- Dec 27, 2004
- 5,585
- 8
- 38
- 38
Oh and I'm glad you read it, or at least portions of it. A lot more than some Americans bother to do .
Explain to me how having a weapon that is efficient at killing people is somehow against the 2nd Amendment?
Kiddie porn is so obviously anti-constitutional I don't think it deserves an argument.
Why do you need to own it then, as a citizen? For your right to kill a fuckload of people? What kind of right is that? If it IS a right, then you don't deserve it. Nor does anyone else.
But you can look at kiddie porn in the privacy of your own home, right? Looking at naked kids is obviously a terrible thing, but how is it any worse than having the potential to shoot a fuckload of people? Pedophiles with kiddie porn also have the potential to molest kids.
Also, what happens if you threaten to kill the President? Is this not an obvious example of a limitation on free speech?
As a side note, I don't think anyone is considering BANNING ALL GUNS altogether. That would be impossible and stupid. The regulations are just too lax in this country. But yeah, we're never going to agree on a fundamental level. I just believe that keeping automatic weapons out of the hands of psychopaths is a priority over just about everything.
Why do you need to own it then, as a citizen? For your right to kill a fuckload of people? What kind of right is that? If it IS a right, then you don't deserve it. Nor does anyone else.
Uhhh...what? Very bad argument man, hah. Not even in the same stratosphere.But you can look at kiddie porn in the privacy of your own home, right? Looking at naked kids is obviously a terrible thing, but how is it any worse than having the potential to shoot a fuckload of people? Pedophiles with kiddie porn also have the potential to molest kids.
Also, what happens if you threaten to kill the President? Is this not an obvious example of a limitation on free speech?
People always says that. Well what guns would you ban than? How do you decide? The only criteria you have to classifying guns is completely fabricated in your head.As a side note, I don't think anyone is considering BANNING ALL GUNS altogether.
That would be impossible and stupid. The regulations are just too lax in this country. But yeah, we're never going to agree on a fundamental level. I just believe that keeping automatic weapons out of the hands of psychopaths is a priority over just about everything.
I suppose it can be looked at that way; but it is more of a fence preventing them from having to much power in my opinion. It was very unique in that aspect at the time (and still to this day).
It's not designed to 'kill a fuckload of people' it's designed to efficiently put rounds on target in order to neutralize threats. You know; defending stuff.
Uhhh...what? Very bad argument man, hah. Not even in the same stratosphere.
People always says that. Well what guns would you ban than? How do you decide? The only criteria you have to classifying guns is completely fabricated in your head.
What in god's holy name does the average citizen need to defend himself from at this level? A full-scale invasion of the home?
You don't think people who own automatic weapons are more likely than the average citizen to go on a shooting rampage? Just like people with kiddie porn are more likely to molest kids? That's my only point here.
Handguns and certain hunting rifles.
indeed a very noble goal, and radical for its time
as an outsider it's pretty easy to think the constitution may be in need for some revision though. it was revised and amended back then, why is that such an impossibility now? i mean this as a genuine question.
while i absolutely understand the value of sticking to the values your country was founded on, i think history has shown that states that fail to adapt to new times are wont to fail in one way or another
the hard thing is adapting while staying true to the spirit of the original intent, i guess
i mean even you cannot deny that the constitution was written in a society in many ways very different to the one you live in today, right? your previous comparisons to the bible are actually quite apt as we know what madness comes from trying to apply the societal laws of the old testament to life in the modern world, and JUST MAYBE some parts of the US constitution are a little bit like that, on a smaller scale? do you see what i am getting at?
i'm not on a very high horse here; my own country is absolutely and unquestionably going down the shitter pretty spectacularly due to rapidly and thoughtlessly accepting anything and everything new in the name of humanism and blah blah blah blah blah. we are at the opposite extreme and i am not happy about that. once upon a time we had a good balance going, but the forces that be sure are doing their best to ruin it
Argh, very sad to hear that. People have always held Sweden in very high regard (they still do).
Someone trying to harm them, their family, their neighbors, etc.
Loaded question. Of course a person with a gun is more likely to commit a gun-related crime than a person without a gun; but that is because they are a criminal, not because they have a gun. They would also be more likely to commit a baseball-bat related crime if they had a baseball-bat.
Also, again, where is all this 'automatic weapon' stuff coming from?
Still extremely vague, but okay.
defense against polar bear attacks, if you live on greenland or svalbardAgain, why else would one need to own a weapon that can fire three rounds per second?
I just don't get it, man. How are a couple handguns somehow not enough to protect your home? What you're talking about defending yourself from sounds like a full scale invasion.
A lot of this question has to do with DEGREE. It's infinitely easier to kill people with a bazooka than a knife (or an automatic weapon and a baseball bat). That whole "crazy people are gonna do crazy things" argument doesn't make sense to me because of that.
Weapons designed with no purpose other than to kill a fuckload of people, real fast. Again, why else would one need to own a weapon that can fire three rounds per second? Again, I'm talking degree here.
People smarter than me and more gun-knowledgeable than me will iron out the details.
Most handguns are more 'powerful'/higher caliber than the weapon you are talking about in this scenario.
That wasn't your argument at all; my response was specificity to the scenario you posted comparing pedophilia to gun-ownership. I'll leave it at that.
Who the heck is walking around with all these automatic weapons, is what I'm asking?
Yea, just like they did with the 'Assault Weapons Ban'...
<-- People actually believe this shit.
Most handguns can fire three rounds per second?
No, it wasn't originally, but you made the comparison between a gun and a baseball bat. Hence the degree component I just brought up. The kiddie porn argument has to do with an individual's "personal freedom."
Paranoiac soccer moms with live-in mentally ill sons, apparently.
...First of all, it's "yeah," not "yea." "Yea" sounds like YAY and means you're a king about to announce something. Maybe that's how you meant it. Not trying to be a dick, it's just a huge pet peeve of mine.
Alright.Second of all, I can't watch Youtube at school.
No automatic weapons were used in this shooting. Or pretty much any. Again, I don't think you have any clue what you are talking about.
Okay, semi-automatic. WHOOPS
yeah reallyLet's deal with the cultural, moral, physical, and mental decay at the root of these psychopaths problems.