MLD Woody Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 I don't believe we are necessarily improving the society we live in by adding more and more guns. I'm also not sure how adamant the younger generation is at fighting for more guns in the future. That could be said for a few other conservative social policy views. But like I said, I think it all rotates and is relative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Ever wonder why most of the wood man's arguments lead back to sucking someones dick? But seriously do you think then that society is improved by less and less rights? That is if the right to bear arms is not necessarily positive as you state? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Ever wonder why most of the wood man's arguments lead back to sucking someones dick? But seriously do you think then that society is improved by less and less rights? That is if the right to bear arms is not necessarily positive as you state? WSS I think we all know the answer to that ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Ever wonder why most of the wood man's arguments lead back to sucking someones dick? But seriously do you think then that society is improved by less and less rights? That is if the right to bear arms is not necessarily positive as you state? WSS They do? Also, I am not talking about removing peoples rights exactly. It is more about limiting the extent of them, which is already a thing. You cant yell fire in a crowded theater and claim freedom of speech. I am not trying to take away everyones guns. But at the same time I am trying to limit them because they arent a swimming pool or a car, they are weapons meant to injure or kill others. I do not believe the right to bear arms means the right to own whatever weapon you want, with the ability to take it wherever you want, while making it completely easy to get. Making the process to own a gun more thorough is not removing any rights. Limiting the types of firearms that can be owned do not limit any rights. Keeping them out of some public places do not limit rights. If the purpose of the right to bear arms was so the people could protect themselves against a tyrannical govt, that is completely out of date. No amount of amateur marksmen are going to stop the military. The founding fathers had no idea what innovations the future would bring. Like I have said before, I dont believe the constitution is some holy, infallible document that has all of the answers and can not be changed. I just think it is counter-intuitive to widen the spread of guns in an attempt to lower violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 I think we all know the answer to that ......... Wow, so much content. You add so much to the board. Good job... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 A. Yes they do. This one did remember? B. So you are against taking away rights, merely constraining the ones you don't agree with? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 So, you don't want to limit access to swimming pools? Swimming pools are designed to drown people. @@ Here is a very good, honest article about the issue: http://news.yahoo.com/gun-debate-price-armed-america-more-dangerous-america-143503185.html Oh, and Logic, btw, it isn't "more states are ".... it's literally every single state in the Unitied States has ccw now. The last hold out state was Illinois. Which is weird.... I didn't think Hawaii had that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 I think I'll weigh in at this point with my two pence. I'm actually doing a bit of a u-turn on gun laws from my original stance of 'ban them all!!!!' which may surprise some. Reading testimonies here of incidents involving strangers on deserted roads, animals and all the rest, I'm coming round to the idea that it's necessary to have some form of protection, for certain people, in certain areas. Clearly, if you live on a farm in a remote area of the country, you've got a chance of encountering animals that would attack/kill you if threatened - and that's what *they* perceive as threatened. This isn't something we have to deal with here. No bears, coyotes or anything along those lines. You might get a nasty nip from a ticked off squirrel, but that's about it. So, we have three basic threats that need to be addressed: 1) Animal attacks 2) People attacks in the wilderness 3) People attacks in built up areas - ie, killing sprees in cinemas etc. Clearly, I'm not in the best position to talk about animal attacks. I grew up in the country but we were mostly surrounded by cows and horses. So I ask you people better informed - is there a non-lethal way to deal with/deter generic animals? Clearly, trying to fend off a bear with a knife isn't going to cut it, but what about things like tazers, 'bear-spray' (though that sounds like you need to get quite close) or a very loud foghorn? Just spitballing, I really have no idea. Flare guns? I'm very much of the opinion still that no guns is ideal, but not necessarily workable. So, starting with the assumption of no lethal guns, what could you carry to stop an animal attack, or a person attack? If there's absolutely no feasible solution, then you'd have to consider allowing people to carry guns, but I'm not convinced that's the case. Of course, then you'd have to start thinking about gun safety and the kind of things already discussed in this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Cal, from your article: "The type of person who's going to go through the process of getting a concealed-carry permit is not the kind of person you have to worry about," he says. "They're law-abiding citizens who have a lot to lose if they make a mistake." I'm inclined to agree. The trouble is, when something is widely available, it's a lot easier for the 'wrong' people to get their hands on it. For example, I suspect there's an age restriction on in weed in Colorado? But my guess (it's just a guess, of course) is that it's now a lot easier for kids to get their hands on weed than it has been previously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 I think I'll weigh in at this point with my two pence. I'm actually doing a bit of a u-turn on gun laws from my original stance of 'ban them all!!!!' which may surprise some. Reading testimonies here of incidents involving strangers on deserted roads, animals and all the rest, I'm coming round to the idea that it's necessary to have some form of protection, for certain people, in certain areas. Clearly, if you live on a farm in a remote area of the country, you've got a chance of encountering animals that would attack/kill you if threatened - and that's what *they* perceive as threatened. This isn't something we have to deal with here. No bears, coyotes or anything along those lines. You might get a nasty nip from a ticked off squirrel, but that's about it. So, we have three basic threats that need to be addressed: 1) Animal attacks 2) People attacks in the wilderness 3) People attacks in built up areas - ie, killing sprees in cinemas etc. Clearly, I'm not in the best position to talk about animal attacks. I grew up in the country but we were mostly surrounded by cows and horses. So I ask you people better informed - is there a non-lethal way to deal with/deter generic animals? Clearly, trying to fend off a bear with a knife isn't going to cut it, but what about things like tazers, 'bear-spray' (though that sounds like you need to get quite close) or a very loud foghorn? Just spitballing, I really have no idea. Flare guns? I'm very much of the opinion still that no guns is ideal, but not necessarily workable. So, starting with the assumption of no lethal guns, what could you carry to stop an animal attack, or a person attack? If there's absolutely no feasible solution, then you'd have to consider allowing people to carry guns, but I'm not convinced that's the case. Of course, then you'd have to start thinking about gun safety and the kind of things already discussed in this topic. I saw a film about an American werewolf in London? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 I saw a film about an American werewolf in London? They're all gone now. Hunted out of existence by poachers looking for werewolf rugs to adorn their front rooms and witch doctors who believe werewolf blood is capable of curing cancer and making you more virile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Chris I think you and many are missing the point when you write a list of needs. What do you need a xxxxx for anyway? That's not the idea. The idea is that whatever you suppose you're right to be is actually your unalienable right. Let's say I wanted to put the kibosh on freedom of religion. Since Catholics and Muslims have seemingly caused problems I think I will ban them. Anyway I will allow those who think that Christ is the savior to be Unitarians. Muslims? Well you guys are just too dangerous but you are free to choose whatever religion the government deems acceptable. So now we still have freedom of religion. Goodnight my dear subjects. Tune in tomorrow for more of my decrees tailored to make this a better world. Its for your own good. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 See Steve I don't think that is a completely comparable situation. Also, there are limits on one right to practice religion. Sure, I guess it is my opinion that more guns is not a solution to our violence problem. I'm also not calling to take away the guns from Cals farm, or the ones he walks around with on it, FYI. Pools are designed to drown people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 No, swimming pools are not now, nor have ever been designed or intended to drown children. I would imagine you could speak to the president of Smith and Wesson or to Wayne LaPierre or just about anyone else and none of them would tell you that guns are designed or meant for killing innocent people. Fair statement? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Innocent people? Well no gun is being made with the intent in mind to kill an innocent person. They are used for sport, hunting, etc. At its heart though, the gun was created to be a weapon, and it still is. It is not a pool or car or whatever. No, these accidental gun deaths are not the purpose of a gun, I realize that. But it was designed, at its heart, to harm others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 So, you don't want to limit access to swimming pools? Swimming pools are designed to drown people. @@ Here is a very good, honest article about the issue: http://news.yahoo.com/gun-debate-price-armed-america-more-dangerous-america-143503185.html Oh, and Logic, btw, it isn't "more states are ".... it's literally every single state in the Unitied States has ccw now. The last hold out state was Illinois. Which is weird.... I didn't think Hawaii had that... I was referring to constitutional carry (concealed carry without a permit so long as you can legally own a firearm). Ex: Alaska, Vermont, Arizona Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 I will stick with the "armed society is a polite society" train of thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Polite because of the uncertainty/ fear of what the other guy can do to you. Ideally that's not my polite society Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Polite because of the uncertainty/ fear of what the other guy can do to you. Ideally that's not my polite society Polite because being shitty or violent to everyone around you will be a short lived endeavor. I could deal with that. But again I don't fear guns at all and try not to be cunty to people in my day to day existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I was referring to constitutional carry (concealed carry without a permit so long as you can legally own a firearm). Ex: Alaska, Vermont, Arizona Logic ****************************** oops. My bad. And Chris - I'm still LOL at you "ticked off squirrel".... that's great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.