Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/13/06 05:42 PM, D-Bibz wrote:

At 9/13/06 01:22 AM, zach9311 wrote:

Since you brought this point up, I'd like to know what you folks n' gun lovers would like to define as defensive weaponry. For example, do you really think a sniper rifle is that defensive against common crime. "There's a mugger running straight towards us. Take him down!"

D-Biz,

I don't have a link or source for the following except personal experience as well as what I've seen in the military and watched on the History channel.

A sniper rifle would actually fall into the hunting category. The reason is the rifle used by the average, lets say Marine, sniper is modified Remington hunting rifle. What is changed on this rifle is things like the barrel and trigger pull as well as very powerful optics (scope). This does not significantly impact the characteristics of the bullet. However, it does impact the rifle's accuracy and responsiveness.

Furthermore, let's look at the Barret .50 cal line of rifles. They look big and bad and only designed for killing humans. The truth on these is they are overpowered for humans. However, they would be suitable for hunting big game such as bear or moose.

So while it would be crazy to define sniper rifles as "defensive weaponry", they do fall firmly in the hunting rifle category. In fact since in Vietnam US Army snipers were sent home before going over to claim or buy a deer rifle if Congress were to pass a law banning "sniper rifles" they would have to be specific to make and model since they could end up banning every hunting rifle in the US. This would be as irrational as banning assault rifles since rifles in total represent less than 1% of all violent crime in the US.

Finally another topic cellardoor brought up: the US frontier. What many ppl forget is the US still has a very significant population that lives outside the ability of law enforcement to patrol and protect. Many ppl where I grew up cannot dial 9-1-1. They have to defend themselves. This is not a racial situation since all of the violent crime that happened in about a 50 mi radius of where I grew up involved a good ole boy getting drunk and deciding 1) rape the old woman up the dirt road or 2) kill the school nerd or 3) beat someone up.

AAK

AAK

At 9/13/06 01:22 AM, zach9311 wrote: Killing is it the Mans falt or the guns falt. i read that maybe we should ban Guns thats fuckn stupid its the Mans falt. Guns are so to the public for one reason Hunting.and if u use it for other things that should be considered the mans faltnot the guns. what next blameing video games for children killings.....Ow wait it already has happened

Sorry if i mispelled anything

Lol, what you spelled wrong:

falt should be Fault
fuckn should be fucking
u should be you
Ow should more rather be Oh
and blameing should be blaming.

LOL, grammar nazi!

Oh, and about your post, how the hell can you illegalize guns when the world ain't a total peaceful place, it's like taking water from mankind, we're almost born with weapons.

At 9/13/06 02:03 AM, zach9311 wrote: Nukes????? im talk'n about guns bro the fact that these damn politic people<like goverment> are now blameing Guns for killing makes no sence the only reason that could make sence would be that if the guns grew legs and shot people themselfs

And hey, remember that just because taking guns away from people, doesn't stop the killing.

Everything can be used as a weapon:

Pens
Paper
Glass
Chairs
Heavy Objects
Sharp Objects
etc. etc.

And remember that the gun is just a tool utilized by mankind to kill eachother, not like the death itself.

And you've gotta work on your spelling and grammar.

This is the issue though: It is the founding principle of Democratic Countries (especially the US) that the citizens of a country should be more powerful and more fearsome than their respective governments. If citizens of a country have no means to defend themselves and aren't allowed to own guns, then what is there to prevent their governments from imposing oppressive rule or commiting genocide?

I was planning to do a leading question, but I can't be arsed waiting for a response. No "democratic country" was founded on a principle that the "citizens blah blah blah". Firstly, a large number of "democratic countries" do not have a codified constitution and it would be hard to call them "founded" at any particular point. Secondly, of those with a codified constitution I don't think many give their people the right to have arms. Thirdly, the US, when founded with whatever bloody amendment it is, was not a democratic county. Fourthly, even with the amendment (2?) a principle is subject to interpretation.

In conclusion, you are talking bollocks. Oh, and the answer to your question is democratic accountability.

At 9/13/06 05:16 PM, IndianaJamie wrote:
Also if you feel defenceless then your a fucking wimp. America has some of the most High tech security technologies in the world and your wanting to defend your home with a gun? Is America that desperate in resolving crime that you sit with your shotgun at the front door?

Ah yes, how safe those alarms make the common working class family. Maybe those beeping noises will scare the armed felon off.

At 9/13/06 08:32 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Illegal immigrants and gang members who are amred to the teeth here in the US regularly kill innocent people in burglaries and carjackings, and just plain assaults.

Do you know statisticly how much of america's crime is caused by illegal immigrants. I've heard this many times and it's believable. It's not that I don't trust you, but it would still be nice if a source or number could back it up.

You must watch too much Jackie Chan, or Jean Claude Van Dame. Because the fact is...you're not going to beat up and neutralize a gun-toting attacker with your damn fists, as much as you want to pretend that you could.

>.< Aaargh Steven Segal. ZOMG. Dark Zone II was ridiculous.

Back when the constitution was written, the most effective personal weapon was a smoothbore, muzzleloading rifle. This is the best infantry weapon that anyone had in those days, including citizens and military alike. Therefore it is rational to suggest that Americans are permitted to own personal weapons that are as powerful as the personal weapons of a country's military.

That's a plausible point. However, one can't exactly go on a crime spree with a muzzleloading rifle. The changes in the effectiveness of weapons can also be a factor.
As for me, I'm undecided on the whole gun control debate.

People want guns for protection. If no one has guns, who are you protecting yourself from?

This is totally rash and against the Bill of Rights, but I personally don't think weapons should be allowed except for the military operations. *taps foot and waits for a long essay to bash me just because I sound like a pussy*

At 9/14/06 06:04 PM, 200monkeys wrote: People want guns for protection. If no one has guns, who are you protecting yourself from?

Duhh. The zombies!

Oops. Forgot.

At 9/14/06 11:49 AM, Slizor wrote:

I was planning to do a leading question, but I can't be arsed waiting for a response. No "democratic country" was founded on a principle that the "citizens blah blah blah". Firstly, a large number of "democratic countries" do not have a codified constitution and it would be hard to call them "founded" at any particular point. Secondly, of those with a codified constitution I don't think many give their people the right to have arms. Thirdly, the US, when founded with whatever bloody amendment it is, was not a democratic county. Fourthly, even with the amendment (2?) a principle is subject to interpretation.

In conclusion, you are talking bollocks. Oh, and the answer to your question is democratic accountability.

You're wrong. When the US was founded and the democratic ordinances were established, the 2nd amendment (the right to bare arms) was included due to the concensus of the DEMOCRATICALLY elected representives, the people who were the hivemind of the whole form of Government in the US. The US was 'founded' before than this, but all the kinks weren't worked out completely and the democratic government wasn't functioning completely yet. There was a provisional government before the bill of rights was put into place.

Democratic accountability you say? Thats ridiculous. The perfection of a democratic system doesn't protect the citizens from individuals who decide to risregard their country's policies and take matters into their own hands, exploiting their power. "Democratic accountability" doesn't change the hearts of men.

No matter how "accountable" a government is, they can always use their positions of power for other than righteous purposes, and through other than righteous means.

And you're in no place to spout out "Democratic accountability" considering many officials in the UK who tried to block British Military involvement in the Iraq War in '03 were receiving bribes from Saddam Hussein in the Oil for Food scandal (look it up if you don't believe it). It seems your country, as perfect as you think your government is, still can't prevent individuals, or groups of government officials from exploiting their power for their own personal gain.

On to the next person.

At 9/14/06 06:01 PM, D-Bibz wrote: Do you know statisticly how much of america's crime is caused by illegal immigrants. I've heard this many times and it's believable. It's not that I don't trust you, but it would still be nice if a source or number could back it up.

Well first of all, all illegal immigrants are felons. The fat that they are HERE is proof of their direct disobedience to US law therefore they are criminals. Furthermore here are some websites that have other interesting information about crime by illegal immigrants:

Rapes committed by illegal immigrants and HERE

For the first Rape one, scroll down a little bit and read the article. Then there are additional links below that with many cited sources.

The most interesting article I found is this, but it is old so its numbers are a little deflated compared to today : Click Here

Back when the constitution was written, the most effective personal weapon was a smoothbore, muzzleloading rifle. This is the best infantry weapon that anyone had in those days, including citizens and military alike. Therefore it is rational to suggest that Americans are permitted to own personal weapons that are as powerful as the personal weapons of a country's military.

That's a plausible point. However, one can't exactly go on a crime spree with a muzzleloading rifle. The changes in the effectiveness of weapons can also be a factor.

Yeah but you can't defend yourself against attackers who have modern weapons if you are only legally permitted to own a muzzleloader, and thats all you have.

A level-playing field is what I think was intended in the 2nd Amendment. That doesn't mean that citizens should be able to own nukes, figher jets, tanks and such. Its a level-playing field within reason. Besides, the US government would never use those things on its own soil, against its own people, so the argument that "under that amendment Americans should be able to possess nukes" doesn't really hold water and is unapplicable.

So we won't have to worry about our government using nukes, tankes, bombs and artiller against us. That is of course, as long as Hillary Clinton isn't in power. (har har)

To see my collection of guns, and post pictures/ discuss your own, go to this thread:

Guns are Good

At 9/13/06 01:54 PM, Togukawa wrote: Seriously. How much of a threat does an armed civilian pose to the army? You'll be shooting your M60 for a LONG time until the armor of an M1 Abrahams just even dents slightly. And even if you somehow got a rocket launcher to destroy it, good luck at defending yourself against stealth bombers or fighter planes. Defending yourself from the government? Forget it, you don't stand a chance. The only chance you have is getting the army on your side, but I'd think that would be easier if you aren't shooting at them.

When we declared our independance, who do you think was the ones forming our resistance? What was Gearge Washington before he led our revolt? A british sodier. Many of our revolutionaries were military men who defected, and statesmen and politicians. If much of the US military were to side with a revolution, and said revolution had a few of our politicians backing it, that militia would be strong and would stand a good chance winning in an urban strike and run scenario. The military we have now has problems with isurgents in Iraq using theese tactics, now factor a constant trickle of troops deserting to fight for their own rights, and how do you think they would fare? That's how we won the revolutionary war.

At 9/14/06 10:28 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 9/14/06 11:49 AM, Slizor wrote:

I was planning to do a leading question, but I can't be arsed waiting for a response. No "democratic country" was founded on a principle that the "citizens blah blah blah". Firstly, a large number of "democratic countries" do not have a codified constitution and it would be hard to call them "founded" at any particular point. Secondly, of those with a codified constitution I don't think many give their people the right to have arms. Thirdly, the US, when founded with whatever bloody amendment it is, was not a democratic county. Fourthly, even with the amendment (2?) a principle is subject to interpretation.

In conclusion, you are talking bollocks. Oh, and the answer to your question is democratic accountability.

You're wrong. When the US was founded and the democratic ordinances were established, the 2nd amendment (the right to bare arms) was included due to the concensus of the DEMOCRATICALLY elected representives, the people who were the hivemind of the whole form of Government in the US.

"Demos" means people, "cracy" means rule..... http://en.wikipedia...ial_election%2C_1789

Not quite what you were talking about. The US could not really be considered to be a "democracy" until at least the 1960s.

The US was 'founded' before than this, but all the kinks weren't worked out completely and the democratic government wasn't functioning completely yet. There was a provisional government before the bill of rights was put into place.

They weren't democratic after it.

Democratic accountability you say? Thats ridiculous. The perfection of a democratic system doesn't protect the citizens from individuals who decide to risregard their country's policies and take matters into their own hands, exploiting their power. "Democratic accountability" doesn't change the hearts of men.

Sorry, are you talking about tyrants or criminals? Would-be tyrants can only work with the consent of the people. Criminals are stopped by, shockingly, the police. Had you forgot about the police?

No matter how "accountable" a government is, they can always use their positions of power for other than righteous purposes, and through other than righteous means.

That doesn't mean that accountability can not stop moves towards tyranny.

And you're in no place to spout out "Democratic accountability" considering many officials in the UK who tried to block British Military involvement in the Iraq War in '03 were receiving bribes from Saddam Hussein in the Oil for Food scandal (look it up if you don't believe it).

Don't talk bollocks. That was one MP who wasn't a member of the Government and absolutely fucking savaged Congress when they asked him about it. These were claims made against him that weren't proven and, dare I say it, just another fabrication of evidence by those who seeked to discredit anti-war acitivism. Look it up properly if you don't believe me.

Guns were designed for convinence, for killing animals easily

and dont forget, if teh gun is on the floor, it wont hurt u, only when somones holding it will it hurt you most likely

At 9/14/06 06:04 PM, 200monkeys wrote: *taps foot and waits for a long essay to bash me just because I sound like a pussy*

Hate to disappoint you, but we don't need write a long essay, we all know you're a leftist pussy.

Man does operate, invent and engineer these weapons, but seeing as humans are meant for self destruction, it is in our nature to destroy and conquer. Guns aren't available for free use unless bought illegally. Both man and his tool, the weapon are to blame. Though self defense is vital. I used a gun, it's merely a tool, where you point it, push the trigger, it's all a man's choice.
Conclusion is that man should use guns, but wisely, sadly humans aren't wise, there for guns will be used to mug people instead of in a battlefield where they belong.

The gun would not be operated (or even invented) without the person, so it is the person's fault. The person couldn't use the gun if the gun didn't exist, so it is also the gun's fault. Could a gun be used for soemthing else except shooting or killing? No. Can a human do other things than shoot and kill? Indeed they can. So since a gun can't change and a human can, then that is the simple solution: Change Humanity. Changing an entire race of bloodthirsty savages that love killing can't be that hard, right?