Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[Khoslevistan]

Meh.

I don't care too much about the guns issue, but to repeal the amendment Is unnecessary(although it is a bit outdated).

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Meh.

I don't care too much about the guns issue, but to repeal the amendment Is unnecessary(although it is a bit outdated).

For as long as crime exists, the right to self defence exists. That doesn't become outdated.

[Wallenburg]

Did you just claim that the Constitution does not protect freedom of religion? Because if you are, how does it protect gun "rights"?
And if you aren't, explain then what you just said. I suggest using the 9th amendment to check rights rather than following your current logic.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Every time I come in to a gun thread on NSG, it makes me embarrassed to own guns. Some of the attitudes here towards human life are just... wow.

And somebody please punch me if I ever turn into one of the people that furiously masturbate over the difference between an AKM and an AK-47.

I haven't seen all that much disrespect for human life thrown around here. There are the usual "My right is unlimited" crazies and "down with the government" talk, but the average pro gun person seams very restrained.

I don't think that any more than a quarter of pro-gun people in this very thread are fit to own guns of any sort. Maybe that's because they come across as the sort of people who sit by the door, stroking their gun and waiting for the 300 pound burglar to break in, or maybe some sort of SWAT team. They'd also be the people who'd be the most likely to leave their guns lying around the house for that same burglar to break in, steal, sell to some gang member and have them accidentally shoot my dog, or something along those lines.

That's not even considering the shocking amount of people on this forum who thinks it's entirely justified to shoot somebody breaking into your house, because petty crime warrants execution or something. Hence why I think gun ownership is a privilege and not a right, and a privilege that should be afforded to very few. I like having guns, and because I like having them, I want as few other people as possible owning them. There's less chance of me looking bad that way.

The second part is just mean. No one has been criticized for not knowing the difference between an AK-47 and an AKM. The complaint has been people making arguments and proposing ideas that are completely illogical, like the idea that assault rifles are high power weapons, or trying to define sniper rifles to include all rifles. If you want to argue a point you should at least know some of the technical details about what your are proposing.

I think people with no knowledge of the technical details of guns should be allowed to get away with saying "machine guns should be banned" without a dozen people embellishing at length of what a machine gun is. I don't particularly care if it comes across as mean; one thing I'm utterly sick of is people attempting to use their careful study of Wikipedia articles as some sort of high ground from which they can dismiss arguments though incessant nitpicking.

[Kernen]

Did you just claim that the Constitution does not protect freedom of religion? Because if you are, how does it protect gun "rights"?
And if you aren't, explain then what you just said. I suggest using the 9th amendment to check rights rather than following your current logic.

I notice you skipped over the rest of the points. Like how Congress already decided what is acceptable to own and what isn't, and it doesn't meet what you suggested.

[Wallenburg]

Vitaphone exaggerates his image of gun-philes, but I agree with the rest of his argument.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Did you just claim that the Constitution does not protect freedom of religion? Because if you are, how does it protect gun "rights"?
And if you aren't, explain then what you just said. I suggest using the 9th amendment to check rights rather than following your current logic.

No, I am refuting your statement that religion is completely universal with no limitations, when that is false. If you somehow got "religion is not protected at all in the constitution", I admire being able to take such leaps.

[Kernen]

That's not even considering the shocking amount of people on this forum who thinks it's entirely justified to shoot somebody breaking into your house, because petty crime warrants execution or something.

Self defense isn't punitive. Please don't conflate it with a judicially sanctioned punishment like execution, because it simply isn't.

[Wallenburg]

I just noticed you pulled shit out of your ass.

[Kernen]

I just noticed you pulled shit out of your ass.

Care to specify what exactly was pulled out of who's ass?

[Vitaphone Racing]

That's not even considering the shocking amount of people on this forum who thinks it's entirely justified to shoot somebody breaking into your house, because petty crime warrants execution or something.

Self defense isn't punitive. Please don't conflate it with a judicially sanctioned punishment like execution, because it simply isn't.

And I bet you'd be the type of person to shoot whatever unfortunate bastard who broke in through your window, regardless of whether they were armed or not, let alone in any position to attack you.

Self defence lol

[Spirit of Hope]

I haven't seen all that much disrespect for human life thrown around here. There are the usual "My right is unlimited" crazies and "down with the government" talk, but the average pro gun person seams very restrained.

I don't think that any more than a quarter of pro-gun people in this very thread are fit to own guns of any sort. Maybe that's because they come across as the sort of people who sit by the door, stroking their gun and waiting for the 300 pound burglar to break in, or maybe some sort of SWAT team. They'd also be the people who'd be the most likely to leave their guns lying around the house for that same burglar to break in, steal, sell to some gang member and have them accidentally shoot my dog, or something along those lines.

That's not even considering the shocking amount of people on this forum who thinks it's entirely justified to shoot somebody breaking into your house, because petty crime warrants execution or something. Hence why I think gun ownership is a privilege and not a right, and a privilege that should be afforded to very few. I like having guns, and because I like having them, I want as few other people as possible owning them. There's less chance of me looking bad that way.

And I am saying I have seen very few people in here, or in other threads, who fit the description you put forward.

If someone is breaking into my house I do hold I have the right to shoot them, if you are entering my house you could very well be a threat to my life. I think that people should give the burglar the ability to retreat or surrender before firing though. Blindly firing just leads to shooting someone you don't want to shoot.

I find it funny that you put yourself in the few who are worthy category. I'm not saying you aren't worthy but it always seams to me that when people want to restrict the right to bear arms it is them that should be allowed to have guns and others who shouldn't. The line on who is unworthy is always slightly behind them.

The second part is just mean. No one has been criticized for not knowing the difference between an AK-47 and an AKM. The complaint has been people making arguments and proposing ideas that are completely illogical, like the idea that assault rifles are high power weapons, or trying to define sniper rifles to include all rifles. If you want to argue a point you should at least know some of the technical details about what your are proposing.

I think people with no knowledge of the technical details of guns should be allowed to get away with saying "machine guns should be banned" without a dozen people embellishing at length of what a machine gun is. I don't particularly care if it comes across as mean; one thing I'm utterly sick of is people attempting to use their careful study of Wikipedia articles as some sort of high ground from which they can dismiss arguments though incessant nitpicking.

Except we haven't been nitpicking "machine guns should be banned" outside of pointing out how hard it already is to get a machine gun, and how they are almost never used in crime.

That we nitpick is "sniper rifles should be banned," "assault weapons should be banned," "high power rifles should be banned," or "arsenals should be banned." None of those has a technical definition, they are just words. If they then apply a technical definition I am happy to debate with them, but they need to have something substantial for me to argue against.

[Chernoslavia]

the FBI administers NICS for 30 states, the rest of the states have their own NICS system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_I ... eck_System

I'd hardly consider the other 20 states' gun registration systems to be adequate.

Because we don't want nor need registration.

[Kernen]

Self defense isn't punitive. Please don't conflate it with a judicially sanctioned punishment like execution, because it simply isn't.

And I bet you'd be the type of person to shoot whatever unfortunate bastard who broke in through your window, regardless of whether they were armed or not, let alone in any position to attack you.

Self defence lol

Nope. Only if they came up the stairs, where I and my partner plan on holing up and warning the intruder of exactly that. Stuff is replaceable, and there's plenty downstairs. The ad hominim doesn't do your argument justice at all.

[Spirit of Hope]

Self defense isn't punitive. Please don't conflate it with a judicially sanctioned punishment like execution, because it simply isn't.

And I bet you'd be the type of person to shoot whatever unfortunate bastard who broke in through your window, regardless of whether they were armed or not, let alone in any position to attack you.

Self defence lol

Notice what he did was murder, and he got charged for it. That is very different from me waking up and shooting at someone who just broke into my house.

[New Tsavon]

That's not even considering the shocking amount of people on this forum who thinks it's entirely justified to shoot somebody breaking into your house, because petty crime warrants execution or something. Hence why I think gun ownership is a privilege and not a right, and a privilege that should be afforded to very few. I like having guns, and because I like having them, I want as few other people as possible owning them. There's less chance of me looking bad that way.

It's the bill of rights, not bill of privileges.

Also, what makes you more "worthy" than any other given person?

[Bezkoshtovnya]

[region][/region]

I just noticed you pulled shit out of your ass.

To who and what are you referring to?

[Autonomous Titoists]

Self defense isn't punitive. Please don't conflate it with a judicially sanctioned punishment like execution, because it simply isn't.

And I bet you'd be the type of person to shoot whatever unfortunate bastard who broke in through your window, regardless of whether they were armed or not, let alone in any position to attack you.

Self defence lol

Yes unfortunate bastard don't forget he broke into your house

[Vitaphone Racing]

I don't think that any more than a quarter of pro-gun people in this very thread are fit to own guns of any sort. Maybe that's because they come across as the sort of people who sit by the door, stroking their gun and waiting for the 300 pound burglar to break in, or maybe some sort of SWAT team. They'd also be the people who'd be the most likely to leave their guns lying around the house for that same burglar to break in, steal, sell to some gang member and have them accidentally shoot my dog, or something along those lines.

That's not even considering the shocking amount of people on this forum who thinks it's entirely justified to shoot somebody breaking into your house, because petty crime warrants execution or something. Hence why I think gun ownership is a privilege and not a right, and a privilege that should be afforded to very few. I like having guns, and because I like having them, I want as few other people as possible owning them. There's less chance of me looking bad that way.

And I am saying I have seen very few people in here, or in other threads, who fit the description you put forward.

You must have pretty lax standards of what people can and cannot get away with then.

If someone is breaking into my house I do hold I have the right to shoot them

No you don't. The rest of this paragraph was entirely agreeable, but this is not. You do not have a right to shoot anybody for breaking into your house. You only have a right to self defense if your life is in danger and reasonable use of force applies.

I find it funny that you put yourself in the few who are worthy category. I'm not saying you aren't worthy but it always seams to me that when people want to restrict the right to bear arms it is them that should be allowed to have guns and others who shouldn't. The line on who is unworthy is always slightly behind them.

Maybe I'm just selfish. Maybe I'm just better than everybody else. It's one of those two things.

The second part is just mean. No one has been criticized for not knowing the difference between an AK-47 and an AKM. The complaint has been people making arguments and proposing ideas that are completely illogical, like the idea that assault rifles are high power weapons, or trying to define sniper rifles to include all rifles. If you want to argue a point you should at least know some of the technical details about what your are proposing.

I think people with no knowledge of the technical details of guns should be allowed to get away with saying "machine guns should be banned" without a dozen people embellishing at length of what a machine gun is. I don't particularly care if it comes across as mean; one thing I'm utterly sick of is people attempting to use their careful study of Wikipedia articles as some sort of high ground from which they can dismiss arguments though incessant nitpicking.

Except we haven't been nitpicking "machine guns should be banned" outside of pointing out how hard it already is to get a machine gun, and how they are almost never used in crime.

That we nitpick is "sniper rifles should be banned," "assault weapons should be banned," "high power rifles should be banned," or "arsenals should be banned." None of those has a technical definition, they are just words. If they then apply a technical definition I am happy to debate with them, but they need to have something substantial for me to argue against.[/quote]
People don't generally get anal about colloquial expressions that aren't entirely correct for any other topic, what makes guns so different and touchy that we just have to use precise technical definitions?

[Vitaphone Racing]

And I bet you'd be the type of person to shoot whatever unfortunate bastard who broke in through your window, regardless of whether they were armed or not, let alone in any position to attack you.

Self defence lol

Yes unfortunate bastard don't forget he broke into your house

So you support shooting teens for committing crimes that probably wouldn't even warrant a prison sentence. That's pretty fucked.

[Southern Hampshire]

Self defense isn't punitive. Please don't conflate it with a judicially sanctioned punishment like execution, because it simply isn't.

And I bet you'd be the type of person to shoot whatever unfortunate bastard who broke in through your window, regardless of whether they were armed or not, let alone in any position to attack you.

Self defence lol

Of course I would shoot any bastard who came in my house unwarranted.

None of his business is located on my premises, other than looking for involuntary euthanasia.

[Vitaphone Racing]

And I bet you'd be the type of person to shoot whatever unfortunate bastard who broke in through your window, regardless of whether they were armed or not, let alone in any position to attack you.

Self defence lol

Notice what he did was murder, and he got charged for it. That is very different from me waking up and shooting at someone who just broke into my house.

Unless they've stormed into the room you're currently in, I don't know why you'd need to wake up and shoot them.

[Kernen]

Yes unfortunate bastard don't forget he broke into your house

So you support shooting teens for committing crimes that probably wouldn't even warrant a prison sentence. That's pretty fucked.

While I wouldn't, it bears mentioning that you don't know what their intention is. They may be there to start a fire, thinking it's a hilarious prank or great revenge. By breaking and entering, they violated the law with an intention, and constitute a threat.

I'm not saying that is watertight always, but that's where the legal precedence stems from.

[Vitaphone Racing]

I haven't seen all that much disrespect for human life thrown around here.

See, I told you there was a lot of that disrespect around here.

[Pan-America under the United States]

Absolutely not. It's a fundamental part of American culture and one of the basic rights of an American citizen. The whole tyranny argument is outdated, but it's used for self-defense and range practice; for hunting as well. Repealing the Second Amendment would also have an economic impact, and crime would probably rise as a result. (Do you honestly believe people are going to follow a gun-ban? No. Ordinary citizens would break the law before you took their guns.)