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

[The_pantless_hero]

Nice strawman.

Europe ≠ the US.

So your counterargument boils down to "pbbbbt"

[Bluth Corporation]

i don't support telling anyone they can't have anything, but have no objection to being told not to buy, sell, mass produce or mass import, whatever a majority consensus wishes to.

A "majority" does not ever have any sort of morally legitimate authority to tell the individual what he may and may not "buy, sell, mass produce or import."

[Khithali]

I am here to announce a historic first moment, somebody on NSG changing their opinion in the face of presented arguments. No Galloism, sorry, you have not converted me entirely to your cause. You're good, possibly even amazing, but this is NSG and there are limits.
As for the rest of you, you can get off the floor now. Those heart attacks weren't that convincing.

Anyway, to get to the point, I think this is very much a cultural decision as to where to draw the line. Everyone has a point where they think regular citizens should not be armed beyond. (Except for the crazies who advocate citizens owning nukes, but since when has NSG listened to crazies? Oh... wait... ehh... I just realised what I said. Never mind.). The decision as to where this line is is entirely cultural. As a European, the idea of having guns allowed sounds ridiculous. The opposite is true for most Americans I know. Thus, whithout being a complete outsider, it is impossible to be objective, and thus the best decision is to go with the majority's opinion in each case so as to avoid uprising. I hope this makes sense to everyone. I don't think I really explained it that well.

PS. Sorry for the post without the quotes, Galloism. I'm just new to the system and I couldn't get it to work after about 10 tries and I was tired and it was getting late... Well you get the idea. Sorry.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Nice strawman.

Europe ≠ the US.

So your counterargument boils down to "pbbbbt"

My counterargument is that the US has a long history with firearms, and that there is a culture of firearms prevalent in the US that is not prevalent in most of Europe. To say that what works in Europe WILL work in the US is dishonest (Washington DC is but one example).

[Galloism]

Anyway, to get to the point, I think this is very much a cultural decision as to where to draw the line. Everyone has a point where they think regular citizens should not be armed beyond. (Except for the crazies who advocate citizens owning nukes, but since when has NSG listened to crazies? Oh... wait... ehh... I just realised what I said. Never mind.). The decision as to where this line is is entirely cultural. As a European, the idea of having guns allowed sounds ridiculous. The opposite is true for most Americans I know. Thus, whithout being a complete outsider, it is impossible to be objective, and thus the best decision is to go with the majority's opinion in each case so as to avoid uprising. I hope this makes sense to everyone. I don't think I really explained it that well.

I can accept that. It's very much a cultural and situational thing, and in the culture and situation the US is in, our possession of firearms is not only overall positive, but necessary.

PS. Sorry for the post without the quotes, Galloism. I'm just new to the system and I couldn't get it to work after about 10 tries and I was tired and it was getting late... Well you get the idea. Sorry.

Don't do it again!

Nah, that's all right. I understand.

I am here to announce a historic first moment, somebody on NSG changing their opinion in the face of presented arguments. No Galloism, sorry, you have not converted me entirely to your cause. You're good, possibly even amazing, but this is NSG and there are limits.
As for the rest of you, you can get off the floor now. Those heart attacks weren't that convincing.

I'm taking credit anyway.

[Minnas]

Anyway, to get to the point, I think this is very much a cultural decision as to where to draw the line. Everyone has a point where they think regular citizens should not be armed beyond. (Except for the crazies who advocate citizens owning nukes, but since when has NSG listened to crazies? Oh... wait... ehh... I just realised what I said. Never mind.). The decision as to where this line is is entirely cultural. As a European, the idea of having guns allowed sounds ridiculous. The opposite is true for most Americans I know. Thus, whithout being a complete outsider, it is impossible to be objective, and thus the best decision is to go with the majority's opinion in each case so as to avoid uprising. I hope this makes sense to everyone. I don't think I really explained it that well.

I can accept that. It's very much a cultural and situational thing, and in the culture and situation the US is in, our possession of firearms is not only overall positive, but necessary.

PS. Sorry for the post without the quotes, Galloism. I'm just new to the system and I couldn't get it to work after about 10 tries and I was tired and it was getting late... Well you get the idea. Sorry.

Don't do it again!

Nah, that's all right. I understand.

I am here to announce a historic first moment, somebody on NSG changing their opinion in the face of presented arguments. No Galloism, sorry, you have not converted me entirely to your cause. You're good, possibly even amazing, but this is NSG and there are limits.
As for the rest of you, you can get off the floor now. Those heart attacks weren't that convincing.

I'm taking credit anyway.

Woopdeedoo for you!

[Galloism]

Thank ya, thank ya. I'll be here all week.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Yeah, we wouldn't want to blame the Randroid that raised the issues of taxes, slavery, and the nature of humanity. I mean, we aren't actually supposed to argue here.

I've had about enough of your smug condescension and ideological epithets. You want to argue? That's fine. Just keep it on topic and don't flame other posters. If you want to vent your frustration(s) with regard to objectivism there is a time and place and while this is the perfect time it isn't quite the place.

Remember, you wouldn't call a commie disparaging names for their beliefs. It's not asking for a lot that followers of objectivism be given the same respect.

I love you too, you big cuddly hypocrite.

But I'll stop talking about the actual Second Amendment and relevant Supreme Court decisions concerning gun control, because that is too condescending, ideological, flaming, and off-topic. Oh, wait, it isn't.

If Bluth Corporation or any other poster wants to argue that the right to bear arms is an absolute right, they are free to do so. But unless they MAKE AN ACTUAL ARGUMENT rather than just spout dogmatic phrases, they deserve neither respect nor serious treatment.

[Bluth Corporation]

If Bluth Corporation or any other poster wants to argue that the right to bear arms is an absolute right, they are free to do so. But unless they MAKE AN ACTUAL ARGUMENT

I have. That you incorrectly choose to deny it is not my failure.

The Second Amendment is not relevant since it is not the source of our right to arm ourselves, and Supreme Court decisions are not relevant because the Gang of Nine is not the arbiter of our rights.

[Indri]

The Second Amendment is not relevant since it is not the source of our right to arm ourselves, and Supreme Court decisions are not relevant because the Gang of Nine is not the arbiter of our rights.

Indeed. The constitution isn't there to grant rights, it's there to protect them.

[Intestinal fluids]

This is why guns are a beautiful thing.

Armed Maine woman, 77, teaches intruder a lesson

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_odd_armed_mother

[Allanea]

As well as these:

Woman shoots 2 in home invasion
Oakland Man Fatally Shoots intruder
Witness shoots, kills carjacker
Attempted robbery leads to gunfight
Attempted robbery attempts foiled