GUNS

204 posts / 0 new
Last post
Minx_Kristi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 01/02/09
Posts: 1262

I'll hold my hands up and admit I can be judgemental when it comes to this subject in the US. I wouldn't say I stereotype, but when you read about all the shootings it's hard not to wonder why nothing is being done about it.

That being said, I'm not from the US so I'm not sure of the laws etc.

I am fortunate enough to live where I do. Maybe if I lived somewhere more dangerous then I might consider owning a gun, who knows. Right now though, I could not even imagine holding one!

I'm not dilusional to the fact either that the gun problem on the streets of the US is so out of control, that even if something was brought in it wouldn't solve the issue. Maybe the Gov could help though by banning certain guns or making the restrictions for a licence a lot stricter?

I remember watching a TV programme about gun violence in the US and in this particular State, they had carved every single person who was killed by a gun into a wall for all to see. The number of children killed was sickening. I've been trying to find it on google but with no success, very frustrating. As an outsider looking in, it just blows my mind that things like this happen yet there are gun shops all over the US. Or so it seems.... maybe I'm not looking at the bigger picture.

In the UK, people own guns definitely. However, I know that if I was found with a gun in my house I woould be arrested for posession of a deadly weapon. Whether I had brandished it or not - if I had a license then fine but they would expect me to have it locked away. Also, they can take the license off you for the slightest reason - so if you genuinely want the gun for hunting you have to be straight up and down.

Also, police officers don't carry weapons in the UK or here in the IOM. I'm not 100% sure of the reasons behind it but it appears that they prefer it this way from what I have read. That being said, the survey I read was from 2007 so I can imagine the thought on that has changed since 2 police officers were killed last year.

I guess I'm just naive (thankful I'm allowed to be because of how safe it is here) and guns scare the cr@p out of me. I would shake just holding one!

xx

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 3 days ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

So sorry to revive the gun control debate again. I hestitate doing that so much that i couldn't bring myself to create a new thread, but i really do want to see the opinions of people in relation to this story.

A New 'Smart Rifle' Decides When To Shoot And Rarely Misses : All Tech Considered : NPR

I'm very curious about if you feel that this gun should be available to the public. This is kind of new territory as it takes a huge portion of human error out of hitting your target. I mean is a gun a gun no matter what?

A new rifle goes on sale on Wednesday, and it's not like any other. It uses lasers and computers to make shooters very accurate. A startup gun company in Texas developed the rifle, which is so effective that some in the shooting community say it should not be sold to the public.

It's called the TrackingPoint rifle. On a firing range just outside Austin in the city of Liberty Hill, a novice shooter holds one and takes aim at a target 500 yards away. Normally it takes years of practice to hit something at that distance. But this shooter nails it on the first try.

The rifle's scope features a sophisticated color graphics display. The shooter locks a laser on the target by pushing a small button by the trigger. It's like a video game. But here's where it's different: You pull the trigger but the gun decides when to shoot. It fires only when the weapon has been pointed in exactly the right place, taking into account dozens of variables, including wind, shake and distance to the target.

The rifle has a built-in laser range finder, a ballistics computer and a Wi-Fi transmitter to stream live video and audio to a nearby iPad. Every shot is recorded so it can be replayed, or posted to YouTube or Facebook.

YouTube
"Think of it like a smart rifle. You have a smart car; you got a smartphone; well, now we have a smart rifle," says company President Jason Schauble. He says the TrackingPoint system was built for hunters and target shooters, especially a younger generation that embraces social media.

"They like to post videos; they like to be in constant communication with groups or networks," Schauble says. "This kind of technology, in addition to making shooting more fun for them, also allows shooting to be something that they can share with others."

A team of 70 people spent three years creating the technology. Schauble says there's nothing else like it, even in the military. For civilians, TrackingPoint sells its high-end, long-range guns directly. With price tags of up to $22,000, they're not cheap.

Enlarge image
The TrackingPoint rifle's display as seen through the scope.

Courtesy of TrackingPoint
One hunter who doesn't want one is Chris Wilbratte. He says the TrackingPoint system undermines what he calls hunting's "fair chase."

"It's the traditional shooting fish in a barrel or the sitting duck. I mean, there's no skill in it, right? It's just you point, you let the weapon system do its thing and you pull the trigger and now you've killed a deer. There's no skill," Wilbratte says.

This new rifle is being released as the gun control debate continues to simmer in Washington.

Chris Frandsen, a West Point graduate who fought in Vietnam, doesn't believe the TrackingPoint technology should be allowed in the civilian world. The gun makes it too easy for a criminal or a terrorist to shoot people from a distance without being detected, he says.

"Where we have mental health issues, where we have children that are disassociated from society early on, when we have terrorists who have political cards to play, we have to restrict weapons that make them more efficient in terrorizing the population," Frandsen says.

Schauble says because the company sells directly ? instead of going through gun dealers ? it knows who its customers are and will vet them. And he says there's a key feature that prevents anyone other than the registered owner from utilizing the gun's capabilities.

All Tech Considered
Can 'Smart Gun' Technology Help Prevent Violence?
"It has a password protection on the scope. When a user stores it, he can password protect the scope that takes the advanced functionality out. So the gun will still operate as a firearm itself, but you cannot do the tag/track/exact, the long range, the technology-driven precision-guided firearm piece without entering that pass code," he says.

Schauble says demand has been "overwhelming." TrackingPoint now has a waiting list. Others are interested, too: Rifle maker Remington Arms wants to use the technology in rifles it wants to sell for around $5,000

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"KimPossible" wrote:

I'm very curious about if you feel that this gun should be available to the public. This is kind of new territory as it takes a huge portion of human error out of hitting your target. I mean is a gun a gun no matter what?

With a price tag of $22,000 I very much doubt there is a danger of the general public buying this gun. I don't think anyone should be specifically excluded from buying this gun over any other gun though.

Offline
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

Ugh...the fact that this exists is disturbing to me.

As the person in the article said (as a hunter) it takes out the skill. It's no longer hunting it's just BAM! gotcha.

I hate that it takes out the opportunity for the shooter to miss. My god. It's horrid to think of.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 3 days ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

With a price tag of $22,000 I very much doubt there is a danger of the general public buying this gun. I don't think anyone should be specifically excluded from buying this gun over any other gun though.

As with all technology related price tags, there is a very good chance that it will not stay at that price forever. It is brand new technology. I'm not saying it will ever be dirt cheap, and they will likely always be expensive, but i highly doubt as tehcnology improves that prices of guns with ultra high accuracy will stay that unobtainably high.

The question isn't really about price, but if the general public should possess such technology. I understand your second comment addresses that though.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Of course ~ sniper rifles for the general public. Makes perfect sense.

Ugh. My stomach hurts. Well funded terrorist groups will have no problem affording this gun. and since there is such a big push back against background checks, I'm sure they will have no problem getting them. Bravo, NRA! Bravo.

SID081108's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 months ago
Joined: 06/03/09
Posts: 1348

No, no reason for the general public to have that gun.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Jessica80" wrote:

Ugh...the fact that this exists is disturbing to me.

As the person in the article said (as a hunter) it takes out the skill. It's no longer hunting it's just BAM! gotcha.

I hate that it takes out the opportunity for the shooter to miss. My god. It's horrid to think of.

For the people I know that hunt they do NOT do it for sport they do it for food. I do not think it is horrid at all. However.. they also couldn't afford this technology.

Offline
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

Did I say it was for sport? I just referenced that the person in the article DOES hunt and thinks it is ridiculous.

Everyone I know that hunts also does so for food. I still think it should be a learned skill. I fish and it takes a lot of years and work to fish appropriately and to catch fish that you can eat consistently.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Rivergallery" wrote:

For the people I know that hunt they do NOT do it for sport they do it for food. I do not think it is horrid at all. However.. they also couldn't afford this technology.

You didn't answer the question. Do you support this gun being made available to the public, many of whom could afford this gun, unlike your friends?

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Potter75" wrote:

You didn't answer the question. Do you support this gun being made available to the public, many of whom could afford this gun, unlike your friends?

Why not? I don't see anything in the Bill of Rights stating what type of guns the populous can own.

Offline
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

Take out the Bill of rights. What is YOUR opinion on a weapon of this type being available? You think that this is a great idea?

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Jessica80" wrote:

Take out the Bill of rights. What is YOUR opinion on a weapon of this type being available? You think that this is a great idea?

That is a silly question.. So I can't base my ideas on my religion, I can't base them on the law.. what should I base them on?
If everyone was perfect.. or if I was a pacifist I would agree there would be no need for weapons at all ;). Long as there is evil in the world and I am not a pacifist, I think it is only right that the people doing evil to me and mine don't have a chance.. even if that may in the future be the government :).

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Rivergallery" wrote:

That is a silly question.. So I can't base my ideas on my religion, I can't base them on the law.. what should I base them on?
If everyone was perfect.. or if I was a pacifist I would agree there would be no need for weapons at all ;). Long as there is evil in the world and I am not a pacifist, I think it is only right that the people doing evil to me and mine don't have a chance.. even if that may in the future be the government :).

I'm trying to wrap my head around what you mean/translate this. Do you mean that you think that because you have or have the ability to own a gun you feel sure that the people who would do you harm (including the Government) don't stand a chance of being able to do you harm? That your gun protects you from any and all, including a Government gone awry, who would ever try to hurt you? May I ask what sort of gun you have? Is it a magical gun?

Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 day ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

"Rivergallery" wrote:

That is a silly question.. So I can't base my ideas on my religion, I can't base them on the law.. what should I base them on?
If everyone was perfect.. or if I was a pacifist I would agree there would be no need for weapons at all ;). Long as there is evil in the world and I am not a pacifist, I think it is only right that the people doing evil to me and mine don't have a chance.. even if that may in the future be the government :).

How is it silly? I can tell you my opinions of existing laws & rules, even when I obey them I may have differing opinions. Even if you're talking about religious ideas, there are religious scholars who actually debate things instead of taking them for granted. People debate constitutional law all the time. I think she's asking for your opinion.

Offline
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

I didn't say you couldn't base it off the law but I was wondering if those were your true feelings. Not just that they can legally have one but that you think this particular weapon is a good idea in the hands of the public.

For example, I'm perfectly fine with pot being legal. However, I currently obey the laws that are set. If we were debating if someone could be arrested for pot possession and it is illegal I will use the law to support the arrest. Doesn't change my *personal* opinion that it should be legal.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

I can't speak for her, but I think perhaps what RG was saying was that if we lived in a perfect world there would be no need for guns. However, as long as some people have guns and try to hurt people, then there is a need for everyone to be able to have guns.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 3 days ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

But not nec. every kind of gun.

Thats the part that i don't get...and i don't think it matters that it doesn't explicitly list that out in the actual amendment. We've been over this before, we have existing exceptions and rules to the amendments that are not explicitly included in the language.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Rivergallery" wrote:

That is a silly question.. So I can't base my ideas on my religion, I can't base them on the law.. what should I base them on?
If everyone was perfect.. or if I was a pacifist I would agree there would be no need for weapons at all ;). Long as there is evil in the world and I am not a pacifist, I think it is only right that the people doing evil to me and mine don't have a chance.. even if that may in the future be the government :).

This has been bugging me all morning. I don't think that I've ever really encountered anyone who has flat out stated that they aren't a pacifist. I mean, on some level, don't we all want peace? Don't we all believe, on an intellectual level that peace between nations (or individuals CAN be achieved without resorting to war? Does stating that one is NOT a pacifist mean that you would call your self pro war or pro violent solution? I'm really curious about what you mean by this, could you explain it more?

[TD=align: left]pac?i?fism

(ps-fzm)n.1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.
2.a. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
b. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.

I guess that I've never even considered that anyone would be "anti" definition #1. Or #2A. #2 B, well, I would not personally go to war, but I guess I do understand how other people would go to war, but if 2 out of 3 definitions of pacifist fit would one really be "not a pacifist"? I'm very interested to hear more, if you don't mind.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 days ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

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.

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

"Potter75" wrote:

This has been bugging me all morning. I don't think that I've ever really encountered anyone who has flat out stated that they aren't a pacifist. I mean, on some level, don't we all want peace? Don't we all believe, on an intellectual level that peace between nations (or individuals CAN be achieved without resorting to war? Does stating that one is NOT a pacifist mean that you would call your self pro war or pro violent solution? I'm really curious about what you mean by this, could you explain it more? [TD=align: left]pac?i?fism

(ps-fzm)n.1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.
2.a. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
b. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.

I guess that I've never even considered that anyone would be "anti" definition #1. Or #2A. #2 B, well, I would not personally go to war, but I guess I do understand how other people would go to war, but if 2 out of 3 definitions of pacifist fit would one really be "not a pacifist"? I'm very interested to hear more, if you don't mind.

#1 in that definition is where you would lose me. I think that disputes should be handled peacefully, but I dont think they can in some cases.
I dont identify as a pacifist or non-pacifist. But if given the choice to allow someone to harm my kids or take them out I think I would take them out (I say think because I am not sure if I could pull the trigger if it were real)

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"mom3girls" wrote:

#1 in that definition is where you would lose me. I think that disputes should be handled peacefully, but I dont think they can in some cases.
I dont identify as a pacifist or non-pacifist. But if given the choice to allow someone to harm my kids or take them out I think I would take them out (I say think because I am not sure if I could pull the trigger if it were real)

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.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

I am sure the interpretation of the definition is going to vary from one person to the next. When I think of a pacifist, I think of someone who is against violence in all situations including self defence. I am sure in actuality, it is a spectrum with many believes ranging from this to violence only when necessary.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 days ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I am sure the interpretation of the definition is going to vary from one person to the next. When I think of a pacifist, I think of someone who is against violence in all situations including self defence. I am sure in actuality, it is a spectrum with many believes ranging from this to violence only when necessary.

That's not a pacifist, that's just a dumb ***. I think the only people who truly advocate absolute non-violence in a self-defense situation are civil disobedients and then it's more of a political statement than a philosophical belief.
Pacifism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"Spacers" wrote:

That's not a pacifist, that's just a dumb ***. I think the only people who truly advocate absolute non-violence in a self-defense situation are civil disobedients and then it's more of a political statement than a philosophical belief.
Pacifism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quoted from the Wikipedia article - "...and opposition to violence under any circumstance, even defense of self and others."

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780
Confused christianity mentioned.

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Quoted from the Wikipedia article - "...and opposition to violence under any circumstance, even defense of self and others."

Well, the same Wiki article also states this

Later religious teachers like Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), and Jesus have also taught this.

So (I think it was RG, right, who was telling Jessica that she isn't a Christian, or is doing Christianity wrong??) maybe the Wiki article is flawed, because if Jesus was a pacifist, and RG is NOT a pacifist, clearly something is wrong with this Wiki article.

I do not think that 99% of self identified pacifists would hand their children over to child rapists in the name of pacifism. I would argue that pretty vehemently.

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

Melissa, havent you argued pretty regularly that people should not be allowed to carry handguns for protection?

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

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.

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

"Potter75" wrote:

I agree. The truth is that I'd like to see all handguns banned. Other places do it. I just know it won't be happening any time soon (especially with 47% of polled Republicans saying that they forsee an armed rebellion in the coming few years (WTF do I even start with that?)

This is where I got the idea that you wanted all handguns banned

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

"Potter75" wrote:

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)

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

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.

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

"Potter75" wrote:

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

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 3 days ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

"mom3girls" wrote:

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.

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

"KimPossible" wrote:

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

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Spacers" wrote:

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

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Potter75" wrote:

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.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Dp

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780
Anti vaxers living on an island mentioned. Argument reduction me

"mom3girls" wrote:

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.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Rivergallery" wrote:

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?

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

DP

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

triple post

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

Quadruple post

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

"Potter75" wrote:

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[/I] 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.

Duh? Nice.

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

"Potter75" wrote:

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.

Duh? Nice

You said one thing in this debate and then said you have never, ever said that. Conflicting versions. I do not want to make an assumption about what you really believe, as you have asked for people not to make assumptions about you

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"mom3girls" wrote:

Duh? Nice

You said one thing in this debate and then said you have never, ever said that. Conflicting versions. I do not want to make an assumption about what you really believe, as you have asked for people not to make assumptions about you

I apologize, and you are right, in picking out one sentence without context I can see how you can perhaps say that. I have never ever argued that we actually ban all handguns, or that we amend our constitution to do so. Ever. I apologize for the duh, but I felt frustrated that you could actually have been reading my posts all along, pluck one statement entirely out of context, and argue that it is my "position". It isn't and has never been, and I feel as though you would know that, but I know that lots of people participate in these debates do maybe you honestly didn't mean to reduce and misrepresent my position, so forgive my frustration.

It might be like you saying "I WANT every school to have prayer in it!" because of course, as a Christian you would (and should!) probably want that, but, perhaps, as an American, you value separation of Church and State. So while you may want every public school to have prayer because you personally value prayer, you maybe would not actually vote for that because you value the constitution more. If I took one sentence saying "Prayer WOULD be good in the schools!" but ignored the hundreds saying "But I value our constitution more" that would be falsely representing your position. It wouldn't be some big A-HA on my part. Do you see what I am saying? For any of you reading along Lisa said NONE Of this stuff ever I'm just trying to draw a plausable analogy along constitutional lines.

In my heart of COURSE I want no guns at all. However, I believe in our right to bear arms, and I don't want to take this thing so far as to take away our constitutional right to do so. I just want to find a sane, safe way to have both sides "win" on this. I want us to have smaller, saner arms. The kind which actually protect us from the big bad robbers but don't let us play soldier in schools. I've tried to be rational like that, but also admit the reality of my hearts wish. Of course the little girl in me wants no guns at all. What Mom wouldn't want that on some imaginary utopian level? (Except for an anti pacifist, of course) I also want unicorn to exist. Shoot me (ha. Get it?).

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

"Potter75" wrote:

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.

Tried to respond to this last night, could not get it to work.

Duh? Nice. I pointed out an inconsistency in what you said. I was not assuming that I know what you meant, you ask for people to not assume they know what you are saying on a regular basis.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"mom3girls" wrote:

Tried to respond to this last night, could not get it to work.

Duh? Nice. I pointed out an inconsistency in what you said. I was not assuming that I know what you meant, you ask for people to not assume they know what you are saying on a regular basis.

Confused, did you not see my long post above this post? I replied quite clearly why there is no inconsistency, simply a misunderstanding on your part, which I tried to clear up. Is that post not showing up for you? I see it? It's long, I wrote it early this am.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

Testing

Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 day ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

I'm only replying because I can't see Bonita's post. It says she posted, but I sure can't see it.

MissyJ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 01/31/02
Posts: 3289

Laurie -- are you able to see Bonita's post now!?

Sorry about the frustration!

Pages