The (Un)official write anything you want page

[Dick Sirloin]

Explain to me how having a weapon that is efficient at killing people is somehow against the 2nd Amendment?

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.

Kiddie porn is so obviously anti-constitutional I don't think it deserves an argument.

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.

 

[thebaron]

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.

The act of making a gun doesn't kill people, the act of making kiddie porn is most likely child abuse.

 

[KILL TULLY]

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.

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.

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.

Uhhh...what? Very bad argument man, hah. Not even in the same stratosphere.

You are comparing owning a tool to forcing kids into sexual situations, recording it, than distributing it to pedophiles? No.

Also, what happens if you threaten to kill the President? Is this not an obvious example of a limitation on free speech?

No one is saying actions don't have consequences; I'm sure it would raise an eyebrow or two and you may be investigated.

As a side note, I don't think anyone is considering BANNING ALL GUNS altogether.

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.

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.

Uhhh...I'm not sure you have any clue how hard it is to get an automatic weapon as a civilian. Legally, that is.

 

[einride]

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).

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

 

[Dick Sirloin]

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.

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?

Uhhh...what? Very bad argument man, hah. Not even in the same stratosphere.

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.

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.

Handguns and certain hunting rifles.

 

[KILL TULLY]

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?

Someone trying to harm them, their family, their neighbors, etc.

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.

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?

Handguns and certain hunting rifles.

Still extremely vague, but okay.

 

[KILL TULLY]

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.

Well, the Bill of Rights especially is supposed to hold a special position as the fundamental rights of all Americans.

Also I think the only amendment that modified the constitution (instead of adding to it) was the 21st amendment retracting alcohol prohibition.

I'm not scholar though; so I would leave that sort of question up to the experts to be honest.

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?

Absolutely it should be considered; but so far (in my own humble, layman) opinion and through my own research I don't think it is the case. I believe the constitution, as it is written, is still very relevant.

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).

 

[einride]

Argh, very sad to hear that. People have always held Sweden in very high regard (they still do).

here's a fun tidbit

one of the political parties in sweden recently announced that part of their new political platform is to open sweden's borders completely to immigrants, with no restrictions whatsoever

their vision is to, in the coming years, let 30 million immigrants (if the pattern holds, most of them uneducated, from places like somalia and iraq) into sweden, a country with 9 million inhabitants

that is, immigrants would outnumber actual native swedes over 3:1

granted this is a party with about 4% of the votes that is rapidly fading into irrelevance but they are part of our current parliament and government. this is the kind of political climate we're living in

 

[Dick Sirloin]

Someone trying to harm them, their family, their neighbors, etc.

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.

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.

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.

Also, again, where is all this 'automatic weapon' stuff coming from?

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.

Still extremely vague, but okay.

People smarter than me and more gun-knowledgeable than me will iron out the details.

 

[einride]

Again, why else would one need to own a weapon that can fire three rounds per second?

defense against polar bear attacks, if you live on greenland or svalbard

polar bears are tough as fucking nails

then again, as far as i know, big honkin' shotguns are the preferred weapons in those situations

 

[KILL TULLY]

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.

Most handguns are more 'powerful'/higher caliber than the weapon you are talking about in this scenario.

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.

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.

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.

Who the heck is walking around with all these automatic weapons, is what I'm asking? You are making it seem like I can just walk down to the gun-store and buy a freaking assault rifle.

People smarter than me and more gun-knowledgeable than me will iron out the details.

Yea, just like they did with the 'Assault Weapons Ban'...



<-- People actually believe this shit.

 

[Dick Sirloin]

Most handguns are more 'powerful'/higher caliber than the weapon you are talking about in this scenario.

Most handguns can fire three rounds per second?

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.

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." And if anything (talking degree), killing someone is worse than looking at child porn. Sick to even make that distinction, but it's true.

Who the heck is walking around with all these automatic weapons, is what I'm asking?

Paranoiac soccer moms with live-in mentally ill sons, apparently.

Yea, just like they did with the 'Assault Weapons Ban'...



<-- People actually believe this shit.

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.

Second of all, I can't watch Youtube at school.

 

[KILL TULLY]

Most handguns can fire three rounds per second?

Semi-automatic weapons fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, so if you can shoot that fast than yes.

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."

Okay.

Paranoiac soccer moms with live-in mentally ill sons, apparently.

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.

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.

...

Second of all, I can't watch Youtube at school.

Alright.

 

[rms]

One thing I cannot agree with on this issue is the American Government trying it's best to micro manage it's own people. I don't think this will ever stop, and that's that. But I do agree that maybe it's time to enforce smaller sized magazines, only bolt-action rifles and semi-auto handguns..maybe increase costs on larger caliber rounds etc..it's a crazy argument and i'm sure whatever change happens, it will be too little or too much.

 

[Dick Sirloin]

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

 

[KILL TULLY]

Okay, semi-automatic. WHOOPS

Well that is really quite an important and huge difference.

 

[thebaron]

He could have pulled this off with home made explosives too. I don't get why we are debating the tool he chose. Does anyone remember Timothy McVeigh?

Let's deal with the cultural, moral, physical, and mental decay at the root of these psychopaths problems.

 

[einride]

Let's deal with the cultural, moral, physical, and mental decay at the root of these psychopaths problems.

yeah really

i think it's clear at least that the combination of lax gun control laws in the usa AND the cultural & moral decay of the western world is not a great combination when the shit hits the fan

i'm sure these laws were fine back when folks had backbones and knew what was right and wrong

 

[Dick Sirloin]

Just because we can't control one thing doesn't mean we shouldn't control the ones we (sorta) can.

 

[thebaron]

yeah really

i think it's clear at least that the combination of lax gun control laws in the usa AND the cultural & moral decay of the western world is not a great combination when the shit hits the fan

i'm sure these laws were fine back when folks had backbones and knew what was right and wrong

Yeah, and they didn't have the freedom to become absolute degenerates. Making life comfortable and the survival of the group relatively easy may reduce violence overall but the cost is sociopaths who can afford to survive with no moral compass.

Random (occasional) insanity may be the cost of Western 'progressive' thought and hyperspecialized lifestyles.