Alright anti-gunners, lets have it out

reply to post by cannonfodder

I can only surmise it probably seemed like a good idea at the time. In 1790, the US had "overthrown" a "tyrannical government" 24 years prior, and as it founded your country, appeared to be a good thing. In 1790, there were few weapons superior to a musket. There were no gatling guns, self propelled grenades, tanks, nukes, netc., and a well armed militia would actually have a chance of making a decent stand. Today, there is not the same opportunity. Times have changed, like it or not.

Fair enough. However if the gun is so obsolete then why the debate?

Originally posted by slackerwire
If someone had a homicidal tendency to create a large body count, a gun isn't the best choice.

Hint: Think car.

There is no power in pointing a car at people - it is too random, too clumsy. A gun is easy to carry, and gives you the power of life and death. Point a gun at someone, and you tell them, I have the power to terminate your life. It is deliberate. I also don't think you can fit a car through the doors at Columbine or the local mall.

Originally posted by harvib
Fair enough. However if the gun is so obsolete then why the debate?

Because even though they are irrelevant to the intent of the second ammendment, they still kill thousands of innocent people because they empower criminals to instantly extinguish life. Why keep around a dangerous relic?

reply to post by slackerwire


Hey, I don't doubt it. I'm just saying that the right to bear arms is only in America.

Not every one lives in the confines of suberbia . Most rural people have had trouble skunks foxes bears ect killing livestock or disturbing the home . Wait right there and let me get a club and chase it off .

My family has numerous members over the last 100 years not one has ever shot another human being . With the exception of draft the government says heres a gun go kill the guy wearing a different uniform .

At some distant point in time in the future when I can go to sleep at night and not need to worry my chickens goats or dogs are not going to get tore up by a wild animal . Or never need to worry about thug punk coming in my house to steal rape and murder . If there is never a time I wish to go hunting or feed to put food on the table by hunting . Or if there is never a need for the defense of home and country from foes home or abroad. Or heaven forbid the need to show force to regain the country .

Then maybe it would be time for guns to be retired .

But that time hasn't arrived yet

Interesting topic. My husband has been selling guns (legally btw) for years. It has been a nice income. Everytime a new anti gun bill comes up for vote it increases the sales. People want to buy while they can. Interesting I think.

Guns aren't the only thing that can be used to kill and mame. I do realize guns are made to kill, but to most that isn't their purpose of course, they like the history behind them, the craftsmanship, the sport and collectablitly and many other reasons.

What we need are to have the laws enforced that we have not ban guns and create more laws.

reply to post by 5thElement


It is determined on the same grounds that you have for breathing, or writing your post.

Well, I am not an anti-gun person, I in fact am a strong gun-rights, gun toting American citizen. The thing I know though is that a gun, is a tool as well as a weapon, but in the same respect it should be as a last resort to resort to the usage of a weapon. It is not something I take lightly either, as unless I am going to the gun-range the two Glock's I own sit in the range-bag unloaded and ready for quick use if I suspect some moron intends through intent on ending that life I live I will surely return the favor through no hesitation in having the guns at the ready and pulling the trigger without an iota of remorse or second thoughts whatsoever.

Guns do not kill people, stupid people not practicing proper gun safety as well as proper gun storage kill people. Through their ignorance in pointing a loaded or unloaded weapon at someone, jokingly or otherwise, or for some damn fool reason to not have it locked in a gun safe where their three year old can't get to it by accident, or their teen can't get to it to impress their pot smoking buddies.

I believe we have the basic right to defend our lives, that Law Enforcement can not be everywhere at once, no matter how good, bad, or corrupt one may view them that can not be everywhere at once, and can not protect everyone simultaneously, nor should they. We should be allowed to Police ourselves and protect our individual freedoms as well as national freedoms, but through politicians utilitzing laws in conjunction with incidents of stupidity like the Virginia Tech massacre, they manipulate and divert you away from the ture agenda of strenghtening the gun laws and give reason to privatize Law Enforcement within agencies like Blackwater, Dyn Corp, and Triple Canopy.

The deranged mind can use any weapon they have available to them . Cars knifes baseball bats a bag of fertilizer and a petroleum product . And of course in the Caribbean Islands that have Very strict gun controls the murder weapon of choice is a machete . 2 guys run out do their business and run off . A good portion of the Rwanda massacre was done with them also .

See it once and believe me I would rather get shot ANY DAY !

If a deranged mind wants to kill they will find a way . To remove every thing that can kill another human being from the earth we all would have to live in a padded isolated rooms . With a very strict diet .

If we go after guns maybe next we should go after chemical plants that are dumping toxic cancer causing agents into the air and water or the food companies putting additive in food that can cause cancer . or any other thing that causes cancer it is one of the largest killers of Americans . A deranged person with a gun kills a few right here and now . By a executive for a company that is dumping chemicals is killing animals maybe thousands of humans but very slow and painful death another deranged mind . Its all in your perspective

A gun in the hands of a responsible human is no more dangerous than a nurf ball but a deranged mind would find a way to kill you with a nurf ball . The $65,000 question is how do you keep a deranged mind from killing not what to take away so they cant kill because they will find a way to kill if they want to kill .

Originally posted by Humphrey
I do realize guns are made to kill, but to most that isn't their purpose of course, they like the history behind them, the craftsmanship, the sport and collectablitly and many other reasons.

My father collects guns (we get along great in case you are wondering), and I can appreciate craftsmanship and history, but you can have that without the gun being functional. We have a howitzer on display at our local armoury, but the breach has been removed and the barrel filled with concrete so no one can fire it again.

As for sport shooting; cockfighting, dogfighting and streetracing are sports as well, but sometimes the consequences outweigh the entertainment.

[edit on 2008.6.26 by cannonfodder]

I'm from Canada and cannonfodder is the perfect example of how it's near impossible to talk to someone who has been thaught all his life that guns are evil and only rednecks have them.

Why are you affraid of unanimed objects? If a gun kill someone, cheeseburgers are making you fat just by looking at them.

BTW cannonfodder, i'm about to get my permit and buy at least 10 guns. Are you affraid? And I'm gonna shoot them... at a range. The thing I hate in Canada is that I can't have a MG-42 or a MP-40 or a PPSH42... i LOVE WW2 history and militaria and I can't get those weapons... it's sad. The only thing we can have here is a MG-42 modified.

Anyway, good thread.

Cannonfodder, you have hobbies? So how would like it if I would be the government and I would step in and ban some parts of your hobby, restrict it and if you don't comply you go to jail? Well that's exactly what is happenning to my hobby: WW2 simulations.

Anyway I think I'll move to the US when there's a revolution of the sane people or Switzerland if they tear the EU apart.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by Vitchilo]

reply to post by cannonfodder


Why bother trying to fit a car indoors when you have parking lots full of people?

If you want mass casualties in a very short period of time, a gun is hardly the best option.

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
No police force or cop can be every where they are needed to keep the peace. Only armed citizens can. The argument that citizens are not trained to use arms is a misnomer. many are. In the past alot more where but through political correctness it is slowly being denied the common person!

Well, not so much through political correctness, but more under color of law, as opposed to true law. But the rest of your quote reminds me of what A Nation of Cowards (Source: Supreme Law Firm) says about how people actually become willing to sacrifice their Rights.

...In 1991, when then-Attorney General Richard Thornburgh released the FBI's annual crime statistics, he noted that it is now more likely that a person will be the victim of a violent crime than that he will be in an auto accident. Despite this, most people readily believe that the existence of the police relieves them of the responsibility to take full measures to protect themselves...

...Insofar as the police deter by their presence, they are very, very good. Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in front of them. Unfortunately, the corollary is that you can pretty much bet your life (and you are) that they won't be there at the moment you actually need them.

Should you ever be the victim of an assault, a robbery, or a rape, you will find it very difficult to call the police while the act is in progress, even if you are carrying a portable cellular phone. Nevertheless, you might be interested to know how long it takes them to show up. Department of Justice statistics for 1991 show that, for all crimes of violence, only 28 percent of calls are responded to within five minutes. The idea that protection is a service people can call to have delivered and expect to receive in a timely fashion is often mocked by gun owners, who love to recite the challenge, "Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first."

Originally posted by cannonfodder
Why do you ban private citizens from having nuclear weapons? Aren't these considered arms? I think whatever reasons citizens don't have nukes could be applied to guns as well.

Again it comes to personal responsibility because using a nuke for self-defense is pointless...They're too likely to kill you, your family & a lot of your neighbors. That's a very irresponsible attitude merely to exercise your Right to defend yourself & your other Rights.

Originally posted by cannonfodder
As for the right thing, the right to bear arms is not in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as set forth by the UN (www.un.org...). It is also not a right enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a matter of fact, the US may be the only country in the world that this is actually a right. I'm sorry for any offense, but I don't know how to put this delicately - maybe it is possible in this one instance, the US got it wrong.

Nope, the US got it right. Read the Constitution as it concerns the limitations on Treaty-making:

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2--Presidential Powers:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Article 6, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Since the Senate has no authority to mess around with any Unconstitutional Acts, then they cannot authorize any treaties (even with the UN!) that might have the power to do so...Therefore, the UN can't muck around with our Constitution either!
As far as the other nations go, what Rights their people have or don't have doesn't have any bearing on the United States Constitution...Apples & oranges, man, apples & oranges.

Originally posted by Lostinthedarkness
Not every one lives in the confines of suberbia . Most rural people have had trouble skunks foxes bears ect killing livestock or disturbing the home . Wait right there and let me get a club and chase it off .

Yeah, that would work real good with a skunk, won't it?...Don't forget to also put on your CBR (Chemical/Biological/Radioactive) suit.
(Yes, sarcasm intentional, to emphasize the absurdity in that situation)

reply to post by slackerwire


Its been less than a month since some lunatic in Japan killed 7 people and injured about two dozen using a truck and a combat knife. In 2001, another one in Japan killed a bunch of school kids with a knife. It kind of blows their whole theory that only guns allow mass murder, doesn't it?

Deranged idiots will kill regardless of the weapon. The fact that about 40% of all of the 17,000 yearly murders in the US DON'T involve firearms should make this abundantly clear. But yet some people still don't get it.

I'm sure that the antis will be the first to sign up to go door-to-door in the area between the Appalachians and the Rockies when the confiscation bill finally does pass Congress. Yes sir, I'm sure they'll be lining up for that.

I always like to ask persons who are anti-gun, what they would do if they noticed someone trying to break into their home. “Why, call the police, of course!” they say.
“Well, why don’t you just call the young, single-mother next door?” I query. “Well, what can she do to help?” they usually respond. “But, what if the cop that shows up is a young, single mother? What’s the difference?” Then sometimes it dawns on them – she’s bringing a GUN with her. That’s the difference. It’s not that criminals are scared of the police, per se, but they are afraid of ARMED persons coming after them. That’s also why you don’t see too many police officers, or Hells Angels for that matter, getting mugged. Criminals want victims – the more helpless the better. I’ve dealt with a lot of criminals and I have yet to meet one that preferred to target a guy with a pistol on his hip and a Rottweiler on a leash. If someone doesn’t want to have a gun and make themselves a better target for a criminal – fine. Just please don’t tell me that I have to make myself more accessible to a criminal.

Originally posted by cannonfodder

Originally posted by harvib
Fair enough. However if the gun is so obsolete then why the debate?

Because even though they are irrelevant to the intent of the second ammendment, they still kill thousands of innocent people because they empower criminals to instantly extinguish life. Why keep around a dangerous relic?

For defense against beasts/people who wish to harm you/have you for lunch.

For protection of livestock under threat from the same thing.

For hunting and humane slaughter in order to feed oneself.

As a deterrent to those wishing to harm you or others.

To offer protection against governments that don't always stay benevolent.

To offer protection against other countries that don't always stay benevolent.

Because they are more efficient at all of the above than earlier technology designed to do the same thing.

Originally posted by cannonfodder

Originally posted by harvib
Fair enough. However if the gun is so obsolete then why the debate?

Because even though they are irrelevant to the intent of the second ammendment, they still kill thousands of innocent people because they empower criminals to instantly extinguish life. Why keep around a dangerous relic?

Irrelevant? They are still the weopon of choice in the battle field. Every soldier is still issued one throughout the world. Every law enforcement officer at least in the States has one. You seem to be the only one that holds the view that they are irrelevant.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by harvib]

Originally posted by Vitchilo
I'm from Canada and cannonfodder is the perfect example of how it's near impossible to talk to someone who has been thaught all his life that guns are evil and only rednecks have them.

Sorry to disappoint Vitchilo, I was raised with guns. Not that it is any of your business, but I live in Alberta, which is most redneck province in Canada (just North of Montana for our Yankee brothers). I grew up in a blue collar household, with a father who felt it was an obligation to teach his son about firearms responsibly. I used to shoot targets and hunt. I have fired a gun. I have owned multiple pick-up trucks. Big deal. My background shouldn't affect the validity of my arguements.

So what changed my mind? My old man used to collect guns. Black powder muskets, historical pieces, pistols - even a NATO .762 assault rifle. He stored them very responsibly in a locked safe in a hidden room in our house. Despite all that, someone broke into our house when we were not home and stole a good chunk of it. The only weapon ever recovered was the chrome .357 "dirty harry" pistol, from an armed robbery (no one was hurt).

Now my old man was very responsible - he locked and hid his guns, and yet they were still stolen by criminals - I know people that store their rifles in an antique case with 1/8" glass in their living room. I don't think it matters how responsible you are - there is always someone who can take it away from you. Have you ever had anything stolen from you? If you aren't able to watch your weapons 24/7, it could happen to you to, and then you would be part of the problem. It is a hell of a price to pay for someone's hobby.

In any case, I'm not afraid of guns. I do strongly feel the cost of having them around outweighs any benefit to keeping them, especially when they can spew death at an increasingly rapid rate.

Originally posted by Spreadthetruth

For defense against beasts/people who wish to harm you/have you for lunch.

Buy some pepper spray. It works, and is not fatal.

For protection of livestock under threat from the same thing.

This is probably the hardest one to argue against. All I can say is most predators are threatened. Some countries have laws to compensate for predator damage. Still, a single shot rifle would work for those who have a rural lifestyle, and could be licensed as such. We could still ban pistols, semi-automatic, automatic, and anything with a clip.

For hunting and humane slaughter in order to feed oneself.

I don't think a bunch of yahoos riding around of their quads with assault rifles qualifies. If you really want the primal experience of the hunt - use a bow and arrow. Otherwise, try Safeway.

As a deterrent to those wishing to harm you or others.

Either you live in a dangerous place like Kabul, or your not very nice to have all those people wanting to harm you. Hopefully in your fear of others, no one pulls your weapon from behind and uses it on you.

To offer protection against governments that don't always stay benevolent.

I've stated several times you've got no hope against a blackhawk helicopter. Again... look at the Orange revolution - it is far more effective.

To offer protection against other countries that don't always stay benevolent.

.

The US military spends more than the next 10 countries on military expenditures. I really don't think you have to worry about someone coming over.

Because they are more efficient at all of the above than earlier technology designed to do the same thing.

So some nut job can kill more innocents then ever before. Amen.