Guns don't kill

#76
#76
Ed12111 said:
That's debatable. Taking that as true though I've got three problems with that.


1. You really think a bunch of people with their firearms could defeat the U.S army?

2. The founding fathers couldn't possibly know what type of firearms would exist today.

3. The founding fathers believed a lot of things we don't today. No black or women voters as just one example.
Click to expand...

1. No. Neither do I believe we're mobilizing our Army over civil disturbance. In fact, that's not a Regular Army function.

2. The founding fathers certainly would have envisioned weapons advances but that's immaterial. Their language was about comparable capability to that of those imposing laws and rules.

3. We're sure touchy about that constitution thingy, even as wrong as they apparently were.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#77
#77
BeecherVol said:
Why do people shoot people? In their mind, (right or wrong) they find a reason/rationale. Guns make it easier, but not impossible without.

Are those deaths other than from guns less important?
Click to expand...

Of course not. You don't see the problem with what you're saying? "They make it easier" exactly. If something is that dangerous the benefits have to be even more extreme to be allowable. Cars are extremely dangerous, but the good outweighs the bad. Heroin is extremely dangerous, and we've decided the "good" doesn't outweigh the bad. I haven't seen any rationale of why assault rifles, unlimited guns etc.. are more important than the dangers they represent.
 
#78
#78
BigPapaVol said:
1. No. Neither do I believe we're mobilizing our Army over civil disturbance. In fact, that's not a Regular Army function.

2. The founding fathers certainly would have envisioned weapons advances but that's immaterial. Their language was about comparable capability to that of those imposing laws and rules.

3. We're sure touchy about that constitution thingy, even as wrong as they apparently were.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

1.If you don't think you could defeat the Army why offer that as a defense of gun rights?

2. "Their language was about comparable capability to that of those imposing laws and rules." Exactly

3. So you admit it's not gospel.
 
#79
#79
Ed12111 said:
Of course not. You don't see the problem with what you're saying? "They make it easier" exactly. If something is that dangerous the benefits have to be even more extreme to be allowable. Cars are extremely dangerous, but the good outweighs the bad. Heroin is extremely dangerous, and we've decided the "good" doesn't outweigh the bad. I haven't seen any rationale of why assault rifles unlimited guns etc.. are more important than the dangers they represent.
Click to expand...

I see what Im saying, what Im saying that you don't understand (or don't want to) is, after guns are gone and something(s) replace it. Whats next? If it is about death you are not justified by stopping there.
 
#80
#80
Ed12111 said:
1.If you don't think you could defeat the Army why offer that as a defense of gun rights?

2. "Their language was about comparable capability to that of those imposing laws and rules." Exactly

3. So you admit it's not gospel.
Click to expand...

1. Because the Military wasn't the concern of our forefathers. Appointed, born and elected officials were their concern.

2. Again, law enforcement was the concern, not a military campaign.

3. I never said it was gospel or infallible. I said that it's the reason we have the gun laws we live by today. Clearly the framers made mistakes, some historical in nature and others due to politics. Regardless, we have a process for overturning their obvious issues. The glaring ones are done.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#81
#81
Ed12111 said:
Of course not. You don't see the problem with what you're saying? "They make it easier" exactly. If something is that dangerous the benefits have to be even more extreme to be allowable. Cars are extremely dangerous, but the good outweighs the bad. Heroin is extremely dangerous, and we've decided the "good" doesn't outweigh the bad. I haven't seen any rationale of why assault rifles, unlimited guns etc.. are more important than the dangers they represent.
Click to expand...
"We" haven't deciding anything. There is a reason why guns will be here (USA) long after me and you are gone.

Thats a "can of worms" when it comes to death
 
#83
#83
BeecherVol said:
I see what Im saying, what Im saying that you don't understand (or don't want to) is, after guns are gone and something(s) replace it. Whats next? If it is about death you are not justified by stopping there.
Click to expand...

So, no restrictions on guns because doing so doesn't solve 100% of the country's problems? We can't ban heroin because if it's about death we're not justified by stopping there. What's next? Restricting one thing doesn't mean you're on a slippery slope to banning every thing.
 
#84
#84
BigPapaVol said:
1. Because the Military wasn't the concern of our forefathers. Appointed, born and elected officials were their concern.

2. Again, law enforcement was the concern, not a military campaign.

3. I never said it was gospel or infallible. I said that it's the reason we have the gun laws we live by today. Clearly the framers made mistakes, some historical in nature and others due to politics. Regardless, we have a process for overturning their obvious issues. The glaring ones are done.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
\
I'll address number 1. Who do you think would be fighting on behalf of the government? Come on.
 
#85
#85
BeecherVol said:
"We" haven't deciding anything. There is a reason why guns will be here (USA) long after me and you are gone.

Thats a "can of worms" when it comes to death
Click to expand...

Actually "we" have decided that's why heroin is illegal. If you disagree then you're in disagreement with the majority our nation.
 
#86
#86
Ed12111 said:
\
I'll address number 1. Who do you think would be fighting on behalf of the government? Come on.
Click to expand...

You have in mind some mass insurrection, which wasn't the issue here. If it had been about protection from our military, why on earth would they have bothered?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#87
#87
Ed12111 said:
So, no restrictions on guns because doing so doesn't solve 100% of the country's problems? We can't ban heroin because if it's about death we're not justified by stopping there. What's next? Restricting one thing doesn't mean you're on a slippery slope to banning every thing.
Click to expand...

There are restrictions, they don't fit your criteria of banishment.

I will keep my guns and the responsibility that comes with them.
 
#88
#88
BigPapaVol said:
You have in mind some mass insurrection, which wasn't the issue here. If it had been about protection from our military, why on earth would they have bothered?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

It wasn't about protection from the government that is precisely the point.
 
#92
#92
Ed12111 said:
You don't seem to understand my point. I don't have a criteria of banishment.
Click to expand...

You have bounced around so much I wasn't sure.

Do you think the black market for "hunting" weapons will skyrocket if they are all that is left?
 
#94
#94
BeecherVol said:
You have bounced around so much I wasn't sure.

Do you think the black market for "hunting" weapons will skyrocket if they are all that is left?
Click to expand...

If certain guns are made illegal then there will be a black market for them the same way there is a black market for everything that's illegal. That's not really an argument against restrictions or banishment though.
 
#95
#95
Ed12111 said:
If certain guns are made illegal then there will be a black market for them the same way there is a black market for everything that's illegal. That's not really an argument against restrictions or banishment though.
Click to expand...

You missed it.

Would criminals resolve to obtaining "hunting" weapons to carry out there purpose, if the typical piece is illegal, and off the market.
 
#96
#96
BeecherVol said:
You missed it.

Would criminals resolve to obtaining "hunting" weapons to carry out there purpose, if the typical piece is illegal, and off the market.
Click to expand...

Probably. The people that completely premeditate crimes involving guns would. If you banned guns completely a smaller yet number would use knives or bats or something. If you banned everything sharp or heavy an even smaller number would use their fists. What's your point? The question still remains what's the proper amount of restriction? At what point do the costs outweigh the benefits? I haven't yet seen an argument of why the benefits of certain dangerous weapons outweighs the costs. People who want gun restrictions or bannings aren't monsters out to take away your freedom or fun. They simply think the benefits don't outweigh a couple thousand lives a year.
 
#97
#97
Ed12111 said:
Probably. The people that completely premeditate crimes involving guns would. If you banned guns completely a smaller yet number would use knives or bats or something. If you banned everything sharp or heavy an even smaller number would use their fists. What's your point? The question still remains what's the proper amount of restriction? At what point do the costs outweigh the benefits? I haven't yet seen an argument of why the benefits of certain dangerous weapons outweighs the costs. People who want gun restrictions or bannings aren't monsters out to take away your freedom or fun. They simply think the benefits don't outweigh a couple thousand lives a year.
Click to expand...

Not all of them.

At some point what I own would make the list, no matter their track record or mine.

I ain't down with that.
 
#98
#98
justingroves said:
And I have a constitutional right to own them.
Click to expand...

If they were to be banned, 99% of people wouldn't give them up. That's what I meant. I don't care about your constitutional right to own them, that had nothing to do with what I was saying.
 
#99
#99
If I could get the wife on board with the purchase, I would totally own an AR 15. My stepdad owns one (one of his about 15 guns). It is completely tricked out and fun to shoot. Neither one of us hunt, but we like going to the range together as a hobby. As soon as my son is old enough he is coming with. We are law abiding citizens practicing our second amendment rights. I would love for somebody to tell me what is wrong with this...legally, morally, or ethically.

...and God help anybody that tries to break into our houses.
 
#100
#100
rjd970 said:
If I could get the wife on board with the purchase, I would totally own an AR 15. My stepdad owns one (one of his about 15 guns). It is completely tricked out and fun to shoot. Neither one of us hunt, but we like going to the range together as a hobby. As soon as my son is old enough he is coming with. We are law abiding citizens practicing our second amendment rights. I would love for somebody to tell me what is wrong with this...legally, morally, or ethically.

...and God help anybody that tries to break into our houses.
Click to expand...

My roommate owns an AR15. I don't see the point. Fun to shoot a couple of times, but then it just sits locked away. And they look like riced out cars when they're "tricked out."

FWIW, my official position on guns is more gun control. Not the banning of them. Locks, stricter conceal and carry, tougher laws to get them. Yada yada yada. Too many accidents happen because of guns. But then again, it's all part of natural selection.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top