Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[Southern Hampshire]

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

That's cause criminals aren't human.

[New Tsavon]

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 The whole tyranny argument is outdated, but it's used for self-defense and range practice; for hunting as well.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.)

There's also the question of how the gun-grabbers propose to take the guns that they've banned.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

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.

How is Kern stating he would use force ONLY if necessary AFTER adequate warning to the intruder disrespect of life?

[Spirit of Hope]

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.

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.

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?

1) I haven't seen that many people who I think " sit by the door, stroking their gun and waiting for the 300 pound burglar to break in, or maybe some sort of SWAT team." I'll admit there have been some, but for the most part I put that down as this being the internet. The crazies come out of on the internet, and ignore them.

2) And how do I reasonably know if someone who is breaking into my house is a threat? Do I wait until they threaten me or others in my house? By entering the house they have shown that they are willing to break the law, and I don not know how far they will take it, or how they are armed. And they can always use their own body as a weapon, or an object from my house. I think there attempting to get a surrender or them fleeing should be part of the whole "reasonable" bit in the law.

3) If you are better, how? If you are selfish it is stupid to use that as an argument.

4) I get "anal" when people attempt to pass laws and press ideas using colloquial expressions in any debate. I'm fine if you use a colloquial expressions I just want you to define it so I know what am I arguing about. If you want to ban sniper rifles then what is a sniper rifle, a .22, a .30-08 or a .50? Distinction maters in debate and in law.

[Kernen]

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

How is Kern stating he would use force ONLY if necessary AFTER adequate warning to the intruder disrespect of life?

Adequate warning that they can take what they want downstairs but can't come upstairs where my loved ones are at that.

[Chernoslavia]

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.

As much as I dislike you right now after that shit-talk, I agree with you on this. You don't shoot unarmed kids that aren't a threat to you.

[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.)

There's also the question of how the gun-grabbers propose to take the guns that they've banned.

Yeah, there's 310 MILLION guns in the United States as of 2012 (that number is probably higher today), and thousands of gun stores. How are you suppose to get all of them and by what means? (Protip: You won't get all of them.)

http://business.time.com/2012/12/18/ame ... e-numbers/ for the 310 million statement.

[Spirit of Hope]

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.

What I am seeing is you posting an article of a guy setting a trap and then executing two teenagers and holding it up as an example of self defense.

In response I am seeing a lot of people saying "I wouldn't do that" but "if someone broke into my house I don't know if they are a threat or not better for me to act like they are a threat."

No one is saying what the guy in the article you posted did was right.

[Autonomous Titoists]

There's also the question of how the gun-grabbers propose to take the guns that they've banned.

Yeah, there's 310 MILLION guns in the United States as of 2012 (that number is probably higher today), and thousands of gun stores. How are you suppose to get all of them and by what means? (Protip: You won't get all of them.)

http://business.time.com/2012/12/18/ame ... e-numbers/ for the 310 million statement.

They get the government to come stick a gun in our collective faces and take our stuff.

[Autonomous Titoists]

How is Kern stating he would use force ONLY if necessary AFTER adequate warning to the intruder disrespect of life?

Adequate warning that they can take what they want downstairs but can't come upstairs where my loved ones are at that.

I don't want them taking anything, how about get on the ground or I spread you there if they don't then guess what they done did fuck up.

[Vitaphone Racing]

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

How is Kern stating he would use force ONLY if necessary AFTER adequate warning to the intruder disrespect of life?

More a reference to the criminals aren't human guy, but w/e.

1) I haven't seen that many people who I think " sit by the door, stroking their gun and waiting for the 300 pound burglar to break in, or maybe some sort of SWAT team." I'll admit there have been some, but for the most part I put that down as this being the internet. The crazies come out of on the internet, and ignore them.

I haven't met any in real life, but that's because I don't associate with loonies in real life. Yet the amount of forum goers who insist that guns are the only thing between them and certain death with the intensity of somebody under immediate threat of life and death is more than a little concerning.

And how do I reasonably know if someone who is breaking into my house is a threat? Do I wait until they threaten me or others in my house? By entering the house they have shown that they are willing to break the law, and I don not know how far they will take it, or how they are armed. And they can always use their own body as a weapon, or an object from my house. I think there attempting to get a surrender or them fleeing should be part of the whole "reasonable" bit in the law.

You don't. Conversely, how do you know it's safe to confront them? I'm not really sure what the smartest thing to do in this situation is, but it certainly doesn't seem like the grab-you-gun-and-pretend-cs_office option which far too many advocate time and time again.

If you are better, how? If you are selfish it is stupid to use that as an argument.

For one, I'm not sitting here claiming that teenage burglars deserve to be shot.

4) I get "anal" when people attempt to pass laws and press ideas using colloquial expressions in any debate. I'm fine if you use a colloquial expressions I just want you to define it so I know what am I arguing about. If you want to ban sniper rifles then what is a sniper rifle, a .22, a .30-08 or a .50? Distinction maters in debate and in law.

The justification of trying to find distinction sort of gets lost when the "what do you mean by sniper rifle" turns into "a sniper rifle can mean any of the following things... scopes were invented in...."

[Chernoslavia]

Adequate warning that they can take what they want downstairs but can't come upstairs where my loved ones are at that.

I don't want them taking anything, how about get on the ground or I spread you there if they don't then guess what they done did fuck up.

Definitely this. Vitaphone however would probably say something like ''you should get out of the house and let him take everything, becuz life is sooo precious!''

[Vitaphone Racing]

I don't want them taking anything, how about get on the ground or I spread you there if they don't then guess what they done did fuck up.

Definitely this. Vitaphone however would probably say something like ''you should get out of the house and let him take everything, becuz life is sooo precious!''

Life is definitely worth more than your DVD player. Especially if you have insurance.

[Spirit of Hope]

How is Kern stating he would use force ONLY if necessary AFTER adequate warning to the intruder disrespect of life?

More a reference to the criminals aren't human guy, but w/e.

1) I haven't seen that many people who I think " sit by the door, stroking their gun and waiting for the 300 pound burglar to break in, or maybe some sort of SWAT team." I'll admit there have been some, but for the most part I put that down as this being the internet. The crazies come out of on the internet, and ignore them.

I haven't met any in real life, but that's because I don't associate with loonies in real life. Yet the amount of forum goers who insist that guns are the only thing between them and certain death with the intensity of somebody under immediate threat of life and death is more than a little concerning.

And how do I reasonably know if someone who is breaking into my house is a threat? Do I wait until they threaten me or others in my house? By entering the house they have shown that they are willing to break the law, and I don not know how far they will take it, or how they are armed. And they can always use their own body as a weapon, or an object from my house. I think there attempting to get a surrender or them fleeing should be part of the whole "reasonable" bit in the law.

You don't. Conversely, how do you know it's safe to confront them? I'm not really sure what the smartest thing to do in this situation is, but it certainly doesn't seem like the grab-you-gun-and-pretend-cs_office option which far too many advocate time and time again.

If you are better, how? If you are selfish it is stupid to use that as an argument.

For one, I'm not sitting here claiming that teenage burglars deserve to be shot.

4) I get "anal" when people attempt to pass laws and press ideas using colloquial expressions in any debate. I'm fine if you use a colloquial expressions I just want you to define it so I know what am I arguing about. If you want to ban sniper rifles then what is a sniper rifle, a .22, a .30-08 or a .50? Distinction maters in debate and in law.

The justification of trying to find distinction sort of gets lost when the "what do you mean by sniper rifle" turns into "a sniper rifle can mean any of the following things... scopes were invented in...."

1) That is my point. I doubt you would get most of these results if you held a town hall style discussion on the second amendment. It is the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory

2) I probably wouldn't attempt a confrontation. But say if they ran into me as I am sitting in one room? My point is I am willing to let them surrender or flee, but that might not always be possible.

3) And I don't see many people here saying "just shoot them." I have run into no one in real life that says "just shoot them." And for all I know you could hold some opinion about shooting people I don't know about. How are you superior than the average citizen in a way you can document?

4) I let them state the distinction. I just point out how what they are saying doesn't have any technical meaning.

[Autonomous Titoists]

I don't want them taking anything, how about get on the ground or I spread you there if they don't then guess what they done did fuck up.

Definitely this. Vitaphone however would probably say something like ''you should get out of the house and let him take everything, becuz life is sooo precious!''

Yeah pacifistic cowardice, I love giving away the shit I worked hard for. Well by his logic fuck work I'm taking up crime.

[Sevvania]

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.

I think that the way people express themselves on the internet may not be the most realistic interpretation of their actual viewpoints. Otherwise we'd have an alarming number of people in favor of totalitarianism.

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.

But that basically boils down to "I think we should ban something that is already basically banned." If someone has "no knowledge" of a subject, is it not appropriate to provide that knowledge?

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?

Because things like "assault weapons bans" focus entirely on technical elements. Unless you're banning every type of firearm, or allowing every type of firearm, what is considered accetable and what is not is based on technical aspect and/or cosmetic features.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

I don't want them taking anything, how about get on the ground or I spread you there if they don't then guess what they done did fuck up.

Definitely this. Vitaphone however would probably say something like ''you should get out of the house and let him take everything, becuz life is sooo precious!''

It is a stance I have actually heard on the forums before, it is better to just let them break into your home and let them run amok then to defend your home.

I am not saying all burglars should be shot on sight of course, but if you threaten them and warn them that you are armed and not to come where your family is in the home and they do anyway, I fail to see how that is unjustified if you end up being forced to fire, fearing for your family's safety.

[Autonomous Titoists]

Definitely this. Vitaphone however would probably say something like ''you should get out of the house and let him take everything, becuz life is sooo precious!''

Life is definitely worth more than your DVD player. Especially if you have insurance.

Insurance is a racket and they are scum to our government that's why they lock them in boxes and shield society from them.

[Kernen]

Adequate warning that they can take what they want downstairs but can't come upstairs where my loved ones are at that.

I don't want them taking anything, how about get on the ground or I spread you there if they don't then guess what they done did fuck up.

Because a: I'm not a cop. I can't dispense force just because they are noncompliant, and b: I have a partner, a family, and a virgin butthole to consider. I can't afford to be chucked into prison because of a small mistake that a jury doesn't consider acceptable, no matter how the situation presented itself to me.

[Spirit of Hope]

Definitely this. Vitaphone however would probably say something like ''you should get out of the house and let him take everything, becuz life is sooo precious!''

Life is definitely worth more than your DVD player. Especially if you have insurance.

Notice there central thing was "Get on the ground or I shoot" they are offering the teenager the chance to surrender. If he doesn't surrender what should they do?

[Vitaphone Racing]

More a reference to the criminals aren't human guy, but w/e.


I haven't met any in real life, but that's because I don't associate with loonies in real life. Yet the amount of forum goers who insist that guns are the only thing between them and certain death with the intensity of somebody under immediate threat of life and death is more than a little concerning.


You don't. Conversely, how do you know it's safe to confront them? I'm not really sure what the smartest thing to do in this situation is, but it certainly doesn't seem like the grab-you-gun-and-pretend-cs_office option which far too many advocate time and time again.


For one, I'm not sitting here claiming that teenage burglars deserve to be shot.


The justification of trying to find distinction sort of gets lost when the "what do you mean by sniper rifle" turns into "a sniper rifle can mean any of the following things... scopes were invented in...."

1) That is my point. I doubt you would get most of these results if you held a town hall style discussion on the second amendment. It is the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory

Fair enough, but I'm addressing the forum.

2) I probably wouldn't attempt a confrontation. But say if they ran into me as I am sitting in one room? My point is I am willing to let them surrender or flee, but that might not always be possible.

If they run into the room that you're in, I think it's justified to shoot them as yelling out isn't always the smartest thing, especially if it's obvious that the house is currently occupied.

3) And I don't see many people here saying "just shoot them." I have run into no one in real life that says "just shoot them." And for all I know you could hold some opinion about shooting people I don't know about. How are you superior than the average citizen in a way you can document?

And yet, there seems to be plenty of people in this thread who argue their possessions are worth more than the life of somebody else.

4) I let them state the distinction. I just point out how what they are saying doesn't have any technical meaning.

Well, you'd be one of the better ones then.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Life is definitely worth more than your DVD player. Especially if you have insurance.

Notice there central thing was "Get on the ground or I shoot" they are offering the teenager the chance to surrender. If he doesn't surrender what should they do?

Let them commit burglary unhindered of course.

[Kernen]

Life is definitely worth more than your DVD player. Especially if you have insurance.

Notice there central thing was "Get on the ground or I shoot" they are offering the teenager the chance to surrender. If he doesn't surrender what should they do?

Not shoot until they are a threat to your life. You cannot shoot them for being noncompliant but unthreatening, like when they're running away.

[Autonomous Titoists]

I don't want them taking anything, how about get on the ground or I spread you there if they don't then guess what they done did fuck up.

Because a: I'm not a cop. I can't dispense force just because they are noncompliant, and b: I have a partner, a family, and a virgin butthole to consider. I can't afford to be chucked into prison because of a small mistake that a jury doesn't consider acceptable, no matter how the situation presented itself to me.

Self defense it was dark I saw him suddenly reach into his pocket and I swore he was going to kill me. As long as you don't have a violent record most juries will not throw you in jail if you believe your life is in danger. To quote Ice Cube (poor example I know) "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

[Autonomous Titoists]

Notice there central thing was "Get on the ground or I shoot" they are offering the teenager the chance to surrender. If he doesn't surrender what should they do?

Not shoot until they are a threat to your life. You cannot shoot them for being noncompliant but unthreatening, like when they're running away.

I agree we can't shoot them willy nilly but if they don't vacate I'm going to chase him around the house waving a shotgun.