Guns
- Thread starter Talentless
- 5,167 comments
- 246,848 views
- 2,364
- Albuquerque, NM
- BloodDiamondPant
+1 so much for getting one of those M1 Garands what S Korea was going to import back.
- 4,543
- Bay Area, CA
- Zenith113
I agree. At this point supporting gun control has no bearing on facts or reason. The goal of a gun control proponents isn't safety, it's victory.
Last edited:
- 5,230
- Buckeye Nation
It'll never happen. We as American Citizens just have to sit back, shake our heads and grin and bear it. Hoping it doesn't hurt too much.
M1's are still readily available. The price is skyrocketing on them as we speak. If this one goes through ... sit back, hold on and watch the prices on these really soar.
Anything they can win concerning guns is a victory for them. Sad. 👎
Simply because these anti gunners do not know the difference. The only thing they know ...
it's a gun, ban it ! R-Tard Politicians
Joel
Premium
- 8,141
- Halifax, NS
- Noob616
Simply because these anti gunners do not know the difference. The only thing they know ...
it's a gun, ban it ! R-Tard Politicians
Well at least with the hysteria around "assault weapons" there's at least a barely reasonable point that they're more firepower than you'd "need" outside of a self defense purpose.
Stopping the sales of M1 Garands or Enfield variants that are a hundred years old will do nothing. If anything, those "military surplus" guns are less dangerous than their modern counterparts. There are modern bolt action rifles or semi auto's with similar characteristics to a Garand that will be unaffected by this. If someone wanted to use this type of rifle to commit a crime, they will still be able to buy brand new rifles that are functionally the same and in most cases would be more accurate and lighter. It just doesn't make any sense.
Last edited:
- 2,858
- Australia
A little piece that's always made me chuckle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXh3EfX_CqA&list=PL5D6D87990ECDC182&index=4
On the serious side: As an outsider looking in, it appears that very often, simply the love of guns is the foundation of the thought process for many in the US.
The human race is in plague proportions, and I'm rarely in the US, so it matters little to me what actually happens. I do get the conversations about whether having guns in the hands of civilians makes for a safer environment or not, and can see merit on both sides. People in rural areas are another consideration as well. What I want to know though is, if it was possible to have no civilians with guns, would the intrinsic love of guns short circuit that as an eventuality, regardless of the pros and cons?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXh3EfX_CqA&list=PL5D6D87990ECDC182&index=4
On the serious side: As an outsider looking in, it appears that very often, simply the love of guns is the foundation of the thought process for many in the US.
The human race is in plague proportions, and I'm rarely in the US, so it matters little to me what actually happens. I do get the conversations about whether having guns in the hands of civilians makes for a safer environment or not, and can see merit on both sides. People in rural areas are another consideration as well. What I want to know though is, if it was possible to have no civilians with guns, would the intrinsic love of guns short circuit that as an eventuality, regardless of the pros and cons?
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
I have no idea what LeMansAid is going on about, and I'm not sure he does either.
Keef
Premium
- 25,104
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
- 5,230
- Buckeye Nation
^ Truth ...
I read that post of his like 5-6 times last night, trying to make heads or tails out of it. Each time it felt like it brought a different perspective to me. I was half-ass afraid to script anything in fear that it may be going off topic of what his implied intentions of the post were.
I read that post of his like 5-6 times last night, trying to make heads or tails out of it. Each time it felt like it brought a different perspective to me. I was half-ass afraid to script anything in fear that it may be going off topic of what his implied intentions of the post were.
- 6,041
- Puget Sound
- Crash852
That's what background checks are for. Firearms sold by dealers have to go through a background check with the Fed government, and the system will come back essentially with either clean, not eligible, or hold - need further review. The dealer doesn't know the reason why someone is denied, but if denied, the dealer cannot and will not sell the firearm. As BobK said, the government holds the list, not individual dealers.
- 2,858
- Australia
Sorry guys, just trying to be colourful and flavoursome, but it seems that sometimes the actual point is lost in the midst of it all.
Disregard the "plague" stuff, as that would really be a different topic entirely.
What my question boils down to is one pertaining to base line motivation. What is the root impetus for having guns in society? If people genuinely believe for themselves, and for their country, that the pervading core motivations are safety and the attempt to control criminal activity (among other noble possibilities), then let the debate continue about the effectiveness of guns. If however, the underlying motivation proves to be a simple love and want for guns, I would call that a rather poor ideological base stand point.
If of any interest, my background with guns is.... well.... non-existent. I have seen a civilian owned gun literally once in my life, and have never laid hands on one at all (I was born in 1975). I'd be very happy for Australia to remain as it is now, in respect to there being very few guns, and with very little gun culture embedded in our society. Very aware that each country has its own status quo though, and not trying to disrespect that (despite being highly amused by the video I previously linked to).
Disregard the "plague" stuff, as that would really be a different topic entirely.
What my question boils down to is one pertaining to base line motivation. What is the root impetus for having guns in society? If people genuinely believe for themselves, and for their country, that the pervading core motivations are safety and the attempt to control criminal activity (among other noble possibilities), then let the debate continue about the effectiveness of guns. If however, the underlying motivation proves to be a simple love and want for guns, I would call that a rather poor ideological base stand point.
If of any interest, my background with guns is.... well.... non-existent. I have seen a civilian owned gun literally once in my life, and have never laid hands on one at all (I was born in 1975). I'd be very happy for Australia to remain as it is now, in respect to there being very few guns, and with very little gun culture embedded in our society. Very aware that each country has its own status quo though, and not trying to disrespect that (despite being highly amused by the video I previously linked to).
arora
(Banned)
- 4,098
"safety and the attempt to control crime" I'd lump that with self defense, and that is far from the point to me. First off a free man should be, you know, free. Obviously I hunt and I don't want to loose that right but the true reason I want my guns is for the exact reason as it is written in the constitution.
I doubt I'm alone 👍
I doubt I'm alone 👍
arora
(Banned)
- 4,098
Not exactly, if I thought that I would have simply left my statement about freedom. Here is the 2nd dealie in case you do not know what it says.
Now then, we are talking about protecting ourselves against foreign threats as well as our own government in cases of tyranny.
Also not to be a smart ass, I would suggest if you really want to know why we fight for them you could do a few quick googles. Something like this "founding fathers on the right to bear arms" or some sort.
Now then, we are talking about protecting ourselves against foreign threats as well as our own government in cases of tyranny.
Also not to be a smart ass, I would suggest if you really want to know why we fight for them you could do a few quick googles. Something like this "founding fathers on the right to bear arms" or some sort.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
What do you call background checks that are already in place? Do you even know how the system here works, legit question not trying to insult you.
You not allowing yourself something that you have a written right to do, doesn't mean others shouldn't be able to do. If you don't want to own a gun that's fine, but if others want to and have a written right to do so then why should that make it less or a reason to own them? Is it because you can't see the like or reason to have it just due to you never seeing yourself own one?
Your second question makes no sense, why would he feel that he should when it right allows him to.
Last edited:
arora
(Banned)
- 4,098
You are talking about simply using your rights willy nilly while I am talking about protecting them, not just for me either but for all.
EDIT: and yes I believe all capable heads of households should have arms, not only have them but be trained to properly use them. Freedom is not free and I get sick and tired of complacency, laziness, and feelings of entitlement.
- 2,858
- Australia
Ah, so more like the right to protect rights? I can see the sense in that, but one still needs to want it.
Edit due to edits: The distinctions between "want", "right", and "should" and the extreme of "must", are very important. I have the right to own a gun, but not the want. That's the determining factor. I wouldn't accept being told that I should have a gun, and certainly not that I must have a gun. Surely for anyone to own a gun, they first need to want it?
Edit due to edits: The distinctions between "want", "right", and "should" and the extreme of "must", are very important. I have the right to own a gun, but not the want. That's the determining factor. I wouldn't accept being told that I should have a gun, and certainly not that I must have a gun. Surely for anyone to own a gun, they first need to want it?
Last edited:
arora
(Banned)
- 4,098
Ah the ninja edit game 
We'll get on track one day, maybe.
If you want it and are responsible you should have it, you absolutely have a right to it, should? Well I say should because I want people to be responsible and work for the things they enjoy day to day. I consider it a must in a loosish term, to me if you are able I see no reason why you would not however I'm not going so far to say required by law. Who would not want to keep some sort of say and power in their life?(that is how my mind works).
Well the want is very important and gets right to the core of my point, while I'll accept if you don't want it for this or that reason, I will never understand it, never.
I hope that load of crap made sense, I've had a few pops sense my last post, sue or flame at will
We'll get on track one day, maybe.If you want it and are responsible you should have it, you absolutely have a right to it, should? Well I say should because I want people to be responsible and work for the things they enjoy day to day. I consider it a must in a loosish term, to me if you are able I see no reason why you would not however I'm not going so far to say required by law. Who would not want to keep some sort of say and power in their life?(that is how my mind works).
Well the want is very important and gets right to the core of my point, while I'll accept if you don't want it for this or that reason, I will never understand it, never.
I hope that load of crap made sense, I've had a few pops sense my last post, sue or flame at will
- 5,230
- Buckeye Nation
When people ask me why I believe it's my right to own and carry firearms, I never tell them, "because of the 2nd Amendment." One thing I do regularly tell people is that I believe it is my personal responsibility to protect my loved ones, myself and even strangers from harm if it is in my power to do so. I believe in the natural born right we all have to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and I believe that part of that pursuit is protecting innocent life at a moment's notice.
- 2,858
- Australia
I envisage you scratching your head, thinking "why on earth would he not want a gun?", and maybe that's my point. If it's nigh on an automatic expectation that a person will want a gun, then the reasoning and point of having a gun may easily be lost, or never found.
To me, "I want a gun, and I have the right to own one" makes sense, but call it what it is.
Conversely, "I have the right to own a gun, so I should own one" would make no sense at all.
There's no indication to me that I would have more freedom if I owned a gun. Opposite in fact, as I would have one more responsibility in my life. I don't need that.
To me, "I want a gun, and I have the right to own one" makes sense, but call it what it is.
Conversely, "I have the right to own a gun, so I should own one" would make no sense at all.
There's no indication to me that I would have more freedom if I owned a gun. Opposite in fact, as I would have one more responsibility in my life. I don't need that.
arora
(Banned)
- 4,098
It's simply a tool, who doesn't want a tool? I'm serious, I have chain saws, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, hand tools, ovens, stoves, etc etc. Who doesn't want a tool that can ensure their way of life?
Anyway, give it all away, that is the reason we have people like Obama in office. Damn I hate democracy and pray to hell we pull our heads out of our ass's and realize a set of rules in a limited republic is the way to go.
To each their own I suppose, pretty soon they will be telling us what we can and cannot eat, oh wait they already do that.
I'm not a dog on a leash, or at least I like to pretend that I am not.
Anyway, give it all away, that is the reason we have people like Obama in office. Damn I hate democracy and pray to hell we pull our heads out of our ass's and realize a set of rules in a limited republic is the way to go.
To each their own I suppose, pretty soon they will be telling us what we can and cannot eat, oh wait they already do that.
I'm not a dog on a leash, or at least I like to pretend that I am not.
- 5,230
- Buckeye Nation
Envision this scenario if you will.
You and your wife are on a drive. Your car suddenly breaks down in the middle of no-mans land. Along comes a man whom you think will help you. At first he appears to be a nice citizen, willing to help a stranded motorist. Suddenly he pulls a weapon and proceeds to rape your wife. Your are left there doing what ? Nothing. Because you would not want to take on an added responsibility of protecting your wife? Try living with that one the rest of your life. You could do nothing to help your wife except sit back and watch her get nailed by a rapist.
Adding this responsibility could have protected her 'ya know. I don't think it's that big of an added responsibility to protect loved ones.
But to each his own .... as you have said,
It's your life, run it as you want to.
Of course, your from Australia, you don't get that choice ..... sad.
- 2,858
- Australia
We could go anywhere with "what ifs", including situations that would end even worse than your hypothetical, if guns were involved. I just hate the idea of "fixing" things that way. It distresses me enough just to see a bridge with features designed specifically to stop people being able to throw rocks on to traffic. Or people buying bigger and bigger cars so that they are safer, or "safer", in the event of a crash. I find it really sad to get to a point where escalation appears to be the only option, and it's a slippery slide.
The escalation debate is a worthwhile one, in my opinion. Though I don't envy anyone trying to work out how reversing escalation could be possible in countries with embedded and wide gun cultures.
I'm more than happy living in Australia, and very happy that if someone comes to steal some of my easily accessible possessions (has never happened to me), they will likely not be "packing heat". Strange as it might sound, I'd rather take a bat to the head than a bullet to the leg, because it is in line with a dearth of escalation. I care about the big picture, and don't want to play my part in tempting fate's slippery slope.
Similar threads
- Poll
