You are one seriously stupid motherfucker
(06-11-2013, 09:42 AM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: [ -> ]You are one seriously stupid motherfucker
Hmmmm that is a rather compelling and well thought out argument you bring to the table there my good sir.
You've obviously stopped trying to argue your point because you've realised you haven't got one.
The gun nut in the clip says “of course we have more gun crime here because we have more guns” do you disagree with his statement meathead?
I find it interesting that we, as country, argue so vociferously for our 2nd amendment rights but many of those same people willingly give up some of their 4th amendment rights under this phone tapping situation.
Just an observation I've made.
Maybe some Americans love their guns more than their right to privacy?
Honestly with some yanks its like “can you and your guns get a room please?”
I agree as with immigration enforce the gun laws that are there before creating a bunch more gooblygunk. That is the problem. If you give away freedom for security you have neither freedom nor security.
(06-11-2013, 08:00 AM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: [ -> ]People here in this country are accidentally killed with guns at about the same rate as accidentally run over by their own family and yet, no one is proposing a waiting period to buy a car.
In order to get a driver's license you have to take a written test and demonstrate your ability to drive a vehicle. In California at least, there are restrictions on new drivers (youth) for the first year or so. My point is, I think it's a longer more difficult process to get a car than a gun.
(06-11-2013, 11:20 AM)sally Wrote: [ -> ]Here's another one. Sorry if it's already been posted, but I don't remember seeing anywhere in this thread.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/free/20130...ested.html
That's ridiculous, all those unsecured guns left next to ammunition and a loaded rifle left lying around I'm surprised something like this didn't happen sooner in that household.
(06-11-2013, 11:40 AM)username Wrote: [ -> ]In order to get a driver's license you have to take a written test and demonstrate your ability to drive a vehicle. In California at least, there are restrictions on new drivers (youth) for the first year or so. My point is, I think it's a longer more difficult process to get a car than a gun.
You really should have just ignored sixfootersexs comments about cars he really doesn't know what the flying fuck he is talking about.
You make a very good point about a car being harder to own than a gun though sounds ludicrously ridiculous to me as well.
I very much doubt this will ever be resolved because no matter which way you go with a plan it's going to affect someone's rights, whether it be the right to privacy in regards to mental health issues or the right to bear arms. There will never come a time in our country when guns will be taken from those that have every right to own them, it's just not going to happen.
We don't need more laws governing ownership.
That video was freaking funny!!
(06-11-2013, 11:55 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
I very much doubt this will ever be resolved because no matter which way you go with a plan it's going to affect someone's rights, whether it be the right to privacy in regards to mental health issues or the right to bear arms. There will never come a time in our country when guns will be taken from those that have every right to own them, it's just not going to happen.
We don't need more laws governing ownership.
If you are just willing to sit on your hands and do nothing about it then yes nothing will change. Things can change just look at Australia as a prime example of how things can change. And remember the comments of the stoopid gun nut in the video clip “maybe we have more gun violence in this country because we have more guns”.
NAIL ON HEAD MOTHERFUCKER!
(06-11-2013, 12:08 PM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: [ -> ]Things can change just look at Australia as a prime example of how things can change.
Weren't Australians forced to surrender their guns?
Australians never had a constitutional right to bear arms.
Part of the right to bear arms is this notion of people being able to defend themselves against their own government. Imagine if those Wall Street occupiers took that to mean they could take up arms against their government when they were attempting to disperse them.
Do people really think we have that right?
(06-11-2013, 11:55 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]whether it be the right to privacy in regards to mental health issues
Fuck the mentally ill's rights. If you have any history of mental illness you should not even be able to live in a home where firearms are kept much less buy one.
(06-11-2013, 12:26 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]Part of the right to bear arms is this notion of people being able to defend themselves against their own government. Imagine if those Wall Street occupiers took that to mean they could take up arms against their government when they were attempting to disperse them.
Do people really think we have that right?
Good point. I think that some Americans think the “right to bear arms against their government” only applies to conservatives and the teabaggers and no one else.
What if a bunch of anti capitalist far left militants took up arms to defend themselves against their capitalist government? The 2
nd amendment protects their right to do that does it not?
(06-11-2013, 12:14 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]Weren't Australians forced to surrender their guns?
Australians never had a constitutional right to bear arms.[/i][/size]
Yeah they were and they did so and there have been no more gun massacres as a result.
I've already told you if you want to exercise a right given to you over 300 years ago you may do so using the technology available 300 years ago.
(06-11-2013, 12:27 PM)sally Wrote: [ -> ]Fuck the mentally ill's rights. If you have any history of mental illness you should not even be able to live in a home where firearms are kept much less buy one.
Hey! You're preaching to the choir. All I did was state a fact.
(06-11-2013, 12:51 PM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: [ -> ]I've already told you if you want to exercise a right given to you over 300 years ago you may do so using the technology available 300 years ago.
You're not getting it - it's part of our constitution. Our constitution is not irrelevant. People here take that shit seriously, seriously enough to die for it.
What CN is saying is our founding fathers couldn't have imagined the weaponry available today. That was a vastly different time.
I can't imagine a scenario where the majority of people in the US would support a group taking up arms against the US government.