Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Gun control
| Re: Gun control [message #337455 is a reply to message #337389] |
Wed, 25 June 2008 11:37   |
|
|
Yes, gun crimes are heat of the moment. However, let's take a look at who actually are the ones doing the shootings.
- Prevalence of homicide and violent crime is greatest in urban areas of the United States.
- The rising trend in homicide rates during the 1980s and early 1990s was most pronounced among youths and Hispanic and African American males in the United States, with the injury and death rates tripling for black males aged 13 through 17 and doubling for black males aged 18 through 24.
- The rise in crack cocaine use in cities across the United States is often cited as a factor for increased gun violence among youths during this time period.
- People with a criminal record are also more likely to die as homicide victims.
- In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime.
Judging from those points, it looks pretty good that in America, gun violence is majorily gang related. I would guess that most of these guys have guns that aren't legally owned, too.
Drunk driving becomes illegal because you're unable to control the vehicle, putting people in danger. Handling a gun, and using it for your protection only puts your attackers in danger.
Oh, and "Criminologist Gary Kleck compared various survey and proxy measures and found no correlation between overall firearm ownership and gun violence."
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
[Updated on: Wed, 25 June 2008 11:42] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337456 is a reply to message #337389] |
Wed, 25 June 2008 12:07 |
 |
GEORGE ZIMMER
Messages: 2605
Registered: March 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Also, keep in mind that once mankind gets its hands on a better technology, he won't want to go back. You'd either have to remove guns from EVERYONE ("Hey every country that isn't ours, could you please remove your guns? Thanks!"), or just carry a gun with you aswell.
That's just how shit works. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there have been periods of time in the past where pretty much everyone carried a sword with them. Someone else going to kill you? You yourself had a weapon of equal ability to defend yourself most of the time.
Toggle Spoiler| Scrin wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 13:22 |
| cAmpa wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 12:45 |
Scrin, stop pming people to get the building bars.
|
FUCK YOU AND THIS SHIT GAME WITH YOUR SCRIPTS!!! I HAVE ASKING YOU AND ANOTHER NOOBS HERE ABOUT HELP WITH THAT BUILDING ICONS FEATURES FOR YEARS, BUT YOU KEEP IGNORING ME AND KEEP WRITE SHIT, SO BURN YOU AND YOUR ASSLICKERS FRIENDS, THIS TIME I'M NOT COME BACK!!!!!!!!!   
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337458 is a reply to message #337456] |
Wed, 25 June 2008 12:13 |
|
|
| Cabal8616 wrote on Wed, 25 June 2008 15:07 |
Also, keep in mind that once mankind gets its hands on a better technology, he won't want to go back. You'd either have to remove guns from EVERYONE ("Hey every country that isn't ours, could you please remove your guns? Thanks!"), or just carry a gun with you aswell
|
Not to mention the incredible invasion of buildings and properties that it would require to rid of guns. Sure, you could probably get some law-abiding citizens to give up their weapons, but good luck getting the weapons from criminals who aren't willing to give them up.
THEN we're back to the problem that the only guns in circulation are those in the hands of policy/military and criminals, and the police are only a reactionary force. How, then, are we to deal with these armed criminals?
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337459 is a reply to message #337457] |
Wed, 25 June 2008 12:24 |
|
GEORGE ZIMMER
Messages: 2605
Registered: March 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| warranto wrote on Wed, 25 June 2008 14:11 |
Careful there. I'm not going to argue any points but "periods of time" means that people carried swords at one point in time when it was acceptable to do so and then the carrying of swords stopped (for whatever reason). Its fair to say that if you are going to use this as a reason, then you have to acknowledge that at some point of time people will stop carrying guns to protect themselves.
Which opens the question of "why not do that now rather than later?"
|
It's been answered numerous times, both in this thread, and by many other people. It's just your personal willingness then to accept them as good reasons then.
But, for the most part, we're ALREADY being limited as it is. I rarely see guns strapped on the backs of people, which is understandable. Yeah, there's people with guns in pockets and etc, but I don't think I've ever seen a period of time in the past where weapons were pretty much limited, and it worked well for them.
Removing weapons from society just makes the problem worse. The only realistic way you can stop people from killing other people is by being the person who's attacked, and NOT being killed through whatever means.
Basically, you can't stop other people from being killed. Some way or another, people will be murdered. It's inevevitible, and by what means they murder is something that's ever changing.
Toggle Spoiler| Scrin wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 13:22 |
| cAmpa wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 12:45 |
Scrin, stop pming people to get the building bars.
|
FUCK YOU AND THIS SHIT GAME WITH YOUR SCRIPTS!!! I HAVE ASKING YOU AND ANOTHER NOOBS HERE ABOUT HELP WITH THAT BUILDING ICONS FEATURES FOR YEARS, BUT YOU KEEP IGNORING ME AND KEEP WRITE SHIT, SO BURN YOU AND YOUR ASSLICKERS FRIENDS, THIS TIME I'M NOT COME BACK!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337461 is a reply to message #337454] |
Wed, 25 June 2008 12:47 |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
Gun control laws simply do not work. Two reasons.
1. Assume you are a criminal who intends to use a gun to aid you in committing another crime. Murder, rape, armed robbery, whatever.
You have no regard whatsoever for society's laws regarding murder, rape, theft, etc. What incentive do you have to follow a law regarding guns? The only people who will be inclined to follow laws on guns will be law-abiding citizens; therefore, only criminals will have guns.
2. Again, assume you are an armed robber. The west side of the city you live in has gun control laws. The east side of the city does not.
Which store would you rather hold up? A store on the west side, where the proprietor won't have a shotgun behind the counter? Or a store on the east side, where the proprietor might have one?
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337465 is a reply to message #337389] |
Wed, 25 June 2008 13:10 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
I've expressed myself at length on this subject quite a few times in the past. I believe that the single best deterrent to crime is the fear of immediate consequence, and that the best way to promise that is to allow the people- the pool of potential victims, the general populace, the sheep, if you will- to arm themselves. Crime would fall like a fucking rock if every gun control law were repealed tomorrow. The vast majority of all crime is committed by people who know what they are doing is wrong and do it anyway. They do what they do because it is easier than hard work and dedication and because they do not fear apprehension by police; why be afraid when you've got several minutes to an hour or more to get away?
I am a gun owner. I own six guns- three rifles, one shotgun, and two handguns. I plan to buy more as soon as I have the money to do so. Do I need all of those guns? No, I don't. For self defense, I would only need the handguns and the shotgun, and probably not even all three weapons. I also don't need a car with 4-wheel-drive, a computer that can play the latest games, my knife collection, my sword, or most of the other stuff I own. Need doesn't come into play; neither the government nor anyone else has the right to deny me these things unless I have proven myself a threat to the people around me. They don't get to tell me what I may or may not own, and for what purpose (again, provided that I do not use it to harm others). That is not the right of government, and it is not the right of my fellow citizens. Call me whatever you will; you do not have the right to disarm me.
Additionally, though guns are indeed weapons, they do not make people willing to kill. They do not tempt people to kill. They make it easier to kill, but the human urges which drive such acts will or won't be present regardless of access to guns or other weapons. Wolves will be wolves, and sheep will be sheep. I know the wolves are out there, so why the hell shouldn't I have access to the most effective means of keeping them at bay? I've yet to hear a single good argument. All of them stem from tearjerking bullshit that ignores reality and human nature.
Would I kill someone who presents a threat to me, my home, or my family? Yes, I would. Would I kill someone because they pissed me off and I hate them? No, I wouldn't. Know why? Because I have self control. I recognize that other people have the same rights I do, which is what forms the basis of any civilized society. If you believe that you would kill people who you don't like simply because you don't like them, then I pity you. You're a pathetic excuse for a human being. Keep your hands and your laws off my guns and out of my fucking home.
As for you twerps across the pond- take a look at your crime rates. Take a good, hard look. Compare them to those places in the US that have right-to-carry laws. Compare them to Switzerland, for fuck's sake. If you don't see the connection, then there's nothing I can say to convince you. You are a lost cause. Feel free to go on ranting about the so-called evils of guns, but also feel free to keep your invasive, draconian government on your side of the Atlantic. Ours is bad enough already.
There are an awful lot of things that I am very open minded about, but this is not one of them. This is an issue that does have a right and a wrong- the numbers prove it, common sense proves it. There is no link, no evidence, that I can show to you that will change your mind, because if you will not see the facts that are right in front of your face then you are delusional. It is not entirely your own fault; you have been brainwashed, one way or another, into believing that guns = crime. I understand why it makes sense to you, but the gun control viewpoint is in the same category as Communism- it only works so long as everybody agrees to abide by it. It only works so long as there are not people who believe themselves above or outside the system. People like criminals, people like the politicians who hypocritically denounce gun ownership and yet waltz around with armed guards. The ideal of a peaceful society is great on paper, but it simply does not work. Unless they are given a reason to be good and just, people will continue not to be. Guns are that reason. They are the means with which those who are good and just keep those who are not from harming the rest of society.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337469 is a reply to message #337465] |
Wed, 25 June 2008 13:23 |
|
|
| NukeIt15 wrote on Wed, 25 June 2008 16:10 |
I've expressed myself at length on this subject quite a few times in the past. I believe that the single best deterrent to crime is the fear of immediate consequence, and that the best way to promise that is to allow the people- the pool of potential victims, the general populace, the sheep, if you will- to arm themselves. Crime would fall like a fucking rock if every gun control law were repealed tomorrow. The vast majority of all crime is committed by people who know what they are doing is wrong and do it anyway. They do what they do because it is easier than hard work and dedication and because they do not fear apprehension by police; why be afraid when you've got several minutes to an hour or more to get away?
I am a gun owner. I own six guns- three rifles, one shotgun, and two handguns. I plan to buy more as soon as I have the money to do so. Do I need all of those guns? No, I don't. For self defense, I would only need the handguns and the shotgun, and probably not even all three weapons. I also don't need a car with 4-wheel-drive, a computer that can play the latest games, my knife collection, my sword, or most of the other stuff I own. Need doesn't come into play; neither the government nor anyone else has the right to deny me these things unless I have proven myself a threat to the people around me. They don't get to tell me what I may or may not own, and for what purpose (again, provided that I do not use it to harm others). That is not the right of government, and it is not the right of my fellow citizens. Call me whatever you will; you do not have the right to disarm me.
Additionally, though guns are indeed weapons, they do not make people willing to kill. They do not tempt people to kill. They make it easier to kill, but the human urges which drive such acts will or won't be present regardless of access to guns or other weapons. Wolves will be wolves, and sheep will be sheep. I know the wolves are out there, so why the hell shouldn't I have access to the most effective means of keeping them at bay? I've yet to hear a single good argument. All of them stem from tearjerking bullshit that ignores reality and human nature.
Would I kill someone who presents a threat to me, my home, or my family? Yes, I would. Would I kill someone because they pissed me off and I hate them? No, I wouldn't. Know why? Because I have self control. I recognize that other people have the same rights I do, which is what forms the basis of any civilized society. If you believe that you would kill people who you don't like simply because you don't like them, then I pity you. You're a pathetic excuse for a human being. Keep your hands and your laws off my guns and out of my fucking home.
As for you twerps across the pond- take a look at your crime rates. Take a good, hard look. Compare them to those places in the US that have right-to-carry laws. Compare them to Switzerland, for fuck's sake. If you don't see the connection, then there's nothing I can say to convince you. You are a lost cause. Feel free to go on ranting about the so-called evils of guns, but also feel free to keep your invasive, draconian government on your side of the Atlantic. Ours is bad enough already.
There are an awful lot of things that I am very open minded about, but this is not one of them. This is an issue that does have a right and a wrong- the numbers prove it, common sense proves it. There is no link, no evidence, that I can show to you that will change your mind, because if you will not see the facts that are right in front of your face then you are delusional. It is not entirely your own fault; you have been brainwashed, one way or another, into believing that guns = crime. I understand why it makes sense to you, but the gun control viewpoint is in the same category as Communism- it only works so long as everybody agrees to abide by it. It only works so long as there are not people who believe themselves above or outside the system. People like criminals, people like the politicians who hypocritically denounce gun ownership and yet waltz around with armed guards. The ideal of a peaceful society is great on paper, but it simply does not work. Unless they are given a reason to be good and just, people will continue not to be. Guns are that reason. They are the means with which those who are good and just keep those who are not from harming the rest of society.
|
My dad said that since Michigan passed it's CCW law, he feels like he has to duck and cover while downtown. Wait... no, he didn't. He said he doesn't feel any less safe than he did when Michigan didn't have it's CCW law. Hmm...
Ohh, and you hit the nail on the head, yet again, NukeIt.
| Spoony |
The only people who will be inclined to follow laws on guns will be law-abiding citizens; therefore, only criminals will have guns.
|
I have yet to be given a good defense to this. Hell, now that I think of it, I don't recall ever been given a response to this.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
[Updated on: Wed, 25 June 2008 13:31] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337478 is a reply to message #337455] |
Wed, 25 June 2008 14:28 |
 |
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 25 June 2008 13:37 |
Oh, and "Criminologist Gary Kleck compared various survey and proxy measures and found no correlation between overall firearm ownership and gun violence."
|
The irony there is obvious.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337483 is a reply to message #337469] |
Wed, 25 June 2008 15:20 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 25 June 2008 14:23 |
| Spoony |
The only people who will be inclined to follow laws on guns will be law-abiding citizens; therefore, only criminals will have guns.
|
I have yet to be given a good defense to this. Hell, now that I think of it, I don't recall ever been given a response to this.
|
This is not my personal belief (I've already stated mine), but a response to this could be:
Crime involving guns in America has not become non-existant by both sides holding weapons. You have an equal weapon to defend yourself should the need arise, yes. But there is no MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)-mentality going on here. Rather the opposite happens. It ensures the gun will be fired. Much of the time the gun is used for purposes of intimidation with no intent of being fired. By producing your own weapon you intensify the situation into a stand-off scenario. Sure, there will be times that the individual backs off when they see their target is armed, but not always. At this point it comes down to personal behavior. The individual may decide to pursue the action, at which point either producing the weapon will be seen as an act of desperation with no intent to use, or it is fired.
If it is fired, it better be to kill because the criminal you just fired at WILL fire back.
Now lets take your gun away. If the criminal was going to shoot regardless, then holding a weapon would do nothing to deter the person.
The best scenario to come out of this is that producing the weapon causes a would-be shooter to back off. However, I would stake that this is one of those "rare" instances talked about before. Since it is a "rare" instance, it can't really be used to determine the outcome that everyone should face.
The point being that the existence of a gun is more likely to intensify than defuse a situation. The criminals will always have guns. But the law-abiding people having them as well does little to ensureyour own safety most of the time.
Edit: fixed the quote
[Updated on: Wed, 25 June 2008 15:21] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337485 is a reply to message #337389] |
Wed, 25 June 2008 15:36 |
|
|
Pacifism? I'll admit that material things aren't worth risking your life for, but pacifism takes that to the extreme. Even then, the whole ordeal is left to the victim to decide whether or not the fight is worth it. The government certainly shouldn't be able to step in and say, "you can't make that judgment call."
Even if gun ownership DIDN'T make people safer (which can easily be proven that it HAS), it certainly hasn't created any more violence, and thus has no reason to be banned.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337491 is a reply to message #337389] |
Wed, 25 June 2008 16:58 |
|
|
Wow, I actually agree with troop... except for his 1st point. The founding fathers knew what a tyrannical government would do, and they wanted to protect the citizens' rights to defend themselves from a tyrannical government, especially their own. While England may not be our overbearing government, the US government is becoming that way.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337496 is a reply to message #337389] |
Wed, 25 June 2008 17:30 |
 |
SlikRik
Messages: 328
Registered: December 2005
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
People who decide to go on shooting sprees followed by suicide obviously have something wrong with them to begin with. Your point is a valid one, the "ease" of access to guns I'd say did have a part to play in this. A guy as unstable as this guy or guys like him obviously shouldn't be able to easily get weapons. However, unless you want to give everyone who purchases a gun a psych evaluation, it will be nearly impossible to determine who these people are. As unfortunate as these incidents are, I don't think they are a good basis to remove the right to buy and bear arms from an entire nation. As horrible as it is to say, the percentage of people who have been killed from shooting sprees such as this one to the entire population of the country is incredibly small, and therefore in my opinion an unjustified reason.
Also, @ the picture in the article: does that red stain on the ground closely resemble a dried pool of blood, or is that just me? lol
Roleplay 2 Website (click pic) designer, owner, and admin.
Roleplay 2 Forum admin.
Present & Past WOL Names: SlikRik (current), SlikRik19/24/07, rik1924, rik19244
| Canadacdn wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 15:52 |
If you don't want EA to get any credit, destroy their Refinery. Duh.
|
[Updated on: Wed, 25 June 2008 17:32] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337497 is a reply to message #337401] |
Wed, 25 June 2008 17:39 |
 |
GoArmy44
Messages: 265
Registered: October 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Caveman wrote on Wed, 25 June 2008 06:49 |
Guns were made to kill people...Therefore they should be illegal to have and yes before anyone says so were XYZ should those be banned to.. Simple answer, yes.
|
Black powder muskets, breach loading rifles, 20 gauge shotguns with birdshot, and elephant guns...all mass human killing machines!
I'm sure this point and in fact this entire subject has been beaten to death, but in the end guns serve to empower the people to defend themselves and their property against aggressors, even the all powerful all knowing government.
Gun Control advocates tend to have a naive faith in the good intentions of government, relying on other people to protect their natural right to life. Now I know we have police to do that, but they are not omnipresent and can not possibly defend you at all times in all places.
In the end I believe that there are three main reasons why a person should be able to own a firearm, the first is protecting property, ensuring power to the people to overthrow the government if it ever becomes necessary and for sports such as hunting or other shooting sports activities.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
~George Washington
PS: Thanks Cheesesoda, I have been undecided on who I was going to vote for this November since Paul dropped out, I was thinking Constitution Party since their candidate was a big supporter of Paul but my state has a ridiculous ballot petitioning process (toughest in the US), I had heard about Barr but didn't really look into him until I saw your signature link. Now I am pretty certain who my choice is.
Reconcilia Rem Publicam!
[Updated on: Wed, 25 June 2008 17:45] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337498 is a reply to message #337389] |
Wed, 25 June 2008 17:47 |
|
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| warranto |
Crime involving guns in America has not become non-existant by both sides holding weapons.
|
Crime will never become non-existent. There is always that element which wishes to subvert or circumvent the rules of society in order to advance itself, no matter who gets hurt along the way.
The largest flaw in this bit of your post has to do with generalization. You simply cannot take the crime statistics for the US as a whole as you can for some other countries. Because of how the US is organized, gun laws vary greatly from state to state and even from city to city. However, the consistent fact is that in those areas where private ownership of guns- especially handguns- is severely restricted or banned, the crime rate is higher in comparison with areas that have no such restrictions. Yes, when set against the entire US population, there are a lot of registered gun owners. However, most of these people are not living in the areas that have the highest crime; likewise, the highest concentrations of violent crime involving illegally owned weapons tend to occur in those places which don't have very many legal gun owners. There's a pattern here somewhere, and I'm not at all convinced that enough people are seeing it- which is a terrible shame for folks living in Trenton, Camden, NYC, Washington DC, Chicago, and other hotspots.
| Quote: |
But there is no MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)-mentality going on here. Rather the opposite happens. It ensures the gun will be fired. Much of the time the gun is used for purposes of intimidation with no intent of being fired.
|
Guns are very effective intimidation- when the person they are pointed at has no gun of their own. You are correct here; when one person with a weapon sees that the other also has a weapon, there is a much higher chance that one or the other will fire. There is an unspoken assumption on the part of either party that the other must be willing to use the weapon they possess; otherwise they wouldn't have brought it along. Whether that weapon is a gun or a knife, the threat response changes drastically when the victim is also armed- rather than trying to reason with the attacker or escape, the would-be victim instead fights back. The presence of a second weapon changes everything- the playing field is leveled, and whether or not the other will be intimidated is entirely dependent on their personality after this happens. This is a good thing, if only because the vast majority of crime is committed by cowardly people (the fact that they attack those who they believe to be unarmed testifies to their cowardice) who are far more likely to be intimidated by the presence of a gun. They don't want to die; they want a pushover- and that pushover just pushed back.
| Quote: |
If it is fired, it better be to kill because the criminal you just fired at WILL fire back.
|
Any handgun defense course will teach you that there are only two targets worth shooting for- center of mass, or the head. Center of mass because, if you are using a larger caliber weapon (in practice, pretty much anything bigger or punchier than a .380 ACP), there is a very good chance that a CoM shot will put your target on the ground unless they are either Superman or so whacked out on drugs that they keep coming anyway. Head, because as we all know there is absolutely no chance of the criminal firing back if they are dead. The standard FBI/law enforcement training target lacks arms and legs for exactly this reason: a nonlethal shot is an ideal, not a reality.
| Quote: |
If the criminal was going to shoot regardless, then holding a weapon would do nothing to deter the person.
|
Simply holding it? No, that won't do shit. That's not the point. If you have a weapon, and you have the shot, use it, or there's no damn point to having brought it out in the first place. If the bad guy has already drawn or is about to draw on you, your imperative is to get your weapon out and fire it before they do the same. Your chances of survival go way down if they've already drawn theirs, but they cease to exist if you don't try.
| Quote: |
The best scenario to come out of this is that producing the weapon causes a would-be shooter to back off.
|
...which is to say that the next best thing would be that you kill the criminal and survive, the next best under that being that you are injured and the criminal is either gone or dead, and beneath that are the worst-case scenarios in which the criminal comes out on top and you have either been driven off, injured, or killed. We all know what the best-case scenario is. The best chance of attaining it- or any positive outcome at all- lies in being armed.
| Quote: |
The point being that the existence of a gun is more likely to intensify than defuse a situation.
|
The presence of a gun does not cause a crisis situation to escalate; that escalation is exactly what calls for the guns presence. If you have a need for the gun in the first place, the time for peaceful resolution has come and gone already. This is the situation in which, if you don't have a gun, you sure as hell wish you did. That type of crisis can happen whether you have it or not, and it is far, far better for your chances of survival to have it.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337558 is a reply to message #337389] |
Thu, 26 June 2008 09:36 |
|
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
I heard about that ruling; it pleases me greatly. This is conclusive; the Supreme Court agrees that the Second Amendment does apply to an individual and not a collective right.
It's not all good news, though; the ruling does not affect existing laws against CCW in places like DC, just whether or not guns may be kept within the home. It's still a step forward, but more progress needs to be made.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
[Updated on: Thu, 26 June 2008 09:38] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun May 05 05:47:09 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01176 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
