GUNS - Page 19
+ Reply to Thread
Page 19 of 21 FirstFirst ... 915161718192021 LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 204
Like Tree88Likes

Thread: GUNS

  1. #181
    Mega Poster mom3girls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    You mean like to church and stuff? I'm not sure I understand your question and I'm not a gun specialist, and I'm not sure how it relates to the current topic? I'm confused, could you clarify what you mean? I'm super anti people carrying around guns in public which shoot lots of bullets in seconds, yes. And yes, I think that way way too many people are granted C&C licenses, I would see them severely limited, yes. So I'm not sure if you are questioning me about a type of gun or about C&C'ing licenses or about pacifists. Sorry If my answer isn't clear I am confused by your question. I have never ever argued that a person ought NOT TO be able to have a handgun (I've been specific about what type and how many bullets they should be able to shoot)for protection in their home.
    I think your opinion of handguns and people carrying them for protection is limiting on how people can protect themselves if they are under attack. I brought up shooting an attacker if they came after my kids in acknowledgement to where my pacifism would end. I dont like war, or conflict. In that sense I am a pacifist, but for protection I would be willing to shoot somebody (again theoretically because I am not sure I could actually do it)
    Lisa
    Molly, Morgan, Mia and Carson

  2. #182
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Thats interesting but I don't know what it has to do with RG, or the question I and others asked of RG in relation to her statement. Unless you think that RG was referring to thinking that people should have the right to CC this particular weapon? I don't think that anyone would grant them that. i'm just having a hard time connecting the dots of this argument.

  3. #183
    Mega Poster mom3girls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    Thats interesting but I don't know what it has to do with RG, or the question I and others asked of RG in relation to her statement. Unless you think that RG was referring to thinking that people should have the right to CC this particular weapon? I don't think that anyone would grant them that. i'm just having a hard time connecting the dots of this argument.
    Not really sure about this weapon, I would like to know more about it before I form an opinion. If you dont understand why I dont consider myself a pacifist thats okay
    Lisa
    Molly, Morgan, Mia and Carson

  4. #184
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mom3girls View Post
    Not really sure about this weapon, I would like to know more about it before I form an opinion. If you dont understand why I dont consider myself a pacifist thats okay
    What is it about the weapon that you would like to know that you dont? What items of information would sway you in one direction or the other? Given the information you do have about it, what would convince you that, in your opinion, it would be okay for civilians to have. Given the information you do have about it, what would convince you that, in your opinion, it would not be okay to have?

    ETA: I am curious as to how this sentence would finish:

    "I am okay with an ultra highly accurate firearm that almost never misses its target being in the hands of civilians if the gun has the following properties: _______________"

    I'm assuming if you need to learn more about the weapon to determine your opinion, such a sentence as the one above exists in your mind.
    Last edited by KimPossible; 05-22-2013 at 10:07 AM.
    Spacers and Potter75 like this.

  5. #185
    Mega Poster mom3girls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KimPossible View Post
    What is it about the weapon that you would like to know that you dont? What items of information would sway you in one direction or the other? Given the information you do have about it, what would convince you that, in your opinion, it would be okay for civilians to have. Given the information you do have about it, what would convince you that, in your opinion, it would not be okay to have?

    ETA: I am curious as to how this sentence would finish:

    "I am okay with an ultra highly accurate firearm that almost never misses its target being in the hands of civilians if the gun has the following properties: _______________"

    I'm assuming if you need to learn more about the weapon to determine your opinion, such a sentence as the one above exists in your mind.

    I dont think I would be okay with it in any situation. But that is a gut reaction. I really try not to go just by emotional reactions when it comes to things like this. I would just like to hear arguments from people that think it should be on the market before I say for sure
    Lisa
    Molly, Morgan, Mia and Carson

  6. #186
    Posting Addict Rivergallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    9,768

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spacers View Post
    I've avoided this thread all along because this is one issue that really gets me in the gut. Alas, the page shifted on me as I was clicking, and here I am...

    Whenever I hear the "I need guns to protect me from the government," thing, my first thought is, you only need one pistol and one bullet, and that's to off yourself when the trouble starts. Because there's simply no way that you are ever going to be able to outmatch the U.S. military.

    And to the Second Amendment argument not prohibiting any particular kind of gun, the Constitution wasn't written to prohibit anything; it was written to give rights and freedoms to the people of this new country, and it also established certain regulations and checks & balances to help keep order. One of the beautiful things about our Constitution is that it isn't specific, it's very broadly written, and that's precisely because they were writing it knowing that they didn't know what the world be like 200+ years later. The Founding Fathers didn't envision the need for an Army, hence their desire to legally (and with regulation) arm a volunteer militia, which is what we now call the National Guard. They also could never have fathomed a gun that could kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds or bullets that could pierce armor, or I'd bet that they *would* have regulated those things in the Second Amendment or elsewhere. The average citizen doesn't need that kind of gun or bullet, only a member of the military does, and that's my literal reading of the Second Amendment.
    See I totally disagree that it was written to give rights to the people.. It was written to allow government certain interventions. Just because it isn't written in there doesn't mean it isn't a right.. anything not expressly written is to be assumed to be a right.

    They did fathom instruments of war, that could kill dozens of people in seconds.. IE cannons were invented then... Antietam as far as I know still stands as the bloodiest day in our nations history.. these were not stupid men.. I have said this all before
    DH-Aug 30th 1997 Josiah - 6/3/02 Isaac 7/31/03

  7. #187
    Posting Addict Rivergallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    9,768

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    Mmmm. Nowhere in that definition do I see "when someone is trying to hurt your children say "right on man" and hand them over with a zen like smile". I don't think that pacifists don't believe in self defense. Or in handing over children to rapists and stuff.
    Amish do not believe in self defense. Neither do Quakers.
    AlyssaEimers likes this.
    DH-Aug 30th 1997 Josiah - 6/3/02 Isaac 7/31/03

  8. #188
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Dp

  9. #189
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default Anti vaxers living on an island mentioned. Argument reduction men

    Quote Originally Posted by mom3girls View Post
    This is where I got the idea that you wanted all handguns banned

    Well it's ridiculous to share one sentence of the thousands I've written on this subject! I go on to say "I know it won't be happening any time soon" and state why and what I REALISTICALLY want to happen. Its like me saying "I WANT ALL ANTI VAXERS TO GO LIVE ON AN ISLAND" in a vax debate (I've said that) and then saying how I feel that they weaken herd immunity and why and laying out my entire stance on the issue, and you bringing it up later saying "didn't you say that you want all anti vaxers to go live on an island?" as my entire position. Duh. No.

  10. #190
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rivergallery View Post
    Amish do not believe in self defense. Neither do Quakers.
    But you are neither one. You didn't answer my questions though. As an anti pacifist (unlike Jesus) do you consider yourself pro war or pro violent solution? Do you support weapons such as these being carried around by ordinary civilians as a pro violence person?

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions