Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Well, autoloading shotguns for example have clip limitations.
I think shotguns, even with sawn off barrels, are harder to hide than pistols. And when you renew your licence they have a look at your gun as far as I'm aware. But all of that said, the sawn off shotgun is the most popular weapon with impromtu armed robbers over here. The gangs seem to like automatic weapons moreso.
By automatic I meant fully automatic though on the whole.
Irish law is a little bit less stringent than UK law but on the whole it's pretty similar. (As with most things)
The police thing I can understand but over here the Gardaí are seen in a more positive light, not as police in the way other countries might. This is changing as irish socierty changes though, certainly in inner city areas distrust of the Gardaí can be high. They aren't armed normally though, which means they rely a lot on diplomacy and knowing people personally more than force. I'd never be worried or annoyed to have to speak to the Gardaí.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I just don't get why you need a fullyautomatic. Are you expecting a small army to invade your property, and need to empty whole rooms at a time?
Surely an semi is all you'd need, as it allows for a decent enough rate of fire should things go really pear shaped?
Not sure what pear shaped means...I've only heard that term used to refer to a woman.
I don't really need any firearm, except my rifle which I use for hunting. I wouldn't own a fully automatic weapon because A. I can't afford it B. I can't afford the ammunition C. It isn't really the type of shooting I want to do regularly. None of this is a matter of need, but rather just something you want to do. Its a hobby for me. I would really like to fire something automatic, just to see what that is like, though. My preferred type of target shooting is using handguns, which often the "need" concept is brought up in relation to that.
Honestly, one of the most enjoyable experiences I've had while shooting was a few years ago when someone brought a flintlock to the range, and let me have a go at it. It is very interesting to shoot, nothing at all like a modern rifle or even a modern muzzleloader.
Incidentally I didn't know you could get an autoloading shotgun at all in the UK or Ireland.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2008/11/22 16:41:04
jp400 wrote:@ Sebster:
Dont really want to argue on Politics too much espically with Obama as the topic (Mainly cause its very touchy, dont want to step on any toes) However here is a very cool read. Please note the links at the end to support every fact here.
FACT: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.17
(snip the rest)
So you're just quoting straight off an NRA website, without checking a single point? Your list has been entirely discredited; http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html. You really should write to the NRA and ask them to stop, because it's bad for the cause and for political debate when a group is happy for its own lobbyists to lie to them like that.
Also, I've noticed you didn't try defending your claim that guns are needed for home defence. Conceding that point?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Grignard wrote:Why can't you just explain why you disagree with his position? Is it really that difficult? I disagreed with sebster's point, but I thought I tried to explain my point with at least an attempt at respect. Do you understand that this sort of crap is why these threads get locked? Don't you think it possible to disagree with a few aspects of public policy and not have "paranoia of Obama and Co."? Sure, a lot of that list is interpreted in the worst possible light, I absolutely agree with that. You do realize that opinions are not 1 or 10, but can fall along an entire spectrum of possibilities.
Yeah, I think people should be expected to substantiate their points, and be willing to clarify with additional post if they want to be taken seriously... but I'm not sure that much substance is really needed when the other guy is just cutting and pasting old, discredited chain emails.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I just don't get why you need a fullyautomatic. Are you expecting a small army to invade your property, and need to empty whole rooms at a time?
For maintaing suppressive fire while the artillery is brought on target, obviously.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Grignard wrote:Not sure what pear shaped means...I've only heard that term used to refer to a woman.
Classic British comedy, The Thin Blue Line, had a character called Inspector Fowler, who referred to things as going 'pear shaped' when things went wrong. I tried to find a youtube clip of him saying it but no luck... just type 'The Thin Blue Line' into youtube to see some of the show if you're interested.
I don't really need any firearm, except my rifle which I use for hunting. I wouldn't own a fully automatic weapon because A. I can't afford it B. I can't afford the ammunition C. It isn't really the type of shooting I want to do regularly. None of this is a matter of need, but rather just something you want to do. Its a hobby for me. I would really like to fire something automatic, just to see what that is like, though. My preferred type of target shooting is using handguns, which often the "need" concept is brought up in relation to that.
Honestly, one of the most enjoyable experiences I've had while shooting was a few years ago when someone brought a flintlock to the range, and let me have a go at it. It is very interesting to shoot, nothing at all like a modern rifle or even a modern muzzleloader.
Yeah, my favourite to shoot was a muzzle loaded Enfield. Felt just like Sharpe, I did
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
First off...
Next time try multiquote bud, its on the forum for a reason.
Second, I love how you seem So full of hate in your posts. Can it be that you cant respond with a reasonable answer backed up by anything other then snide comments and failed attempts at flamebaiting? Really Ol' Boy, it wll help people take you seriously around these parts.
Up next, I posted the links and let people read them and gather there own conclusions. All I said was that it was an interesting read. Also for research dont you think I clicked the posted links at the bottom? Dont you think its hard to argue with black and white from the AP? Hmmmmmmmmmmm? Really.
As for guns for Home/self defence. I felt that it was already worded well by others on this topic. So I didnt feel the need to comment. However since you asked I feel that it really boils down to a personal preference. I feel that I do need a gun for self defence, and that feeling is felt by most of America and most likely the world. If someone comes into my house and is a threat to me or my faimily you better believe im going to shoot the SOB first and ask questions later.
I feel that its Better to be tried by 12 then carried by 6.
@Mad Doc: Actually, full auto is horrible for room clearing. At most you would use a three round burst, but at close range you cant really afford to spray due to the fact that FF accidents are common at that range.
Most Entry Teams are trained to fire in whats called controled pairs. The weapon is on Semi and you fire two well aimed shots in quick succession at your target. This is NOT a double tap.
I will post more later when I have time, but work is calling my name ATM.
jp400 wrote:First off...
Next time try multiquote bud, its on the forum for a reason.
Second, I love how you seem So full of hate in your posts. Can it be that you cant respond with a reasonable answer backed up by anything other then snide comments and failed attempts at flamebaiting? Really Ol' Boy, it wll help people take you seriously around these parts.
Sebster? Hostility? Not really. Your reading hostility into his posts because he isn't bowing to your arguments, but there isn't any malice there I assure you. Snide comments sure, but your argument isn't internally consistent, so that's to be expected.
jp400 wrote:
Up next, I posted the links and let people read them and gather there own conclusions. All I said was that it was an interesting read. Also for research dont you think I clicked the posted links at the bottom? Dont you think its hard to argue with black and white from the AP? Hmmmmmmmmmmm? Really.
Actually the AP is pretty easy to argue with, as all they do is write the immediate fact with minimal contextualization.
jp400 wrote:
As for guns for Home/self defence. I felt that it was already worded well by others on this topic. So I didnt feel the need to comment. However since you asked I feel that it really boils down to a personal preference. I feel that I do need a gun for self defence, and that feeling is felt by most of America and most likely the world. If someone comes into my house and is a threat to me or my faimily you better believe im going to shoot the SOB first and ask questions later.
I feel that its Better to be tried by 12 then carried by 6.
You may feel that way, but don't claim that most of America agrees. And, even if that were true, I would still deny most Americans the right to own weapons as most Americans are not to trusted in their use. Least of all in any type of hostile situation.
jp400 wrote:
@Mad Doc: Actually, full auto is horrible for room clearing. At most you would use a three round burst, but at close range you cant really afford to spray due to the fact that FF accidents are common at that range.
That depends on what you mean by room clearing. In a breach full-auto is virtually worthless, but I think Grotsnik was referring to the suppressing process which takes place immediately prior to a breach.
jp400 wrote:
Most Entry Teams are trained to fire in whats called controled pairs. The weapon is on Semi and you fire two well aimed shots in quick succession at your target. This is NOT a double tap.
I will post more later when I have time, but work is calling my name ATM.
Ah, yeah, looks like it was just a mistake of terminology on MDG's part.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I just don't get why you need a fullyautomatic. Are you expecting a small army to invade your property, and need to empty whole rooms at a time?
Surely an semi is all you'd need, as it allows for a decent enough rate of fire should things go really pear shaped?
Realistically, in terms of home defense, all you really need is a gun. It doesn't matter too terribly what kind of gun, so long as it is a gun. Deterrence is king, and any firearm will accomplish it. Unless you're actually expecting some form of gun battle, in which case you'd want something appropriate. Though if you are expecting a gun battle I would argue that you do not deserve to own a firearm.
Just to be clear, I'm agreeing with you MDG.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
You may feel that way, but don't claim that most of America agrees. And, even if that were true, I would still deny most Americans the right to own weapons as most Americans are not to trusted in their use. Least of all in any type of hostile situation.
I'm glad to know that by your assessment most Americans "are not to be trusted" with firearms. We should allow you to make all of our decisions for us. Apparently we're all culturally ignorant morons, or at least you've tried to make that clear in some of your recent posts . I mean, that is the conclusion I came to from your repeated snide and pedantic remarks and your decision to label a large group of Americans as "burnouts".
dogma wrote:in peace time, there is little economic incentive to enlist for the very fact that climbing through the ranks is so difficult.
Given that America rarely goes more than a decade without protracted miltary action of some sort, this shouldn't (and wouldn't) be a concern anybody considering the service as a career.
Grignard wrote:
I'm glad to know that by your assessment most Americans "are not to be trusted" with firearms. We should allow you to make all of our decisions for us. Apparently we're all culturally ignorant morons, or at least you've tried to make that clear in some of your recent posts . I mean, that is the conclusion I came to from your repeated snide and pedantic remarks and your decision to label a large group of Americans as "burnouts".
Wow. Cherry-picking for emotional resonance. What a surprise.
I have no issue with people making their own decisions, but when the consequences of those decisions (like owning a firearm while not being trained in its use) affect the rest of society I see no reason why society should not demand some form of proof of capacity. And, as a matter of record, no. Most Americans are not to be trusted with firearms. Why? Because most Americans have never used a gun, or been trained to use a gun, in the capacity which is frequently the subject of NRA propaganda. That being self-defense.
Just to be clear, because clarity is important. You are the one assuming that I believe Americans are culturally ignorant morons, you are the one making extrapolative statements based upon minimal evidence, and you are the one dragging this into a contest of personal egotism.
I'm not even going to address your other accusatory statements as they are not only in poor taste, but entirely without merit. I may have used some poor language recently, but that is no reason to make some foolish attempt at labeling me. But then you couldn't be doing such a thing, as that would make you a hypocrite.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
dogma wrote:in peace time, there is little economic incentive to enlist for the very fact that climbing through the ranks is so difficult.
Given that America rarely goes more than a decade without protracted miltary action of some sort, this shouldn't (and wouldn't) be a concern anybody considering the service as a career.
Yeah it should. With the exception of major deployments, like Iraq, personnel are put on as quick a rotation as is logistically feasible. Both to preserve morale/psychology, and to keep benefit payments at a minimum.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
JohnHwangDD wrote:I think you (or I) misunderstood.
I thought you were saying that in peacetime, the "problem" is that people won't have the ability advance because there won't be a war.
I think there will always be enough combat opportunities for any careerist.
Its complicated. Right now the services operate under the idea that there will always be men so long as we have the weapons, and this is partially true. However, as weapons get more complicated the training necessary to wield those weapons becomes more intense. As such, the services have to progressively raise the bar for enlisted men. This means actually getting into the Army/Navy/Air Force becomes a great deal more difficult, and staying in is harder still. This problem is further exasperated by the aforementioned system-centric mentality. Basically, insufficient funds are allotted to the maintenance of personnel so fewer guys are kept on, or allowed in. When the number of quality applicants is high this isn't a problem, but issues of economic feasibility have gradually lowered the number of desirable recruits over the last 20 years. Basically the services are simply not a great option if you want to go to college after your tour; there just isn't enough money in it to justify the lost time. The exception being wartime, but recruitment numbers unfailingly flag in such periods (at least post-Vietnam) as the risk massively increases. So does the reward, but we live in highly risk averse society thanks to the absence of a real social safety net. Plus, the VA is probably the most underfunded agency in the entirety of the United States, which doesn't help matters.
As such, during a time when recruiting standards should have been going up, they have actually been going down. People who should not be in the services are being admitted on a fairly regular basis for the simple fact that they need bodies; whether those bodies are attached to competent minds is a secondary concern. What's worse is that many competent soldiers are being pushed into the civilian life as their pay-grade makes them more of a liability (by perception, not reality) than an asset. Its like the defense sector is being run by the Walton family. All totaled the combination of fewer career guys, lower standards of admission, and quick turn-around has lead to a progressive 'dumbing down' of the armed forces; at least at the enlisted level.
Actually, I' not sure if I really addressed your point in there. At least not clearly. So I'll bullet out a response here:
1) They don't get many good recruits.
2) They don't spend their money in a way which allows them to keep the good recruits they do get.
3) Thus, there is little opportunity for advancement for someone who didn't go to one of the academies as it is enlisted men who get cut first.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Grignard wrote:
I'm glad to know that by your assessment most Americans "are not to be trusted" with firearms. We should allow you to make all of our decisions for us. Apparently we're all culturally ignorant morons, or at least you've tried to make that clear in some of your recent posts . I mean, that is the conclusion I came to from your repeated snide and pedantic remarks and your decision to label a large group of Americans as "burnouts".
Wow. Cherry-picking for emotional resonance. What a surprise.
I have no issue with people making their own decisions, but when the consequences of those decisions (like owning a firearm while not being trained in its use) affect the rest of society I see no reason why society should not demand some form of proof of capacity. And, as a matter of record, no. Most Americans are not to be trusted with firearms. Why? Because most Americans have never used a gun, or been trained to use a gun, in the capacity which is frequently the subject of NRA propaganda. That being self-defense.
Just to be clear, because clarity is important. You are the one assuming that I believe Americans are culturally ignorant morons, you are the one making extrapolative statements based upon minimal evidence, and you are the one dragging this into a contest of personal egotism.
I'm not even going to address your other accusatory statements as they are not only in poor taste, but entirely without merit. I may have used some poor language recently, but that is no reason to make some foolish attempt at labeling me. But then you couldn't be doing such a thing, as that would make you a hypocrite.
You didn't give any explanation, you just made the statement. In *that* capacity, you're probably correct that most Americans don't have that specific training. I agree that no one should consider carrying without said training. However, I don't see how that translates into "not to be trusted with firearms". That is a much more general statement.
You'll note dogma that I'm not really disagreeing with you at all, that isn't the point of the post. What I have a problem with is your delivery. Really, what exactly are people supposed to think. You post a study suggesting how ignorant we are of our own culture for no reason that I could determine other than pointing out that supposed ignorance. You need to tell the whole story, that being that such studies can often be misleading, and are highly dependent on how that data is collected. I corrected you earlier in this very thread for attacking a trivial spelling error before you even expressed your position. I'm not breaking your balls, I'm just asking you to realize how condescending and nasty your posts come off, at least to me. Sure, I realize that I can't speak for everyone on this board, but judging from what responses I have read, it seems that I'm not the only one with that interpretation.
I feel that you're biggest problem is basically what everyone's problem in this country has been lately. You're arguing to win, rather than persuade. That's really the only point of posting in the first place.
Furthermore, I find it maddening that you can't seem to realize that people sometimes make decisions based on feelings and intuition, rather than data, and that isn't always a bad thing. Sure, I understand the value of that approach, I do it every day at work, but I think because that is part of my job I know when to put it away.
Grignard wrote:
You didn't give any explanation, you just made the statement. In *that* capacity, you're probably correct that most Americans don't have that specific training. I agree that no one should consider carrying without said training. However, I don't see how that translates into "not to be trusted with firearms". That is a much more general statement.
It is, which also means it relevance to any given person is largely negligible. Most people don't have training, therefore most people shouldn't have firearms. Certainly this ignores personal variance, but policy isn't made for people. Its made for percentages.
Grignard wrote:
You'll note dogma that I'm not really disagreeing with you at all, that isn't the point of the post. What I have a problem with is your delivery. Really, what exactly are people supposed to think. You post a study suggesting how ignorant we are of our own culture for no reason that I could determine other than pointing out that supposed ignorance.
We're all ignorant. Its one of life's facts that there will always be more to know. Why do you assume that my willingness to make that point means that I exclude myself from it?
Grignard wrote:
You need to tell the whole story, that being that such studies can often be misleading, and are highly dependent on how that data is collected. I corrected you earlier in this very thread for attacking a trivial spelling error before you even expressed your position. I'm not breaking your balls, I'm just asking you to realize how condescending and nasty your posts come off, at least to me. Sure, I realize that I can't speak for everyone on this board, but judging from what responses I have read, it seems that I'm not the only one with that interpretation.
I assumed that would have been apparent from the beginning. All studies vary in accuracy based upon methodology. Why does that need to be said at every turn?
Grignard wrote:
I feel that you're biggest problem is basically what everyone's problem in this country has been lately. You're arguing to win, rather than persuade. That's really the only point of posting in the first place.
I'm not arguing to win, I'm just not arguing from an aesthetic perspective. People can be exceptions, that's perfectly fine. That's the beauty of statistics, they don't apply to individuals so there is no reason to be offended by their discussion.
Grignard wrote:
Furthermore, I find it maddening that you can't seem to realize that people sometimes make decisions based on feelings and intuition, rather than data, and that isn't always a bad thing. Sure, I understand the value of that approach, I do it every day at work, but I think because that is part of my job I know when to put it away.
I realize that people make choices based on feelings and intuition, but I've never debated from the standpoint of personally determined positivity. Why is it somehow personally insulting when I comment on a given trend? Why is a blanket statement always assumed to apply to all people it covers, especially when there are clear provisions made for exceptions?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Grignard wrote:
Furthermore, I find it maddening that you can't seem to realize that people sometimes make decisions based on feelings and intuition, rather than data, and that isn't always a bad thing. Sure, I understand the value of that approach, I do it every day at work, but I think because that is part of my job I know when to put it away.
I realize that people make choices based on feelings and intuition, but I've never debated from the standpoint of personally determined positivity. Why is it somehow personally insulting when I comment on a given trend? Why is a blanket statement always assumed to apply to all people it covers, especially when there are clear provisions made for exceptions?
I'm not sure what personally determined positivity means, except to guess your meaning from context. Perhaps that was a bad choice of words, of all the things you say/post whatever, that is about the least "personally insulting" thing I can think of. That isn't exactly what I meant by "maddening". I suppose it is just having a different manner of thinking. I do frequently, outside of a professional setting of course, determine my course of action or opinion immediately by "internal" feelings and intuition rather than "external" things like observation or data. Or, you can say I form an opinion or take a course of action *then* worry about supporting it instead of forming an opinion *after* evaluating the options. Ultimately, I'll grow impatient on trying to poke holes in an idea that I believe in anyhow. Different manner of thinking I suppose.
Grignard wrote:
I'm not sure what personally determined positivity means, except to guess your meaning from context.
Yeah, that was a rather awkward piece of gibberish. I've been reading Kant lately, so I suppose that's to be expected. A better way to put it would be: I try not to argue issues in terms of individual goods, but social ones.
Grignard wrote:
Perhaps that was a bad choice of words, of all the things you say/post whatever, that is about the least "personally insulting" thing I can think of. That isn't exactly what I meant by "maddening". I suppose it is just having a different manner of thinking. I do frequently, outside of a professional setting of course, determine my course of action or opinion immediately by "internal" feelings and intuition rather than "external" things like observation or data. Or, you can say I form an opinion or take a course of action *then* worry about supporting it instead of forming an opinion *after* evaluating the options. Ultimately, I'll grow impatient on trying to poke holes in an idea that I believe in anyhow. Different manner of thinking I suppose.
That makes sense. I tend to find myself more frequently at odds with impulsive folk than the more contemplative type.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Is it just me or is everyone missing the point on the whole 2nd amendment? The founding fathers placed protections in place to ensure that the status quo was enforced, meaning that if they were going to spend all this time and risk there lives to form a new and revolutionary government they needed a clause to protect it.
The United States was born of rebellion and maintains that its citizens cannot be disarmed. You are a nation of checks and balances, one of which contains the dual assertion that The People are armed and that tyranny should not be tolerated. The founding fathers wanted you to use your voices to keep your government from becoming corrupt and unconstitutional, but left you a loophole in case they managed to seize power regardless.
That being said I think I need a missile launcher, its about time for a revolution.
Kilkrazy wrote:It would seem sensible for a gun owner to take a competency test, the same as drivers and pilots.
Sure, but then that doesn't get at the heart of the matter.
It would be even more sensible to require any public speaker or writer to submit their statements for state review, approval, and correction prior to their being uttered or published, same as drivers and pilots.
... you are really messed up over there aren't you. When the 2nd ammendment was written you were a newly created nation that had wild frontiers, with the possibility of interference from another country (us ) still hanging over your head. So it's understandable that your founding fathers would want a system in place for the nation to protect itself. I wonder if those same founding fathers would pass the same ammendment if they could of seen in to the future? You have a population that gets drunk and pops a neighbour due to an arguement, teenagers who flip due to their hormones and take out their classmates, people high on drugs, people hacked off because they've had a bad day at work. Modern society isn't geared up for allowing the general public access to guns.
Before the gun supporters on the forum kick off and say, "I'm not like that", just stop and think... have you really and truely at some point in your life, even if briefly felt like slotting someone when you've been hacked off. I bet most have, even if you 14 at the time, and if you were that angry at the time and had access to a gun...?
As I said before though, pandoras box has been opened and you do have a violent criminal section of society, so it would be hard not to take up arms in you own home.
Just as a footnote, I do have a fascination with guns myself, I did a stint in the Territorial Army and enjoyed the thing of being on exercise with an assault rifle and going down the ranges. However I feel as a nation it is right that people shouldn't be allowed have guns at home. In fact as much as I used to think allowing people to keep guns at gun club would be ok, I even feel that is actually pointless. Unless you are an official competitor in a shooting sport, there is no need for some to go to the range and fire off a clip from a MP5. Yes it feels nice firing off a clip, but I'd have to question why.
Live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart. Trouble no one about his religion. Respect others in their views and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life. Beautify all things in your life. Seek to make your life long and of service to your people. When your time comes to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song, and die like a hero going home.
Lt. Rorke - Act of Valor
I can now be found on Facebook under the name of Wulfstan Design
jp400 wrote:First off...
Next time try multiquote bud, its on the forum for a reason.
My bad, lots of forums have multiquote and not all of them want you to use it (some prefer you don't), and I tend to forget which is which.
Second, I love how you seem So full of hate in your posts. Can it be that you cant respond with a reasonable answer backed up by anything other then snide comments and failed attempts at flamebaiting? Really Ol' Boy, it wll help people take you seriously around these parts.
Nah, I haven't got any hate. Dogma mentioned 'snide', that's probably closer to the truth. Or possibly 'derision'. But no malice.
Up next, I posted the links and let people read them and gather there own conclusions. All I said was that it was an interesting read. Also for research dont you think I clicked the posted links at the bottom? Dont you think its hard to argue with black and white from the AP? Hmmmmmmmmmmm? Really.
Did you follow the link I posted, that noted each case of the NRA taking points out of context, or representing minor legal disputes as the entire content of a bill? Did you try to get any information on the topic beyond reading an NRA leaflet?
As for guns for Home/self defence. I felt that it was already worded well by others on this topic. So I didnt feel the need to comment. However since you asked I feel that it really boils down to a personal preference. I feel that I do need a gun for self defence, and that feeling is felt by most of America and most likely the world. If someone comes into my house and is a threat to me or my faimily you better believe im going to shoot the SOB first and ask questions later.
I feel that its Better to be tried by 12 then carried by 6.
No, the discussion was about the need for guns to keep government under control.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
dogma wrote:Yeah, that was a rather awkward piece of gibberish. I've been reading Kant lately, so I suppose that's to be expected.
That's about the most wonderful summary of Kant I've seen.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Sure, but then that doesn't get at the heart of the matter.
It would be even more sensible to require any public speaker or writer to submit their statements for state review, approval, and correction prior to their being uttered or published, same as drivers and pilots.
Words don't kill people. Bullets do. There is a degree of finality to gun mishaps which makes such comparisons kind of absurd.
I realize that you're referencing a citizen's capacity to overthrow the state, but look at a different way. If the state every really needed to be overthrown, do you really think that the 2nd amendment would be an impediment to the denial of your right the bear arms?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
people getting hacked off and killing other people wouldent stop if guns were not allowed.
o i know, lets ban all bladed weapons (from swords, to kicthen knives, to axes... if it has a blade it gets baned) and bows, and all easily swung blunt objects (sorry guys, no more baseball), and rope, and thin wire, and chain, cars (so a hacked off guy cant run over other people).... i could go on and on with this list.
i am just using the same logic as the anit gun people use "if we ban the guns, then gun crime will go down"
well, if we ban all weapons of all kinds, then all of the crime will go down right
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
) still hanging over your head. So it's understandable that your founding fathers would want a system in place for the nation to protect itself. I wonder if those same founding fathers would pass the same ammendment if they could of seen in to the future? You have a population that gets drunk and pops a neighbour due to an arguement, teenagers who flip due to their hormones and take out their classmates, people high on drugs, people hacked off because they've had a bad day at work. Modern society isn't geared up for allowing the general public access to guns.
