-Demosthenes- Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 If you fired and you DIDNT kill, it was an accident. Guns are for KILLING. So out of the millions of bullets and ammunition everytime it didn't kill anyone was a fluke. Everytime someone shoots a round in a range they are trying to shoot people. It's a statistical anomaly that not every bullet not only hit a person but killed that person. Wow, I would have never guessed. If every bullet that is fired is most likely to kill someone then they should be outlawed. Only this idea is completely and utterly ridiculous! First step to the loss of our freedom is to start voiding parts of the Constitution. Sayanara, I wouldn't want to be shot in the face, but lots of people did to keep us this way, and to keep us free. Maybe a lot of people don't have much to believe in, but this country is really something to believe in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 -Demosthenes- said in post # :So out of the millions of bullets and ammunition everytime it didn't kill anyone was a fluke. False dilemma fallacy. Everytime someone shoots a round in a range they are trying to shoot people. False dilemma fallacy and shooting for practice has already been discussed in posts you clearly missed. It's a statistical anomaly that not every bullet not only hit a person but killed that person. Wow, I would have never guessed. If every bullet that is fired is most likely to kill someone then they should be outlawed. Only this idea is completely and utterly ridiculous! False dilemma fallacy. Wow, you really like that one. First step to the loss of our freedom is to start voiding parts of the Constitution. Straw man fallacy. Sayanara, I wouldn't want to be shot in the face, but lots of people did to keep us this way, and to keep us free. Maybe a lot of people don't have much to believe in, but this country is really something to believe in. Straw Man, Appeal to Belief, Appeal to Tradition, Begging the Question, Biased Sample, and Confusing Cause and Effect fallacies all in two sentences. Astounding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Okay, okay. But guns aren't just for killing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 -Demosthenes- said in post # :Okay, okay. But guns aren't just for killing. Quite right. They're for terrorising, bludgeoning, posturing, intimidating... oh, and practicing all of the above. Did I miss anything out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Exactly. Athough I'm not quite sure what Bludgeonig or posturing is, but can I add colecting and recreation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 -Demosthenes- said in post # : First step to the loss of our freedom is to start voiding parts of the Constitution. Surely you mean the first step to the loss of freedom would be to amend the constitution? The right to bear arms not being in the constitution, but an amendment too it? Does it not seem a little odd to you that you think it’s fine to mess with the constitution, but to reverse amendments would be the loss of freedom? I was under the impression that the right to bear arms was the only amendment that had not been itself been amended. -Demosthenes- said in post # : this country is really something to believe in You don't believe in other countrys? But where would you go on holiday? Honestly, we arn't country bashing. It's policy bashing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 -Demosthenes- said in post # :Exactly. Athough I'm not quite sure what Bludgeonig or posturing is, but can I add colecting and recreation. Most of the time collecting will come under posturing. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "recreation", if not practicing or killing. I'll assume you mean clay pigeon shooting (add it to the list!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 I'm kind of blury on the Bludgeonig or posturing (unless posturing is colecting ??) But nice burn, it was unexpected "I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "recreation", if not practicing or killing." That hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Isn't the right to bear arms as part of a militia, or did I imagine that bit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 "Bludgeoning" would be hitting people with the gun, Bill Sykes stylee. "Posturing" would be buying guns so you can say "mwaaaa, I have guns". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Awesome. I wouldn't have thought of clubing someone with a gun, I guess you could just about use anything to club someone with. I would personally prefer a baseball bat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Okay, could any please explain to me WHY WOULD A PERSON *need* - and I stress NEED, not want - a gun? Mark: "defending myself" doesn't apply since TEAR GAS defends without killing, so does fenses, alarms and improving the judgitial (sp?) system. Take into acount we're talking about people who have NO TRAINING in guns. Going once a year (even once a month) to a shooting range is NOT training. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishMish Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 MrL: "Isn't the right to bear arms as part of a militia, or did I imagine that bit?" You did not imagine it, the problem being the interpretation Don't know whether or not it's a legal question, but a question for me is whether or not "the people" can be equated with the state, rather doubtful far as I'm concerned. But I would not expect your deer rifle to be of much use come the revolution Another interesting point about the Bill of Rights, and on my understanding, the reason specific rights were not listed was not lack of respect for civil liberties, but because civil liberties and state rights were supposed to be the default, with the federal gov't the restricted party. Enumerating rights carries the implication, and has had the effect, of limiting rights to those specifically enumerated. While philosophically I start with the position of unlimited rights as the default, which gives me a bent towards not banning guns but only prosecuting the crime or misuse, in the real world I lean towards banning them, though have not quite decided Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 mooeypoo said in post # :Take into acount we're talking about people who have NO TRAINING in guns. Going once a year (even once a month) to a shooting range is NOT training. I already asked why a couple of times and didn't really get a satisfactory answer, although Blike did make the important distinction that he'd choose a gun if he needed to impart lethal force. I can't accept training as a reason to have a gun - it's begging the argument, almost to the point of tautology. "But I need a gun." "Why?" "So I can train for using guns." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 You're right, I didn't mean training as a personal "goal" i meant that no one can control and know how to TRUELY use the gun without training.. and that a shooting range doesn't qualify as training. Other than SOLDIERS, then, who would need guns, and WHY? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Because it's treasonous to oppose guns! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Why.. ? Its not against the constitution, it's meant to protect lives and there's absolutely NO REASON for people to own guns. Explain how it's treasonous??? It might be "wrong by your opinion" but if you throw a TREASONOUS reason please make sure you explain, bub. I don't like the implication of that word, specially after three years of my life that I've given to my country. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 So you're saying it's a free country and you can say whatever you want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Listen. There's a discussion, and there's flaming. First of: I'm a reserves First Lieutenant in the military. I've served for three years and gave my time and many friends to my country. So *never* use that word with me again. About what you're saying: I believe you can say whatever you want, I also believe EVERYTHING has a limit. If you are in the streets yelling "kill all christians ,they are the devil's spawn!!" like El=Qaeda is doing in their countries, then NO. I don't think you can say everything. You have rights and your rights apply UP TO THE POINT where they HURT someone else's constitutional right. Like the right to live. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Okay, okay. That's not my plan! I say "Because it's treasonous to oppose guns!" then you say "it's a free country" then I say "ha! that's why we have guns!" See this is all just one big understanding, plz don't hurt me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Don't play with matches, you won't get burned. I saw where you're leading this, I'm not stupid. I also think you either haven't read my posts or you misunderstood them, because I've stated my SAME opinion on each and every one of them. Democracy - like any other kind of ruling - should have limits, otherwise it's chaos. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 -Demosthenes- said in post # :Okay, okay. That's not my plan! I say "Because it's treasonous to oppose guns!" then you say "it's a free country" then I say "ha! that's why we have guns!" See this is all just one big understanding, plz don't hurt me. Even if it was a free country, and even if opposing guns was "treasonous", the above argument would still be pretty stupid. Oh right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Okay, okay. That was uncalled for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 -Demosthenes- said in post # :Okay, okay. That was uncalled for. See PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 Yay! We didn't go off-topic to debate some worthless little comment! Amazing! Anyway... it's not treasonous to oppose guns, ever heard of free speech? We can have an opinion on them. In any case, we can tell nobody is going to agree anytime soon (like this thread). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts