gg

[Renton]

click

[bikes]

sigh, the only conservative issue I agree with is gun control and this will not help their case.

its tragic such things happen to innocent children having fun. =(

[UG]

omg ban guns because eight year old kids are killing themselves



what type of fucking parent lets their kid shoot an uzi, really?

[meeloche]

what type of fucking parent lets their kid shoot an uzi, really?

This

[vqc]

what type of fucking parent lets their kid shoot an uzi, really?

This

one more time for good measure.

[will641]

sigh, the only conservative issue I agree with is gun control and this will not help their case.

it doesnt help our case because every time something like this happens they report on it and make it out to be a huge deal but never report on when guns are used responsibly and stop a criminal.

[Renton]

sigh, the only conservative issue I agree with is gun control and this will not help their case.

it doesnt help our case because every time something like this happens they report on it and make it out to be a huge deal but never report on when guns are used responsibly and stop a criminal.

Yeah I mean we're really blowing it way out of proportion right?

Sub-machine guns do lots of good in the world, and its just ridiculous that we are tarnishing the pristine sub-machine gun reputation with stupid little minutiae like an EIGHT YEAR OLD BLOWING HIS FUCKING HEAD OFF UNDER EXPERT SUPERVISION.

Stuff like this that happens isn't a huge deal at all. Its only a microcosm for our failing society of fear and aggression. That's all.

[mcatdog]

Sub-machine guns do lots of good in the world, and its just ridiculous that we are tarnishing the pristine sub-machine gun reputation with stupid little minutiae like an EIGHT YEAR OLD BLOWING HIS FUCKING HEAD OFF UNDER EXPERT SUPERVISION.

[BankItDrew]

sigh, the only conservative issue I agree with is gun control and this will not help their case.

it doesnt help our case because every time something like this happens they report on it and make it out to be a huge deal but never report on when guns are used responsibly and stop a criminal.

I think when I read this an angel lost its wings.

[2_Thumbs_Up]

http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/12...ng_his_Ex_Wife

Crazy ex-husband goes in to a store and stabs his ex-wife. Lots of spectators, but no one dares to do anything until an old man with right to carry saves her life. These kind of stories barely ever get any attention in the media. Compare the story with this one:

http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/11...end_Repeatedly (NSFW)

This woman was not fortunate enough to live in a country where law-abiding citizens are allowed to have guns. She got stabed for probably a minute before anyone managed to help her.

The majority of pe0ple are good. Good people should be allowed to defend themselves.

[frosst]

http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/12...n_Shot_in_Back

nobody's mentioned potato guns and the havoc they wreak

[mrhappy333]

http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/11...end_Repeatedly (NSFW)

This woman was not fortunate enough to live in a country where law-abiding citizens are allowed to have guns. She got stabed for probably a minute before anyone managed to help her.

The majority of pe0ple are good. Good people should be allowed to defend themselves.

I want to know who the pussies were that were trying to help her. WTF! They were barely even hitting the guy. FUUUUUUUUUUUCK that shit pisses me off. Kick the fucker in the head real hard!

and also, 8year old kids should never be shooting a fucking gun. WTF, where are peoples common sense?

[Ragnar4]

and also, 8year old kids should never be shooting a fucking gun. WTF, where are peoples common sense?

Actually that was about that age I started shooting my 22. I haven't killed anybody yet. We let a 5 year old shoot a chipmunk 22 about 6 months ago, he didn't kill anybody, and at no point did he even think about pointing the gun at another human

The part we're missing when it comes to common sense, is allowing a child to shoot a fully-automatic rifle with enough force to break a persons nose if it's not being held right. Of course the gun is going to wander, and be uncontrollable. I'll bet the dad had a marlboro in one hand, a PBR in the other and a mullett.

The responsible ownership of the situation dictates that each person analyze each situation that they are in, and decide, is the child I'm with capable of handling this situation, and furthermore, how much micromanaging of the situation do I have to exercise to make sure no-one gets hurt.

[wufwugy]

v well put ragnar

[Renton]

http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1200126710/Good_Samaritan_Shoots_a_Man_Attacking_his_Ex_Wife

Crazy ex-husband goes in to a store and stabs his ex-wife. Lots of spectators, but no one dares to do anything until an old man with right to carry saves her life. These kind of stories barely ever get any attention in the media. Compare the story with this one:

http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/11...end_Repeatedly (NSFW)

This woman was not fortunate enough to live in a country where law-abiding citizens are allowed to have guns. She got stabed for probably a minute before anyone managed to help her.

The majority of people are good. Good people should be allowed to defend themselves.

For the first story, yeah that's a genuinely good thing to attribute to lax gun regulations. As for the second one, I can't say I agree. If that happened in america, the dude would have more than likely had a gun and shot her dead. In that way she was fortunate (seeing as she survived). The fact that he didn't have a gun allowed her to play a more generous parlay for her life than if he did.

Don't mistake me for someone that believes guns should be banned across the board. My principles are a little more complicated than that.

I honestly don't know the answer to the gun problem. I only know that it's a really big problem. I'm frustrated and scared at the fact that American society is so plagued with aggression and fear. I believe that if it weren't so much so, then the fact that americans have a huge hardon for guns wouldn't be so bad.

But I also think the way we glorify guns is a huge contribution to that problem. Doesn't anyone think its just a little bit fucked up that we all play with G.I. Joes, super soakers, etc, when we grow up? That we have killing drilled into our minds from a very early age? Do I think gun toys should be banned, no obviously not. Do I think kids shouldn't be allowed to make believe they are commandos, no. Its just an observation.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I don't necessarily agree or disagree with gun control. I just think our culture is in general fucked up. I think our laws are fucked up. I think its fucked up that uzi's are perfectly legal, but heroin isn't.

The gun issue is really complicated, but I think its really comes down to how much is your freedom worth, and what are your priorities? If your priorities are to be a society that is as free as possible, then guns should be allowed no matter what cost of human life. However, tons of laws in America are based on the preservation of human life at all costs. If protecting human life is the biggest concern than all guns should be banned, this isn't even arguable. I have no facts to back this statement up, but I'd bet a shit load of money that more people die from accidental gun deaths than are saved from crime by civilian carrying.


cliffsnotes: American society is totally fucked up and probably shouldn't be trusted with guns from an elitist standpoint, but if you believe personal liberty is the utmost concern then people should be allowed to have guns no matter how many 8 year olds commit acts of inadvertent eugenics. And if you believe that you should allow heroin, cocaine, partial birth abortion, etc.

[ProZachNation]

I dunno about gun regulation.
My dads side of the family everyone hunts etc all own guns.

Personally I guess I think everyone should be able to own hunting firearms, rifles and shotguns etc. With the rules in place.

For hand guns I think there needs to be greater restrictions on who can own them, I think background checks and classes should have to be taken etc. And people caught carrying concealed weapons w/o a license need a stronger penalty (which would solve a ton of problems.)

But to let an 8 year old use a fully automatic gun is fucking nuts, the parent and the supervisor should both face charges.

Disclaimer:
and for the record one of the most awesome things in life is shooting a gun, it is a fucking BLAST. My dad has a old 9mm my uncle who is a state trooper got him when they switched to .40 or .45(meth heads eat 9mm rounds for breakfast) and he has 15 round clips, and damn just blasting off a whole clip feels awesome.

[JKDS]

But to let an 8 year old use a fully automatic gun is fucking nuts, the parent and the supervisor should both face charges.

This.

[Ragnar4]

Any idiot that hides behind the argument that Americans need guns to protect themselves from the Government, should it become corrupt, is seriously mentally retarded.

It's like they don't understand that todays military would beat any american based insurgence against our government in ways they couldn't imagine.

That being said, it IS our within our liberty to fire guns at live targets if we intend to eat that target and it's in season, and within our liberty to fire guns at non live targets as long as it's in a well regulated area. In some state's it's also within our liberty to fire guns at live targets if they are breaking into your house and rummaging through your fridge high on pot.

What people very often miss though, is that the intent of the constitution is pretty clear that we should only own guns in a well ordained militia.

We as americans largely ignore that argument, and own guns without being in a well ordained militia, and the Government seems to be ok with that... for now.

Where we draw the line, though, is an interesting argument. Do we say only Semi-Automatic rifles are acceptable for joe blow to own? Single fire weapons? Bolt action? We can't just go and outlaw them, we've already establised that the government is ok with their ownership.

And seriously, why the fuck do the gun manufacturers NEED to make a weapon that will deliver 1000 bullets downfield in 8 seconds, and then make it available to the general populace. Are you THAT bad of a deer hunter?
Hell making it available to the military is a pretty poor idea. No idiots going to go into a strafing zone of 100 bullets per 8 seconds, why do you need 1000? Seems like a waste to me.

anyway /rant.

[vqc]

(1)It's like they don't understand that todays military would beat any american based insurgence against our government in ways they couldn't imagine.


(2)What people very often miss though, is that the intent of the constitution is pretty clear that we should only own guns in a well ordained militia.

(1) could u explain to me how the army would pwn the peoples? How would the populace have to form an insurgency in order to actually put up a good fight?

(2)how does this jive with Heller?

[a500lbgorilla]

Any idiot that hides behind the argument that Americans need guns to protect themselves from the Government, should it become corrupt, is seriously mentally retarded.

Hi,

This is the argument I use.

I'm right.

Bye,

-'rilla

[WillburForce]

I'm from Britain and I just find it baffling that guns are allowed (not incl hunting weapons) in America.

We had a massacre in Scotland (some twat with a licensed handgun killed a load of kids and teachers). So what do they do? Ban them. Whats happened since? No more massacres.

We still have gun problems - especially in London, but this is mainly amonst the criminals themselves. And it is serious news when someone is shot here.

The defence about needing a gun for protection is just bs. Defend against what? Guns???!!!???

I don't need a gun, because no-one else has one. I know if I get burgled or get involved in a fight or whatever I'm not gonna get shot. I have a cricket-bat for protection at home and thats it.

And unlike alot of Americans I don't live in constant fear. And I live in one of the biggest cities in the world.

[2_Thumbs_Up]

For the first story, yeah that's a genuinely good thing to attribute to lax gun regulations. As for the second one, I can't say I agree. If that happened in america, the dude would have more than likely had a gun and shot her dead. In that way she was fortunate (seeing as she survived). The fact that he didn't have a gun allowed her to play a more generous parlay for her life than if he did.

Don't mistake me for someone that believes guns should be banned across the board. My principles are a little more complicated than that.

I honestly don't know the answer to the gun problem. I only know that it's a really big problem. I'm frustrated and scared at the fact that American society is so plagued with aggression and fear. I believe that if it weren't so much so, then the fact that americans have a huge hardon for guns wouldn't be so bad.

But I also think the way we glorify guns is a huge contribution to that problem. Doesn't anyone think its just a little bit fucked up that we all play with G.I. Joes, super soakers, etc, when we grow up? That we have killing drilled into our minds from a very early age? Do I think gun toys should be banned, no obviously not. Do I think kids shouldn't be allowed to make believe they are commandos, no. Its just an observation.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I don't necessarily agree or disagree with gun control. I just think our culture is in general fucked up. I think our laws are fucked up. I think its fucked up that uzi's are perfectly legal, but heroin isn't.

The gun issue is really complicated, but I think its really comes down to how much is your freedom worth, and what are your priorities? If your priorities are to be a society that is as free as possible, then guns should be allowed no matter what cost of human life. However, tons of laws in America are based on the preservation of human life at all costs. If protecting human life is the biggest concern than all guns should be banned, this isn't even arguable. I have no facts to back this statement up, but I'd bet a shit load of money that more people die from accidental gun deaths than are saved from crime by civilian carrying.


cliffsnotes: American society is totally fucked up and probably shouldn't be trusted with guns from an elitist standpoint, but if you believe personal liberty is the utmost concern then people should be allowed to have guns no matter how many 8 year olds commit acts of inadvertent eugenics. And if you believe that you should allow heroin, cocaine, partial birth abortion, etc.

I agree with pretty much everything you said. The problem has much more to do with cultural issues than just guns themselves. This is why it irritates me when the media makes it out to be that simple.

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm from Britain and I just find it baffling that guns are allowed (not incl hunting weapons) in America.

We had a massacre in Scotland (some twat with a licensed handgun killed a load of kids and teachers). So what do they do? Ban them. Whats happened since? No more massacres.

We still have gun problems - especially in London, but this is mainly amonst the criminals themselves. And it is serious news when someone is shot here.

The defence about needing a gun for protection is just bs. Defend against what? Guns???!!!???

I don't need a gun, because no-one else has one. I know if I get burgled or get involved in a fight or whatever I'm not gonna get shot. I have a cricket-bat for protection at home and thats it.

And unlike alot of Americans I don't live in constant fear. And I live in one of the biggest cities in the world.

Excellent argument. You don't understand gun ownership therefore it is illogical.

Still ignores the fact that Americans need guns. Maybe the British don't want to cling to the idea that they should intrinsically be allowed to overthrow an unjust gov't, but American's aren't British. We overthrew and unjust gov't to make that distinction.

Sure, it might be largely symbolic and get us into a lot of deep shit, but I still have a better chance against the machine when I've got my rifle.

[WillburForce]

I'm from Britain and I just find it baffling that guns are allowed (not incl hunting weapons) in America.

We had a massacre in Scotland (some twat with a licensed handgun killed a load of kids and teachers). So what do they do? Ban them. Whats happened since? No more massacres.

We still have gun problems - especially in London, but this is mainly amonst the criminals themselves. And it is serious news when someone is shot here.

The defence about needing a gun for protection is just bs. Defend against what? Guns???!!!???

I don't need a gun, because no-one else has one. I know if I get burgled or get involved in a fight or whatever I'm not gonna get shot. I have a cricket-bat for protection at home and thats it.

And unlike alot of Americans I don't live in constant fear. And I live in one of the biggest cities in the world.

Excellent argument. You don't understand gun ownership therefore it is illogical.

Still ignores the fact that Americans need guns. Maybe the British don't want to cling to the idea that they should intrinsically be allowed to overthrow an unjust gov't, but American's aren't British. We overthrew and unjust gov't to make that distinction.

Sure, it might be largely symbolic and get us into a lot of deep shit, but I still have a better chance against the machine when I've got my rifle.

I understand Americans need guns. Because they're pussies and can't fight fair

[yourfather]

Yeah I mean we're really blowing it way out of proportion right?

Sub-machine guns do lots of good in the world, and its just ridiculous that we are tarnishing the pristine sub-machine gun reputation with stupid little minutiae like an EIGHT YEAR OLD BLOWING HIS FUCKING HEAD OFF UNDER EXPERT SUPERVISION.

Stuff like this that happens isn't a huge deal at all. Its only a microcosm for our failing society of fear and aggression. That's all.

Yes this.

This is accurate and cannot be argued against with unrelated anecdotes. C'mon people ZOMG machine guns are cool.

[Ragnar4]

(1)It's like they don't understand that todays military would beat any american based insurgence against our government in ways they couldn't imagine.


(2)What people very often miss though, is that the intent of the constitution is pretty clear that we should only own guns in a well ordained militia.

(1) could u explain to me how the army would pwn the peoples? How would the populace have to form an insurgency in order to actually put up a good fight?

(2)how does this jive with Heller?

1) Do you actually need an explanation as to why a well trained group of killing machines would WTF pwn a bunch of country bumpkins with semi-automatic rifles?

Seriously, if semi-trained, low morale troops with a mix of weapons and no clue whatsoever concerning military tactics had even a shot against our military, the Republican Guard would have snapped us off the moment we invaded Iraq, both times.

An insurgency is about the only way the american populace would stand a chance. 10 men fighting against the government is easily quashable, 1 million men, not so much.

2) I need a bit of an explanation concerning Heller.

[2_Thumbs_Up]

What people very often miss though, is that the intent of the constitution is pretty clear that we should only own guns in a well ordained militia.

First 40 seconds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57lo7n4thFw

[vqc]

(1)It's like they don't understand that todays military would beat any american based insurgence against our government in ways they couldn't imagine.


(2)What people very often miss though, is that the intent of the constitution is pretty clear that we should only own guns in a well ordained militia.

(1) could u explain to me how the army would pwn the peoples? How would the populace have to form an insurgency in order to actually put up a good fight?

(2)how does this jive with Heller?

1) Do you actually need an explanation as to why a well trained group of killing machines would WTF pwn a bunch of country bumpkins with semi-automatic rifles?

Seriously, if semi-trained, low morale troops with a mix of weapons and no clue whatsoever concerning military tactics had even a shot against our military, the Republican Guard would have snapped us off the moment we invaded Iraq, both times.

An insurgency is about the only way the american populace would stand a chance. 10 men fighting against the government is easily quashable, 1 million men, not so much.

2) I need a bit of an explanation concerning Heller.

1) there will never be the chance of an insurgency if guns were not allowed.

furthermore, fighting the gov't isn't limited to literally overthrowing the gov't. what about fighting back against the LAPD? the 14th incorporated much of the bill of rights against the states in a way that was meant to prevent the states from infringing on the rights of the people. Although it has yet to be done, can we re-evaluate the 2nd amendment in light of the 14th (the same way we have re-evaluated many of the other amendments)?

2)maybe I don't understand the Heller decision as well as you do, but doesn't the Heller decision essentially refute the idea that the right to bare arms is limited to those who are part of a well ordained militia? Or are you arguing that the court was incorrect in making its decision?

[vqc]

What people very often miss though, is that the intent of the constitution is pretty clear that we should only own guns in a well ordained militia.

First 40 seconds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57lo7n4thFw

i think its cute how so many people "know" what the constitution means and can speak of it in such absolutes when there are plenty of much more intelligent people who can't even come to a consensus.

i do enjoy Badnarik's absolute though. when it comes down to it, his interpretation of the 2nd amendment is the only one that matters.

[2_Thumbs_Up]

What people very often miss though, is that the intent of the constitution is pretty clear that we should only own guns in a well ordained militia.

First 40 seconds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57lo7n4thFw

i think its cute how so many people "know" what the constitution means and can speak of it in such absolutes when there are plenty of much more intelligent people who can't even come to a consensus.

i do enjoy Badnarik's absolute though. when it comes down to it, his interpretation of the 2nd amendment is the only one that matters.

I think the foundation for Badnarik's argument is much more philosophical though. Regardless of what the constitution says it doesn't grant rights, it just lists them. You'd have a right to keep and bear arms even without the second amendment.

[Ragnar4]

Actually, I'm not versed on Court Tests VQC. It's entirely possible that Heller did re-evaluate that extension and now you don't need to be in a well ordained milita in order to bear arms.

The insurgency would never have a chance even if guns are allowed.

One of the most beautiful things about the constitution is that it was written with the intent, and purpose of being re-evaluated to fit with the times. Hancock, Franklin, and others are all very famous for touting the maleablility of the defenitions within the constitution to fit the times of America under the understanding that things would change in the future. So yes, it could be re-evaluated in light of any other ammendments or changes that need to be efficated due to the needs of the populace.

The argument that citizens need to defend themselves from a corrput government is simply antiquated, remember though, I'm not arguing that people shouldn't have guns. I believe it is one of our liberty based rights to responsibly own handguns, rifles, etc. I'm simply arguing that anyone that thinks that way (I need mah guns so I kin kill me some corrupt politicians) is way off base.

There are many more, stronger, more responsible, and flat out better arguments out there.

edit, also I haven't watched any of the youtubes since my last post, I'm at work and have the liberty to post on forums, but not to take up precious bandwith with youtubes.

[vqc]

Actually, I'm not versed on Court Tests VQC. It's entirely possible that Heller did re-evaluate that extension and now you don't need to be in a well ordained milita in order to bear arms.

The insurgency would never have a chance even if guns are allowed.

One of the most beautiful things about the constitution is that it was written with the intent, and purpose of being re-evaluated to fit with the times. Hancock, Franklin, and others are all very famous for touting the maleablility of the defenitions within the constitution to fit the times of America under the understanding that things would change in the future. So yes, it could be re-evaluated in light of any other ammendments or changes that need to be efficated due to the needs of the populace.

The argument that citizens need to defend themselves from a corrput government is simply antiquated, remember though, I'm not arguing that people shouldn't have guns. I believe it is one of our liberty based rights to responsibly own handguns, rifles, etc. I'm simply arguing that anyone that thinks that way (I need mah guns so I kin kill me some corrupt politicians) is way off base.

There are many more, stronger, more responsible, and flat out better arguments out there.

edit, also I haven't watched any of the youtubes since my last post, I'm at work and have the liberty to post on forums, but not to take up precious bandwith with youtubes.

I know very little 2nd amendment doctrine, but has there been any legal interpretation of the 2nd amendment that required you to be part of a militia to bare arms? And I'm not referring to scholarly articles.

I won't bother arguing whether defending from corrupt gov't is a legit argument. I don't think we will agree on what "corrupt gov't" refers to and it is likely that my argument will turn on some minutiae that is hardly relevant to you but very relevant to me.

[ProZachNation]

Using the argument that Americans should be able to keep weapons in case we want a revolution is a joke.

I will take one tank and a fighter jet over 1000 people with hand guns any day.

[2_Thumbs_Up]

Using the argument that Americans should be able to keep weapons in case we want a revolution is a joke.

I will take one tank and a fighter jet over 1000 people with hand guns any day.

One has to take into account wether he thinks the entire US army will side with the government. I think (or rather hope) that a lot of US soldiers would be pretty uncomfortable if it ever came to this.

[Ragnar4]

Using the argument that Americans should be able to keep weapons in case we want a revolution is a joke.

I will take one tank and a fighter jet over 1000 people with hand guns any day.

Someone sees the light!

I am quite interested in what you would consider a corrupt Government VQC. Because to be honest, I think we're sitting in a pretty nastily corrupt government as things stand, and to be honest, The patriot acts I, II, and III, circia Sept 11th are about as bad as things can get.

I have yet to see the NRA states rise up and defend their rights to liberty, and freedom from opression of our own government. I'd say being thrown in jail with no probable cause is pretty oppressive.

[ProZachNation]

Using the argument that Americans should be able to keep weapons in case we want a revolution is a joke.

I will take one tank and a fighter jet over 1000 people with hand guns any day.

Someone sees the light!

I think we should still be able to have guns tho

[mcatdog]

Using the argument that Americans should be able to keep weapons in case we want a revolution is a joke.

I will take one tank and a fighter jet over 1000 people with hand guns any day.

One has to take into account wether he thinks the entire US army will side with the government. I think (or rather hope) that a lot of US soldiers would be pretty uncomfortable if it ever came to this.

Exactly, many if not most of the times a dictator has been overthrown, it was because the army refused to carry out his orders.

[vqc]

i saw this on another forum and thought it was hilarious:

"4) The Queen may come back for her back taxes. "