Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/6/03 07:35 PM, _crossbreed_ wrote: Both countries allow the right to bear arms and the citizens in each country abuse that right.

But once again, it boils down to the fact that a gun is a tool. America allows guns and they are kept for personal self defense. Palestine encourages the arming of everyone with offensive/assault weapons, even children, in order to conduct a guerilla war and terrorism.

It's a difference between allowing and encouraging as well as between defense and offense.

Yeah but the Jews are protecting themselves from Palestinians and the Palestinians are protecting themselves from the Jews. Besides, where is self-defense mentioned in "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." ?

At 7/7/03 09:55 PM, _crossbreed_ wrote: Besides, where is self-defense mentioned in "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." ?

A militia is organized for self-defense in times of war.

The wording of the amendment states that private citizens shall be allowed to own guns. It states that this is intended as a way to maintain militias, but it does not make this right dependent on the militia clause.

If they wanted to imply that I think they would've taken the extra lines to write that down also. But they didn't. Guns for all no matter what. IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL, PEOPLE!

The logic remains that theres a diffrence between what you carry incase you get into a fight and what you carry when your looking for a fight.

you in big shit

shit

Sure, I think people do have the right to qwn guns. But I believe that certain weapons, such as military grade ones, should be restricted from public purchase.

The Second Amendment:
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 Second Amendment was meant to accomplish a distinct goal, it was meant to guarantee the individual's right to have arms for self-defense and self-preservation.

The conflict over gun ownership and citizen safety raises a fundamental question: When does one person's right end and another's begin?

At 7/8/03 09:42 AM, Nirvana13666 wrote: The Second Amendment:
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 Second Amendment was meant to accomplish a distinct goal, it was meant to guarantee the individual's right to have arms for self-defense and self-preservation.

The conflict over gun ownership and citizen safety raises a fundamental question: When does one person's right end and another's begin?

OK, I'll tell you my view.

I have the right to bear arms. Any kind, military or small. I don't have the right to kill innocent people, whether that be with a firearm, or my car, or a negligent act. Guns have nothing to do with the rights of others alone. They must be used in a way that infringes on the rights of others, thus placing the blame squarely on the user, not the gun. Me having a tank in my backyard doesnt infringe on anyones rights as long as I don't use it in an illegal way. But if I do something illegal, I do it because I have no respect for the law, not because I possess or do not possess an object. We are all capable of mayhem with perfectly legal objects, as terrorism gives proof. Therefore we must fight the attitudes that beget violence. With those conquered, guns will be of little signifigance.

I wouldn't be alive right now if it wasn't for guns.
Several years ago, I was up reading at about midnight (I suffer from bouts of insomnia from time to time) and I heard a loud noise, followed by some splintering of wood and men talking. I knew that SOMEONE had broken into my appartment, although I didn't want to know if they were there for me or my posessions.
I grabbed and loaded the Colt Python I kept under my bed at that time and waited. Eventually, one of the men came into my room. He rummaged through my dresser, convinced that I was sleeping.
His companion came in and said something like "smoke him" and one of the men drew his gun and was about to shoot when I drew mine. We both fired. He missed. I didn't.
Needless to say, in about 2 seconds, there were 2 dead robbers and potential murderers lying on my bedroom floor....

If I didn't have my gun, I am fairly sure that I wouldn't be alive today.

At 7/8/03 12:02 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 7/8/03 09:42 AM, Nirvana13666 wrote: The Second Amendment:
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 Second Amendment was meant to accomplish a distinct goal, it was meant to guarantee the individual's right to have arms for self-defense and self-preservation.

The conflict over gun ownership and citizen safety raises a fundamental question: When does one person's right end and another's begin?

OK, I'll tell you my view.

I have the right to bear arms. Any kind, military or small. I don't have the right to kill innocent people, whether that be with a firearm, or my car, or a negligent act. Guns have nothing to do with the rights of others alone. They must be used in a way that infringes on the rights of others, thus placing the blame squarely on the user, not the gun. Me having a tank in my backyard doesnt infringe on anyones rights as long as I don't use it in an illegal way. But if I do something illegal, I do it because I have no respect for the law, not because I possess or do not possess an object. We are all capable of mayhem with perfectly legal objects, as terrorism gives proof. Therefore we must fight the attitudes that beget violence. With those conquered, guns will be of little signifigance.

I couldn’t have worded it better Funk. The problem isn’t the gun it is the person using it. We constantly tell our youth that they must be responsible for their actions but why it is we try and ban or censor anything that can’t untimely be controlled. I feel like certain gun laws should be made stricter but it is our constitutional right to bear arms. People don’t go to jail for lawfully owning a gun they go to jail for breaking the law by using the gun in a malicious manner.

I would abolish all guns but then again that is just a dream. Weapons will never be abolished in my lifetime or even in the many generations to come. Mankind is a symbol of destruction that in the end will ironically be the cause of his own damnation.

At 7/8/03 12:31 PM, Nirvana13666 wrote: I would abolish all guns but then again that is just a dream. Weapons will never be abolished in my lifetime or even in the many generations to come. Mankind is a symbol of destruction that in the end will ironically be the cause of his own damnation.

It would be stupid, anyway. If you abolish guns, criminals will still buy them on the black market anyway. So if you abolish guns, the only people who will lose their guns will be those who legally own them.
Abolishing guns would do nothing to stop criminals, but it would make many gun owners VERY angry.

At 7/8/03 09:54 PM, FlattusMaximus wrote:

Abolishing guns would do nothing to stop criminals, but it would make many gun owners VERY angry.

Heh. They'd go around shooting members of congress cause they got some of their guns taken away.

At 7/8/03 12:27 PM, FlattusMaximus wrote:

If I didn't have my gun, I am fairly sure that I wouldn't be alive today.

And if they didn't have their gun, they wouldn't be able to break into homes and terrorize people. The whole point of gun control is to keep guns out of the black market and criminal organizations.

You need a gun to break into a house now?

At 7/8/03 11:02 PM, stafffighter wrote: You need a gun to break into a house now?

Like on Micheal Moores bowling for Colimbine, it is the fear of others that make gun control out of hand. And by the way, it isn't the amunt or number of guns, it is the fear of ourselves and "Millita" groups that get accesed to automatic weapons and use them on common unarmed burgers.(Which in some cases deserve to be shot, but not all)

The Right to Bear Arms should come with strict clauses. Like, for instance, if you had a child...or should I say an adult, like this guy who was planning on murdering three of his classmates and then going on an urban rampage to get his Matrix fix, you shouldn't be allowed to own a plethora of shotguns and other Weapons of Mass Destruction. Whoops. I used a no-no word.

At 7/9/03 03:04 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: The Right to Bear Arms should come with strict clauses. Like, for instance, if you had a child...or should I say an adult, like this guy who was planning on murdering three of his classmates and then going on an urban rampage to get his Matrix fix, you shouldn't be allowed to own a plethora of shotguns and other Weapons of Mass Destruction. Whoops. I used a no-no word.

There is always, ALWAYS going to be acceses to guns, ALWAYS! It is not so much gun control we need to worry about it is, teaching guns. Not this bullshit of a cartoon duck teaching gun safty, i think in this world it is to warped in everyones mind. Fear has consumed the will of most if not all americans. You see the news, it is horrifing. We are constantly being scared shitless whether it be SARS, or wars, are ravaging bees that come up from Texas. Unless you can change the WHOOOOLE outlook of news, we are, Screwed.

At 7/8/03 11:02 PM, stafffighter wrote: You need a gun to break into a house now?

Yes, because you can't threaten someone with a toothbrush after you've broken into their home.

At 7/8/03 09:54 PM, FlattusMaximus wrote:

At 7/8/03 12:31 PM, Nirvana13666 wrote: I would abolish all guns but then again that is just a dream. Weapons will never be abolished in my lifetime or even in the many generations to come. Mankind is a symbol of destruction that in the end will ironically be the cause of his own damnation.

It would be stupid, anyway. If you abolish guns, criminals will still buy them on the black market anyway. So if you abolish guns, the only people who will lose their guns will be those who legally own them.
Abolishing guns would do nothing to stop criminals, but it would make many gun owners VERY angry.

By abolishing guns I mean wiping then from the earth. Like I said it is just a dream but a good thought. * winks at crossbreed* Fun Fact: a license isn’t even required to purchase a gun in most states.

At 7/9/03 08:41 AM, Nirvana13666 wrote:

By abolishing guns I mean wiping then from the earth. Like I said it is just a dream but a good thought. * winks at crossbreed* Fun Fact: a license isn’t even required to purchase a gun in most states.

Countries like Japan and Australia almost don't have any guns (compared to the U.S.) so be patient and it might just happen.

Most states? Is Texas one of those states by any chance?

Federal law [18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1)] prohibits any federally licensed firearms dealer from selling or delivering handguns to a person under the age of 21. However, the federal juvenile possession ban [18 U.S.C. 922 (x)] makes it unlawful for persons under the age of 18 from possessing handguns. Therefore, unless prohibited by state law, sales of handguns to persons between the ages of 18 and 21 may take place in the secondary or private market*.

Currently, only 12 states and the District of Columbia prohibit anyone from selling handguns to persons under 21, including so-called "private" sales: Connecticut; Hawaii; Iowa; Maryland; Massachusetts, Missouri; Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio; Rhode Island; South Carolina and Washington.

Six other states regulate the private sale of handguns, including those to 18 - 21-year-olds, in some manner, either by requiring a license or permit for handgun owners, or by requiring a background check on private sales:

California: Transactions must be done through a licensed firearms dealer; a 10-day waiting period applies.

Illinois: Firearms Owner Identification Card (FOID) required for purchases.

Michigan: Permit needed for purchases.

New York: Permit needed to purchase; license needed to possess a handgun at home.

North Carolina: Permit needed for purchases.

Pennsylvania: Sale must be completed at a licensed firearms dealer or at sheriff's office.

In the other 32 states, there are no restrictions or requirements for a background check on private handguns sales to persons between 18 and 21.

Tx is like the gun capital of the US

And now this thread wil retire gracefully. You know your stuff, Nirv. -_^

The information presented by Nirvana makes me very uncomfortable. If we're going to allow guns in the country, we should at least have solid age limits on purchasing weapons.

At 7/9/03 08:46 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote:

At 7/9/03 08:41 AM, Nirvana13666 wrote:

By abolishing guns I mean wiping then from the earth. Like I said it is just a dream but a good thought. * winks at crossbreed* Fun Fact: a license isn’t even required to purchase a gun in most states.

Countries like Japan and Australia almost don't have any guns (compared to the U.S.) so be patient and it might just happen.

Most states? Is Texas one of those states by any chance?

Texas is also the ONLY state where you can concell a gun. YOu can also be legal to shoot someone dead if they on your property at night.

At 7/9/03 08:11 PM, _crossbreed_ wrote: And now this thread wil retire gracefully. You know your stuff, Nirv. -_^

*Nirvana bows* -_^

As for what JudgeMeHarshX stated....it is insane to even let someone buy a gun without a permit or license. In reality more guns have been sold then licenses issued and that isn't really due to the fact that licensed gun holders buy multiple guns. It is scary to think that any deranged lunatic could buy a firearm without any record of it, not so much as a background check in some states. People seem to think gun laws are too strict but the real problem is the many loop holes that can ultimately have a fatal result.

At 7/8/03 09:33 AM, Rancorman wrote: Sure, I think people do have the right to qwn guns. But I believe that certain weapons, such as military grade ones, should be restricted from public purchase.

They are unless you buy it black market.

Alot of very bad people seem to have no trouble doing that. As for break ins, someone could come in quietly, knife you, smother you, do alot of other very nasty things to you. I know Ive said this before but Im actually looking for a responce now. Why is it people think that killing someone with a gun is less real than actually touching them to do the job? Have we become so distanced from the reality of existance that we think one means of dead is and diffrent from the next? Like Iv'e said before, I think most of these people are just afraid of, while in the act of killing someone, getting dirty.

I just saw this military documentary where a guy said that he liked to be neutral about killing. Neither deriving pleasure from it or being mournfull about it.
My question is isent it possible to not enjoy the act of killing itself but take pleasant satisfaction in the fact that the person it was nessisary for you to kill is no longer around?