How did we go 24 pages w/o a gun control debate?

[Nordfire]

"I think shotguns and hunting rifles should be available to farmers etc who actually put good use to weapons. Why would anyone else need a gun? I'm quite happy with the way things are over here."Which country are you from?

England.

[Secruss]

OK. That was my guess.

I got nothing to say about England's laws. I don't live there, so I can't take part.



To Cat-Tribe:

[Gun Manufacturers]

I think shotguns and hunting rifles should be available to farmers etc who actually put good use to weapons. Why would anyone else need a gun? I'm quite happy with the way things are over here.

I need a rifle for putting holes in paper from 100+ yards away. See, I can't throw the bullets that accurately or that far, so my rifle does it for me. My sister and brother in law law need firearms to put deer meat in the freezer, and to get rid of the burrowing animals that keep digging holes in their yard (which cause trip hazards for their kids, family, and friends).

[Nordfire]

I need a rifle for putting holes in paper from 100+ yards away. See, I can't throw the bullets that accurately or that far, so my rifle does it for me.

Humourous, but not a decent reason to have a gun.

My sister and brother in law law need firearms to put deer meat in the freezer, and to get rid of the burrowing animals that keep digging holes in their yard (which cause trip hazards for their kids, family, and friends).

That's putting guns to good use, which I have no problem with.

[Galloism]

My sister and brother in law law need firearms to put deer meat in the freezer, and to get rid of the burrowing animals that keep digging holes in their yard (which cause trip hazards for their kids, family, and friends).

That's putting guns to good use, which I have no problem with.

I need one because I live in a bad neighborhood where even the police are afraid to go after dark.

[Nordfire]

I got nothing to say about England's laws. I don't live there, so I can't take part.

Surely you can discuss another country's laws without living there?

[Nordfire]

I need one because I live in a bad neighborhood where even the police are afraid to go after dark.

Do the criminals in said neighbourhood own guns?

[Galloism]

I need one because I live in a bad neighborhood where even the police are afraid to go after dark.

Do the criminals in said neighbourhood own guns?

Yes, but for most of them not legally.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I need a rifle for putting holes in paper from 100+ yards away. See, I can't throw the bullets that accurately or that far, so my rifle does it for me.

Humourous, but not a decent reason to have a gun.

My sister and brother in law law need firearms to put deer meat in the freezer, and to get rid of the burrowing animals that keep digging holes in their yard (which cause trip hazards for their kids, family, and friends).

That's putting guns to good use, which I have no problem with.

Fortunately, in the US, need is irrelevant when purchasing a firearm.

[Sevengates]

Depends, I would say the government has no right to take your guns away....

However if your arsenal starts to out step the US military, then there are problems...

that's the most important reason for citizens to posses, own, and handle fire arms.

Now I don't mean that your average Person possesses a gun more powerful then the US military, just something maybe equal to the M16 or AK 47. The reason is so that if needed a forced revolution can be preformed for the people benefit (if you live in a democratic nation).

Also so that if you can only get your hands on a two bullet clip max for a Glock due to strict government positioned laws then that DICK who try's to rob and/or rape you bought his Smith and Weston 500 behind the seven eleven that has more force and more bullets dos not ever occur.

i mean there has to be happy median.

[Sevengates]

Humourous, but not a decent reason to have a gun.

Yes, but if you buy your gun legally, whats going to happen to The people that buy them illegally and don't have any government supervision.

i know, they still get guns, no one else dos, and crime goes up.

[Bluth Corporation]

Neither the Second Amendment nor any natural right to bear arms is absolute.

This is incorrect. All rights are absolute.

Just like with free speech or any other right, there are some limitations on the right.

Not legitimately.

In the ground-breaking case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008), SCOTUS made clear for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm. BUT the Court limited the scope of its decision to the possession and legal use of handguns. FURTHER, the Court was very clear that such a right was far from absolute or applied to all weapons

Irrelevant. The Supreme Court is not the arbiter of our rights; objective moral principle is.

[Saige Dragon]

Straight up I don't have a problem with gun ownership. If you want and AR-15 so you can go and pretend you'll be there to fight back when the commies take over, fine. If you want a pistol so you can plink away on weekend, go for it. If you need to fill the freezer in the fall, go get a hunting rifle.

Here in Canada the CFSC to get one's Non-Restricted PAL (hunting firearms, so rifles and shotguns) license is generally 10 hours and includes both a written and practical examination. What irks me about it is that one can challenge the exam, without taking the course. All the course does is provide information. Information isn't bad, it doesn't harm anyone. All it does is insure everybody who receives their PAL gets the same education and training in regards to firearms. And it's 10 hours, that's one day. Add another 6 if you want your Restricted (handguns and other non-prohibited concealable firearms). 2 days and you can go buy Desert Eagle if you wanted. And you would know how to use it, properly and safely!

I don't honestly have a problem with firearm registration either. In case of a gun crime with a registered firearm, it does allow the proper authorities access to information regarding the guns use, the owner, whether the firearm is stolen or not, etc... A good gun registry serves the same purpose as a car registry. It doesn't criminalize innocent people, it keeps track of potentially dangerous items.

What I do have a problem with is guns that get into the wrong hands. The hands of people with a violent criminal history. The hands of people with an unstable mental disorder. The hands of people uneducated in firearms, their use and purpose. It's unfortunate that we have to live and cope in a world, where firearms are now seen as a weapon for evil purposes and not as a tool or a fun past time. The Canada I now live in isn't the same Canada my dad and his brothers grew up in. I couldn't bring my unregistered, unlicensed .22 to school so my buds and I could go varmint shooting after class. But due to the actions of certain people we do live in such a world and therefore we have to act accordingly.

[Bluth Corporation]

I don't honestly have a problem with firearm registration either.

Makes it way too easy for the tyrants to confiscate them all.

[Saige Dragon]

I don't honestly have a problem with firearm registration either.

Makes it way too easy for the tyrants to confiscate them all.

I live in Canada. There aren't any tyrants.

[Phenia]

This is incorrect. All rights are absolute.

That is not an argument. Make an argument or stop spamming the board with your copied and pasted catch-phrases.

Not legitimately.

That is not an argument. Make an argument or stop spamming the board with your copied and pasted catch-phrases.

Irrelevant. The Supreme Court is not the arbiter of our rights; objective moral principle is.

That is not an argument. Make an argument or stop spamming the board with your copied and pasted catch-phrases.

[Altergo]

I don't honestly have a problem with firearm registration either.

Makes it way too easy for the tyrants to confiscate them all.

The Bill of Rights in USA say you have the right to take up Arms. That includes Guns, knifes, Swords or any other weapon.

[Metallic Slumber]

This is by far the most unlikely thing that has ever happened.

NSG, without its a gun control debate? Its madness I tell you!.

But really, where do you stand on Victim disarmarment aka gun control?

Personally, I believe that there are no constitutionally allowable restrictions on a citizens right to own a firearm.

Well... As long as you are sane, and have no sever criminal record of violence with a foreign object. And know how to handle a gun. Well it's a lot like the United States Rule on guns.

[Der Teutoniker]

Depends, I would say the government has no right to take your guns away....

However if your arsenal starts to out step the US military, then there are problems...

This. I think that some citizens should have access to some military-grade small arms (citizens with impeccable criminal histories). But the point at which people expect the gov't to start handing out tank licensure, or heavy ordinance permits, people are going a little nuts. I don't think, in any part of the country, it should be illegal for law-abiding citizens to legally carry small arms, and I doubt that will ever happen. Perhaps if some radical gov't change happens, but likely not before then.

[Bluth Corporation]

I don't honestly have a problem with firearm registration either.

Makes it way too easy for the tyrants to confiscate them all.

I live in Canada. There aren't any tyrants.

Are there taxes? If so, then there are tyrants.

Are there laws keeping you from putting whatever you want in your own body? If so, then there are tyrants.

Are there laws keeping you from deciding for yourself who you will and will not deal with in your business proceedings, and basing those decision on whatever criteria you choose? If so, then there are tyrants.

And this is ignoring the potentiality of future tyrants who are even worse, and for whom you need to be prepared beforehand.

[Bluth Corporation]

This is incorrect. All rights are absolute.

That is not an argument.

Yes, it is.

copied and pasted catch-phrases.

Who's copy-and-pasting?

[Bluth Corporation]

But the point at which people expect the gov't to start handing out tank licensure, or heavy ordinance permits,

The government has no business requiring licenses for ownership of ANY SORT of weapon. Any restrictions are inherently illegitimate.

How else are we supposed to be able to revolt, if we can't achieve parity?

[Saige Dragon]

Are there taxes? If so, then there are tyrants.

Are there laws keeping you from putting whatever you want in your own body? If so, then there are tyrants.

Are there laws keeping you from deciding for yourself who you will and will not deal with in your business proceedings, and basing those decision on whatever criteria you choose? If so, then there are tyrants.

And this is ignoring the potentiality of future tyrants who are even worse, and for whom you need to be prepared beforehand.

In modern usage, a tyrant carries modern connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population which the tyrant governs or controls.

I live in Canada. There aren't any tyrants.

[Farnhamia]

Are there taxes? If so, then there are tyrants.

Are there laws keeping you from putting whatever you want in your own body? If so, then there are tyrants.

Are there laws keeping you from deciding for yourself who you will and will not deal with in your business proceedings, and basing those decision on whatever criteria you choose? If so, then there are tyrants.

And this is ignoring the potentiality of future tyrants who are even worse, and for whom you need to be prepared beforehand.

In modern usage, a tyrant carries modern connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population which the tyrant governs or controls.

I live in Canada. There aren't any tyrants.

According Bluth, however, if you live anywhere there is a government, there are tyrants.

[Der Teutoniker]

In modern usage, a tyrant carries modern connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population which the tyrant governs or controls.

I live in Canada. There aren't any tyrants.

Sorry, but "modern usage" according to wikipedia is not the end-all.

He is clearly arguing an alternative definition of tyrant, you don't have to agree, but all you are arguing is that his personal connotation is wrong... which is kind of foolhardy.