Why shouldn't law-abiding citizens be allowed to own whatever firearms they desire? - Page 3

WickedLou9 · 09-05-2006, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by TheScatman

so why let all these people vote?

So they think that they have a say in our government. We don't really have a say. Not much of one. The government of today is influenced by corporate donations... democrat.. republican.. You are really only making a choice as to which corporations will get the most help from the government.

Ardentfrost · 09-05-2006, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

So they think that they have a say in our government. We don't really have a say. Not much of one. The government of today is influenced by corporate donations... democrat.. republican.. You are really only making a choice as to which corporations will get the most help from the government.

That's the most depressing thing I've ever seen written

Donkey® · 09-05-2006, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

You afraid crime will start to be committed using F22's? Or the future Columbines will happen with tanks?

Not at all. People are idiots by nature. Why the fuck do I want Tom, the dipshit down the street, who built a treehouse that collapsed onto 12 kids having an arsenal? It's ridiculous to think that humans are any more than animals and should be able to do whatever they want...have whatever they want...without some regulation. We are still governed by nature and the basic forces of the universe.

Donkey® · 09-05-2006, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by beez

If you can afford it, why not? Why should the government have a monopoly on killing and the machines which make it more efficient?

Because we gave them the mandate to do that. They ARE regulated. They ARE trained (whether or not it's effective is irrelevant.)

beez · 09-05-2006, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Because we gave them the mandate to do that. They ARE regulated. They ARE trained (whether or not it's effective is irrelevant.)

I didn't give them that mandate. I should be able to kill a government official just as quickly and efficiently as his henchmen, which I pay for, can kill me.

Publius · 09-05-2006, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

That's the most depressing thing I've ever seen written

Yet true.

Donkey® · 09-05-2006, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by beez

I didn't give them that mandate. I should be able to kill a government official just as quickly and efficiently as his henchmen, which I pay for, can kill me.

You don't pay taxes?

Publius · 09-05-2006, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

You don't pay taxes?

We were given the option to opt out of paying taxes?

Donkey® · 09-05-2006, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

We were given the option to opt out of paying taxes?

That's a whole different arguement.

Publius · 09-05-2006, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

That's a whole different arguement.

Then your suggestion that we're agreeing to something because we pay taxes is moot. If we are forced to do something whether we agree with it or not, it does not follow that we agree with the result of the thing we were forced to do.

Donkey® · 09-05-2006, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

Then your suggestion that we're agreeing to something because we pay taxes is moot. If we are forced to do something whether we agree with it or not, it does not follow that we agree with the result of the thing we were forced to do.

I am in no mental condition to argue this...but wasn't the whole tax thing an amendment? Who votes amendments in? Who votes THOSE people in? So how are we not responsible?

Publius · 09-05-2006, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I am in no mental condition to argue this...but wasn't the whole tax thing an amendment? Who votes amendments in? Who votes THOSE people in? So how are we not responsible?

I take issue with the income tax amendment, but that's a different debate. Technically yes we the people as a body politic are responsible for its passage, but I'm slowly coming around to the opinion that any amendment which deals with finances should have to be renewed every 20-30 years or else it expires... The financial situation of one generation could be completely different from the next, and there is really no reason that the later generation should be burdened with the same financial laws that were put into effect to deal with the previous generation's situations.

Donkey® · 09-05-2006, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

I take issue with the income tax amendment, but that's a different debate. Technically yes we the people as a body politic are responsible for its passage, but I'm slowly coming around to the opinion that any amendment which deals with finances should have to be renewed every 20-30 years or else it expires... The financial situation of one generation could be completely different from the next, and there is really no reason that the later generation should be burdened with the same financial laws that were put into effect to deal with the previous generation's situations.

Like I said...different argument. I totally agree. I hate the whole income tax bullshit...but it has nothing to do with this thread. (ibanewthreadisstarted)

Ardentfrost · 09-05-2006, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

I take issue with the income tax amendment, but that's a different debate. Technically yes we the people as a body politic are responsible for its passage, but I'm slowly coming around to the opinion that any amendment which deals with finances should have to be renewed every 20-30 years or else it expires... The financial situation of one generation could be completely different from the next, and there is really no reason that the later generation should be burdened with the same financial laws that were put into effect to deal with the previous generation's situations.

Oh shit, it's a Thomas Jefferson arguement!

Publius · 09-05-2006, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Oh shit, it's a Thomas Jefferson arguement!

Jefferson had a few great ideas, that being one of them (though a wholesale turnover of the laws like he suggested is just too unfeasible and would be disastrous).

kinggovernor · 09-05-2006, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

If there is 3 people vs. 1 policeman then he is obviously fucked. But 1v1 the cop should have the advantage. Not only should he be better trained, but should have the better gun.

SWAT teams operate on a tactical disadvantage, and their guns aren't much better than what a civilian can purchase, or what a civilian with some training can modify.

JaJae · 09-05-2006, 06:25 PM

Thread cleaned up. Anymore continuation of the bickering will result in thread bans for whoever continues.

Please continue discussing the topic and not each other. Please don't respond to this message. Carry on.

archangel003 · 09-05-2006, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Now they carry miniguns and bazookas

instead of a crazy person killing 2-3 people in a shooting, now he'd mow down doezns and explode a few more dozen...excellent

I mean, look how good its going in Iraq where everyone has whatever weapon they want!

There are citizens who own miniguns privately. They don't just snap and mow down schoolchildren. People ascribe weapons some magical power that turns their owners into ruthless killers or something.

thomez · 09-05-2006, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by archangel003

There are citizens who own miniguns privately. They don't just snap and mow down schoolchildren. People ascribe weapons some magical power that turns their owners into ruthless killers or something.

a guy that lives near me bought an old quarry to shoot his large automatic weapons, and drive his old tank around

pretty bad ass, and he has never hurt a soul