cc4usmc

So are you saying that you would support disarming everyone? Or an attempt at least.

__________________
This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between reporting posts. Please try again in 115 seconds.

NismoDriverS13

i wish i could help him and open his eyes to things, but he doesn't want to listen and really doesn't care. He has a wife and two kids. and I have asked him how would he defend himself and his family from those who break into his house with guns. His reasoning was unsatisfactory for me. He said "I'll call the cops" but i says by the time the cops get there the damage will already be done.

I was watching Apocalyptic Man on History Channel last night and one quote i liked was "at a time of apocalypse, the government will issue martial law and u will truly be the one against the world." Even now I feel that the only help that I can and will get, will only come from me and my own strength.

cc4usmc

I don't mean to insult anyone who would think like your friend does, but I think it's very irresponsible to rely on someone else for the protection of yourself and your family. There are so many things that can go wrong with a situation where you completely rely on others for help.

__________________
This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between reporting posts. Please try again in 115 seconds.

Pactin

Never said that, sir. Just saying that as much as they are a great asset, they can be just as deadly, murderer or not. Responsibility is what I'm trying to get at here, not disarmament.

cc4usmc

Just checking, that's all. Could you go into more detail about "responsibility"? I'd like to know whom you're saying needs to be responsible. I don't want to make any assumptions lol.

__________________
This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between reporting posts. Please try again in 115 seconds.

Matej

Once a group of thugs broke into my house, so I politely offered them tea and asked them to kindly wait while I go unlock my gun safe.

cc4usmc

Don't be a troll. You know there are safes that take all of 4 seconds to access, right?

__________________
This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between reporting posts. Please try again in 115 seconds.

Pactin

Well for one, education is one of the best ways to keep people responsible. Gun responsibility being the reserved and ethical morale behind the trigger. Teaching people gun safety, the appropriate moment to take action, background checks, etc would greatly decrease foul play IMO. Essentially everyone needs to be responsible .

Pactin

*facepalm*

cc4usmc

What does any of this have to do with guns being used to commit crimes? Some of what you said would make perfect sense if a large majority of gun related deaths was due to negligent discharges etc, but it's not. The only real change that would come out of educating GOOD people would be a decrease in the amount of gun violence victims. You do know that most criminals do not get their weapons legally, so background checks (even though those already exist in CA) won't effect anything. Like I've said before in this thread, making it harder for citizens who can legally own guns won't make it any harder for criminals to commit crimes, it only makes it easier.

Here is a perfect example: In CA, it is illegal to use "Hi-capacity" magazines unless they're pre-ban magazines. Someone people have been convinced that a magazine that hold a bunch of bullets is more dangerous then a magazine that holds 10, the maximum in CA. Unless LEO, or Pre-ban.

__________________
This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between reporting posts. Please try again in 115 seconds.

Pactin

When I meant by responsibility, I intended it to be interpreted from a moral standpoint. For the most part, public education lowers violence on the streets. Teaching people (future criminal or not) good values should hopefully reduce violence.

As I originally stated, guns make it that much easier for someone (criminal or samaritan) to kill, in most cases, instantaneously.

cc4usmc

That was I was hoping you meant, which is why I wanted you to be more specific

So besides education, what do you purpose? You keep making this statement (which is obvious one), but you don't explain it.

__________________
This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between reporting posts. Please try again in 115 seconds.

NismoDriverS13

this is exactly what I was thinking about a while ago too, about 10 rounds allowed only for civilians in state of california. It really doesn't change anything how many rounds it has it matters only who is behind the trigger and why.

police is nothing more but civilians with laws on their side. why do u think they can get away with murder? just recently i heard on tv that some cop got into a shoot out. when he shooter finally gave up, the cop put him in hand cuffs and then shot him in the chest. then justified that the shooter was still hostile and came to attack the cop again. Cop got nothin for this and continue serving. the whole point is that cops are nothing but human and not some upper hand of ppl they also make huge mistakes just like anyone else. so how does that let them have an upper hand? why can they have 17 rounds and not us like said in the video.

BustedS13

safes keep me in harm's way, so i keep my gun under my pillow where nobody will find it

__________________

dOMEmE

now i know...muahahaha!

__________________
Chupas!

Pactin

What do I propose? In terms of what? Gun control?

cc4usmc

I just want you to explain why you keep saying


Since you're stating the obvious, I assumed there was more to it then that. But we know how the saying goes when making assumptions.. lol.

__________________
This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between reporting posts. Please try again in 115 seconds.

sickstatus

=\ =\ =\ =\ =\ =\ =\ =[ =[

__________________
straights are for fast cars, corners are for fast drivers.

Mi Beardo es Loco

And that's what your church wants you to think. In reality, in the Constitution religion only makes it's appearance a single time in Article 6, end of the third clause:
"[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
The clause simply means that no public position can be required to be held by any one of any religious denomination. So the fact that some of the framers of the Constitution were Christian means that "the Constitution was created on religious principles?"
James Madison, when speaking of the method and manner of the election of the members of the Congress, noted that even "Religion itself may become a motive to persecution and oppression." Possibly our greatest American, Thomas Jefferson, was a known Atheist.

And I'm not knocking religion, it has great moral grounds, and I don't know what the hell happens when I die. But I don't pretend like I DO know. That's the problem. People die needlessly over something they think is real. Odds are that's it's not yet millions and millions have died needlessly.

__________________

cc4usmc

Quick question before I respond to your post... Are our rights granted to us by the Constitution?

__________________
This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between reporting posts. Please try again in 115 seconds.

Mi Beardo es Loco

no. that would be the bill of rights.

__________________

TUnity2

PEOPLE! Remember this!:

If we were to make guns illegal in the United States, the only people that would have guns would be the criminals. So unless you want to become a criminal or be defenseless then there is no way guns could be outlawed in this country.

Pactin

Nope there is no deeper message The gun, as opposed to the sword, has a great influence in how killing occurs. It is more distanced, no real skill needed, ammunition is dirt cheap, and in some cases more stealthy.

Can you imagine trying to take someone out (presumably a leader) with a sword? You could (not you in particular) get it handed to you by a guy that doesn't have to be twice your size. In essence, it equalizes, and sets an advantage.

cc4usmc

Same thing, but still wrong. I don't know what they teach in History classes is school, but I wouldn't doubt it if it's that the Constitution, or the the Bill of Rights like you said, grants people their rights. The Founding Fathers believed that the original 10 amendments were natural unalienable rights of human beings, or "Natural Rights", given to everyone by their Creator. The Constitution was created to both identify and protect those rights.

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that cause men to make laws [for the protection of them] in the first place." Frederic Bastiat

Now, back to your previous post.

First off, I'm an atheist, so I have no church. Second, are you really telling me that because the word "religion" only shows up once that religion cannot possible have anything to do with the Constitution?

That's the point! That's why religion played such a large role in the creation of this country. And it's not one particular religion, because like you implied, the Founding Fathers weren't all of the same religion, and some were of no religion at all. But even a man with no God at all can respect religious principles, after all, you just said yourself that religion has great moral grounds.

I'm going to share with you 5 principles which Benjamin Franklin believed are the fundamental points in all sound religion:

1.There exists a Creator who made all things, and mankind should recognize and worship Him.
2. The Creator has revealed a moral code of behavior for happy living which distinguishes right from wrong.
3.The Creator holds mankind responsible for the way they treat each other.
4. All mankind live beyond this life.
5. In the next life mankind are judged for their conduct in this one.

Samuel Adams said that group of basic beliefs constitutes "the religion of America is the religion of all mankind." What he meant by that is those 5 fundamental beliefs belong to all world faiths and could be taught without offending other religions.

Your buddy Thomas Jefferson called those basic beliefs principles "in which God has united us all"

And those principles were taught in schools up until religion was removed from schools, probably because people used the excuse "separation of church and state."

If the fact that "religion" only shows up once in the Constitution is what you're basing your argument off of, please let me know so I can spend my time elsewhere. I wouldn't mind trying out my new HDMI cables for my Xbox.


A gun is merely a tool. In a way, a sword would be a more effective tool if you're looking to kill silently. How many people are caught because people hear gun shots and look outside? You cut a mans throat and all you're going to hear is him trying to breathe through all the blood spewing out of this neck. People in prisons are just as capable of killing people as they were when they weren't in prison. I wont deny that it makes it easier to kill, but wouldn't you rather shoot a man that has a gun rather then have to fight him with a sword?

__________________
This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between reporting posts. Please try again in 115 seconds.

exitspeed

When you click on the first youtube link in this thread one of the vids on the right is titled "The End of the US Dollar Only Weeks Away"...it's from August.


That's all I have to add to this.

__________________
What I do for a living...www.mhrussell.com

Pactin

There are things called suppressors/silencers out there for guns. Even if a gunshot is heard, distance and the projectile are what set apart the sword from the gun.
That's my point!

cc4usmc

Damn, I had no idea! How many criminals get busted using silencers? Get outta here, I think the only point you're trying to make is that guns kill people easier then anything else, and I think the average American knows that before they can masturbate.

And if there is some message you're trying to convey by constantly repeating obvious information, then why did you say

__________________
This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between reporting posts. Please try again in 115 seconds.

Pactin

Chill.
Because the convo always gets to a point where we revert to that obvious statement:
Gladly. I just thought we could have a civil and unbiased thread here...

cc4usmc

At what point did you think I wasn't grasping the idea that guns made the job of a criminal easier? Something must have conveyed you to believe I wasn't understanding.


We haven't even got to that point yet because I can't even figure out where you stand lol.

You - Guns make it easy to kill people
Me - Then are you against guns?
You - Never said that.
Me - Well taking guns from good people wont help good people
You - I guess you need me to remind you guns kill people fast.
Me - Sooo.. then what?
You - Ohh nothing. Did you know guns are different then killing people who swords? Sometimes even quieter. Zomg, killing a leader with a sword!?
Me - *try to salvage something out of that post*
You - Don't you know about silencers? *Then you attempt to italicize part of one of my sentences in an attempt to make me believe you actually had a point (even though you said earlier you didnt)
Me - What the fuck.


Ok, now that the cliff notes are over... let me ask you something. Do you think I am for or against guns? Leave the swords and boomerangs out of this, just guns.

__________________
This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between reporting posts. Please try again in 115 seconds.

Pactin

In terms of gun control vs no gun control I don't stand anywhere, if anything in the middle. No one has to be purely one side. There are disadvantages at each end of the spectrum, so if you expect me to say I'm one or the other then I honestly can't answer you.
I'll make an assumption here probably "for guns".

As for the cliff notes. I tried to be as honest and logical as possible. If my arguments aren't up to par with yours, then I'll drop it here, as this obviously isn't going anywhere on both our ends.

Here's my take on what's gone on this last whole page:
I simply state that (here we go again...) guns make killing easier. check? check...

You then start to make assumptions:
-I think disarmament is good
-I am on a "side" where I am only for or against

I kept repeating that in hopes that you'd realize that the idea: guns make killing easier- is my "side". The sword, boomerang w/e side convo was an attempt at establishing that.