same as a drunk kid getting into a car crash. No reason to ban guns for those of us who know how to keep, handle and use them.

Any source for this, or are you just spewing it out your ass?

I believe that it is not that hard to shoot a gun, if it was people wouldn't be dying from them, therefore it's not very time-consuming in learning to shoot many different kinds. But in answer to your question, no I have no direct source, but it's definitely not a spew.

You think it's justified to push legislation based on beliefs? That's not how it's supposed to work. You're welcome to try and pick up a .50 caliber rifle and try to hit the target with it, much less a moving target as small as a turkey or as angular as a deer.

At 7/22/06 05:33 PM, Lettuceclock wrote:

:If you can really think of some other use of a gun that would account for 51% of all it's action, I will suck you here and now.

100% of the bullets fired from my guns have all been fired at nonliving targets. Is 100% bigger than 51%? It is? zipppp Open wide.

Lots of my bullets have been fired at living targets, but they've got four legs and most of them get away.

At 7/23/06 09:39 PM, Der_Pandar wrote:

At 7/23/06 09:28 PM, EKublai wrote:

I don't see it as your right, or any one person's right, or any committee's right, to say what is a justifiable lifestyle for an American citizen. To do that stretches so far beyond what was intended by the Constitution. Given the rich history of America's hunting life, I would not hesitate to say that for many it is a lifestyle.

However, I do see it as the right of the country's democratic position. Now, if you're going to tell me that the majority of Americans will take your position, they want more liberal gun laws, then I'm going to have to accept that. But I do believe that democracy has the right to change a lifestyle, and I'm talking abut any case, abortion, gay marriage, or gun laws. But I also believe in the procedures conducted in congress and senate such as needing 2/3 of the vote to create/erase an amendment. I agree that the Constitution i sconstantly stretched, but that is only because it's been around so long. These days, people want specificity more than anything as do I. I think that we can't let the 10th amendment get in the way of updating amendments that haven't been changed since it was ratified.

Also the only Supreme Court case that I'm aware of that has to do with this, U.S vs. Miller, the court held that the right to own a gun is a collective and not an individuals right.

Yeah, tell FDR that. Some of the greatest expansions in government power have come from liberal presidents and programs.

Please don't say that americans are similar to americans then. Today, America is two-fold more leftist as a whole in all points of argument. Conservatism and Liberalism have taken on entirely new meanings. And FDR is not the meaning of today's liberalism.

Even though the majority of the American people support the right to own a gun, you're going to go against them because, in truth, the foundaiton for this argument isn't that liberal gun control advocates support the people, but only the people who agree with them.

Let me make it clear once again that I am am not supporting the banning of all guns. Sorry I'm not really following what you're saying here.

America's Constitution, Akhil Amar.

You mean his re-written constitution. His stance for the constitution is for a grammatical interpretation of the 2nd amendment that because of the times back in, the purpose of people to have the right to bear arms was in order to overthrow a tyrannical government if one should arise. That's found here. His statements of protecting the 2nd amendment with the 14th are contridictory because even then he does no state a distinction within the amendment between individual arms, collective arms, and ordnances.

Mm, no one has ever complained that a .45 caliber Smith and Wesson handgun was too small to protect the home.

That's because they don't need to complain if their shooting at a person sneaking into their house. The fact is, is that a handgun's main use is or killing other people, or injuring them. This should not be the first response to people who you may have no idea what they're doing. The fact that the shells that come with the handguns can do so much damage with such little accuracy leads to disaster

The parents ought to be held strictly liable for it, same as a drunk kid getting into a car crash. No reason to ban guns for those of us who know how to keep, handle and use them.

and yet how are we supposed to know who those people are? If you really want things like that to stop happening, then stop putting arms dealers in highly populated urban areas where people don't care about learning how to use it properly. Instead of basing Remington in New York, how about somewhere more rural. How about instead of basing Smith and Wesson in Massachusetts they take it somewhere more rural. Why does it seem that the majority of the biggest arms manufactuers base themselves in the highly populated urban zones? I have a feeling that a lot of these companys are less concerned whether the right to bear arms protects people rather than their businesses.

You think it's justified to push legislation based on beliefs? That's not how it's supposed to work. You're welcome to try and pick up a .50 caliber rifle and try to hit the target with it, much less a moving target as small as a turkey or as angular as a deer.

I'm not justifying it because it is not the basis of my argument. It's to argue since I'm more against handguns and pistol revolvers than rifles. Those, I'm afraid are used everyday in crime and that's why handguns need to be stopped. Handguns are involved in the majority of criminal shootings

At 7/24/06 02:34 PM, EKublai wrote:

At 7/23/06 09:39 PM, Der_Pandar wrote:

At 7/23/06 09:28 PM, EKublai wrote:

I don't see it as your right, or any one person's right, or any committee's right, to say what is a justifiable lifestyle for an American citizen. To do that stretches so far beyond what was intended by the Constitution. Given the rich history of America's hunting life, I would not hesitate to say that for many it is a lifestyle.

However, I do see it as the right of the country's democratic position. Now, if you're going to tell me that the majority of Americans will take your position, they want more liberal gun laws, then I'm going to have to accept that. But I do believe that democracy has the right to change a lifestyle, and I'm talking abut any case, abortion, gay marriage, or gun laws.

So backing away from your comment that liberals favor the people over the government, you're now flip-flopping and saying that liberals favor the government as a tool to change the people, even when a majority of the people agree with a lifestyle or choice, such as gun ownership, by as much as 70%. That sounds quite like steamrolling the majority for the agenda of the few.

. These days, people want specificity more than anything as do I.

I'm glad you are the representative of 300 million people.

America's Constitution, Akhil Amar.

You mean his re-written constitution. His stance for the constitution is for a grammatical interpretation of the 2nd amendment that because of the times back in, the purpose of people to have the right to bear arms was in order to overthrow a tyrannical government if one should arise. That's found here. His statements of protecting the 2nd amendment with the 14th are contridictory because even then he does no state a distinction within the amendment between individual arms, collective arms, and ordnances.

Wow, excellent use of Wikipedia.

Mm, no one has ever complained that a .45 caliber Smith and Wesson handgun was too small to protect the home.

That's because they don't need to complain if their shooting at a person sneaking into their house. The fact is, is that a handgun's main use is or killing other people, or injuring them.

Or target shooting, game hunting or collecting, but continue on.

This should not be the first response to people who you may have no idea what they're doing. The fact that the shells that come with the handguns can do so much damage with such little accuracy leads to disaster

The vast, vast majority of legal gun owners have taken the time to learn how to properly use their weapons. Saying that they don't know what they're doing is like going over to India and telling them not to fire walk because you think it isn't safe.

The parents ought to be held strictly liable for it, same as a drunk kid getting into a car crash. No reason to ban guns for those of us who know how to keep, handle and use them.

and yet how are we supposed to know who those people are? If you really want things like that to stop happening, then stop putting arms dealers in highly populated urban areas where people don't care about learning how to use it properly.

How do we know who these people are? The people with kids who have holes in their heads, that would be a decent start.

Instead of basing Remington in New York, how about somewhere more rural. How about instead of basing Smith and Wesson in Massachusetts they take it somewhere more rural. Why does it seem that the majority of the biggest arms manufactuers base themselves in the highly populated urban zones? I have a feeling that a lot of these companys are less concerned whether the right to bear arms protects people rather than their businesses.

I see, so it's not so much "The People" you're exalting as some kind of complete government Socialism. Telling private companies where they can locate, what they can sell, who they can sell it to, all through the power of the government. Because government knows best, of course, and is always looking out for our best interests. The truth comes out.

You think it's justified to push legislation based on beliefs? That's not how it's supposed to work. You're welcome to try and pick up a .50 caliber rifle and try to hit the target with it, much less a moving target as small as a turkey or as angular as a deer.

I'm not justifying it because it is not the basis of my argument. It's to argue since I'm more against handguns and pistol revolvers than rifles. Those, I'm afraid are used everyday in crime and that's why handguns need to be stopped. Handguns are involved in the majority of criminal shootings

The vast majority of handgun crimes are committed by criminals who don't own them legally or have dealt in the black market. You want to lower gun crime, go after those black markets that crop up all over Chicago because your honorable police forces are still in the pocket of corrupt groups.

At 7/23/06 08:13 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:
As well as http://www.nra-kkk.org/

Now that, sir, is a bastion of objective research.

You all do realize that the second ammendment is your right to stand up to a corrupt government without breaking a law. It allows us to break away if they take too much, forcibly if need be. If the government says we can't have a gun for our own safety, how do we fight an army of armed profesional soldiers, if they get to overbearng. Taking our ability to fight back is no way to ensure that the government won't strip our other liberties.

At 7/29/06 10:19 PM, zendahl wrote: You all do realize that the second ammendment is your right to stand up to a corrupt government without breaking a law. It allows us to break away if they take too much, forcibly if need be. If the government says we can't have a gun for our own safety, how do we fight an army of armed profesional soldiers, if they get to overbearng. Taking our ability to fight back is no way to ensure that the government won't strip our other liberties.

You do realize that no amount of guns is going to ensure our liberty. The militray vs the american people. The people stand no chance at all. None. We stand less chance than zero. We have a negative chance to win.

At 7/31/06 11:51 PM, Occluded wrote:

You do realize that no amount of guns is going to ensure our liberty. The militray vs the american people. The people stand no chance at all. None. We stand less chance than zero. We have a negative chance to win.

if the government got THAT bad, then most people wouldn't even be in the army, and many of them would rebel. soldiers are people too.

At 7/31/06 11:51 PM, Occluded wrote:

At 7/29/06 10:19 PM, zendahl wrote: You all do realize that the second ammendment is your right to stand up to a corrupt government without breaking a law. It allows us to break away if they take too much, forcibly if need be. If the government says we can't have a gun for our own safety, how do we fight an army of armed profesional soldiers, if they get to overbearng. Taking our ability to fight back is no way to ensure that the government won't strip our other liberties.

You do realize that no amount of guns is going to ensure our liberty. The militray vs the american people. The people stand no chance at all. None. We stand less chance than zero. We have a negative chance to win.

100 million armed to the teeth americans not to mention invariable deserters if they were forced to attack their own countrymen. you see all the more reason to allow bazookas to be sold to the public.

At 7/31/06 11:51 PM, Occluded wrote:

At 7/29/06 10:19 PM, zendahl wrote:

You do realize that no amount of guns is going to ensure our liberty. The militray vs the american people. The people stand no chance at all. None. We stand less chance than zero. We have a negative chance to win.

1 million soldiers against over 200 million Americans? We've surpassed higher odds.

At 7/25/06 02:57 PM, Der_Pandar wrote:

At 7/23/06 08:13 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:
As well as http://www.nra-kkk.org/

Now that, sir, is a bastion of objective research.

what bradycampaign isnt? lol

At 7/31/06 11:55 PM, DarthTomato wrote:

At 7/31/06 11:51 PM, Occluded wrote:

You do realize that no amount of guns is going to ensure our liberty. The militray vs the american people. The people stand no chance at all. None. We stand less chance than zero. We have a negative chance to win.

if the government got THAT bad, then most people wouldn't even be in the army, and many of them would rebel. soldiers are people too.

a) THAT bad = not THAT obvious.
b) An organized and trained minority will beat a preoccupied majority any day.
c) Would they rebel as an entire unit complete with command structure and military equipment?
d) Doesn't this kinda prove my point? That the only thing that could save us from our own military would be factions of our own military?

At 8/1/06 12:04 AM, Occluded wrote:

b) An organized and trained minority will beat a preoccupied majority any day.

I've heard that somewhere before...

I can't help but feel that people who want to take away people's rights to bare arms are a bunch of Hitlerites. That's just my feeling, though.

pretty sure they liked guns.

At 8/1/06 01:14 AM, IgnorantSentient wrote: pretty sure they liked guns.

They were trying to take away gun ownership from civilians.

Compulsory Gun Ownership and training. An armed society is a polit society. If someone tries to pull some shit, someone else will blow their ass to pieces.

This thread's kinda pissing me off, rather people who are against gun ownership are. If you don't like guns than don't buy one. Don't try and tell the rest of us we can't, fucking fascists.

At 8/1/06 01:14 AM, IgnorantSentient wrote: pretty sure they liked guns.

That's why you failed History.

At 8/1/06 12:04 AM, Occluded wrote:

b) An organized and trained minority will beat a preoccupied majority any day.

.... Vietnam?

c) Would they rebel as an entire unit complete with command structure and military equipment?

naturally no, but, the amount of people in the army that would refuse to fight, or downright fight back against the government would put a supreme hamper on the military.

d) Doesn't this kinda prove my point? That the only thing that could save us from our own military would be factions of our own military?

Simply put, the local population has the element of surprise. the american populace is probably better armed than the taliban... except we don't have anti tank rockets.

if a civil war broke out, who knows what could happen. france could invade (riiiight), or hell, the entirity of the EU might attack america and make it a "territory". a civil war would make america VERY weak and easy to invade, i don't think the government would risk such a thing.

At 8/1/06 01:46 AM, Der_Pandar wrote:

At 8/1/06 01:14 AM, IgnorantSentient wrote: pretty sure they liked guns.

That's why you failed History.

At least he lived up to his name.

Yeah, well, standards have been falling in Politics lately.

i beleive all people should have training in the proper use of a firearm for the sake of there protection and the protection of others.

guns dont kill,
people do.

At 7/23/06 08:14 PM, Der_Pandar wrote:

Hey, that's what the British said.

The difference in weaponry between civillians and soldiers was not that great...

And I wonder how many of those were committed by registered, legal gun owners.

Any gun owning aids and abets felonious use of guns.

At 8/1/06 04:14 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

And I wonder how many of those were committed by registered, legal gun owners.

Any gun owning aids and abets felonious use of guns.

Then I guess I'm just a felon then, even though I've committed no crime.

At 8/1/06 04:22 PM, Der_Pandar wrote:

Then I guess I'm just a felon then, even though I've committed no crime.

me too, i should probably get a life sentence for my 2 guns, my crossbow, 30 years for each arrow, 75 years each for each of my knives and swords, and the death penalty for my homemade steel pipe rocket, and pain added to the death for the launcher it uses.

i must be one evil bastard to have such... evil things.

and maybe some hard labor tacked on to my sentence for the fork i eat with too.