Guns

[Papist]

 

My apologies if this pic is immature. 

[Socrates]

1. So are you contending that unless you have miltary style machine guns you can not protect you and your family?  How about a balistic missle?  Should anyone be allowed to have any weapon they can get their hands on for protection?  How about a rocket launcher? 

 

2. Can't give government credit for anything.  They push for safer vehicles and we can't give them primary credit.  This is why I am bothered by conservatives and liberals.  When something on the opposing side does something right the other side can't give credit where credit it due. 

 

3.  I agree most accidental gun deaths result from people being stupid and not gun malfunction.  That is my whole point.

 

4. Yes I think we should charge a parent with murder if they choose to put their child who can not swim in a boat in the middle of the ocean with no life jacket.  If your going to do something so stupid, so asanine that costs someone their life you should be charged with murder.  If your going to leave you gun out and loaded with a 2 year old walking around and they kill themselves then your dang right i think you should be charged with murder.  Just like I believe if you kill someone while driving drunk.  Stupidity is an excuse used by to many people after they kill someone. 

 

5. I think we should single out all thing that can easily be prevented that cause childrens deaths like gun owners doing stupid things, parents who do not buckle their children in their vehicle, parents who drive drunk with children in the car, heck anyone who drives drunk(if i had my choice i would have it so if you ever drove drunk and were caught you automatically lose your liscense for 10 years and if it costs anyone their life or injury you lose it for life).

 

Are children going to die accidently from things, yes.  Can all accidental deaths be avoided, no.  You can't avoid electronic malfunctions that cause deaths because nothing can be made perfect.  Although you can control people being allowed to have things and be reckless and stupid with that costs people thier lives such as guns, vehicles and so on.  A child losing their life because someone was acting like an idiot is something that can be avoided and should be avoided.  If a gun owner or an owner of a vehicle is going to do something so stupid that costs another human being their life then they should never be allowed to use a gun or vehicle ever again.  Its very simple.  You want to own a gun or a vehicle then act responsible with it.  If your don't you lose that right.  Its the least that should happen since the other person lost their life.  So your right to bear arms does not mean/should not mean you should have the right to be an idiot, costs someone their life and still be able to be an idiot and costs another person thier life.  The right to life trumps all other rights. 

 

As to why about guns so much.... well this is a topic about guns and not other things, isn't it?

 

1)  In a situation of being attacked by multiple armed aggressors, a simple double-barreled shotgun or hunting rifle probably isn't going to do the job. You're certainly going to want a magazine with more than 7 rounds (or whatever the arbitrary number proposed by the ninny nanny-state pols is).  I pray I'm never in such a situation, but there's nothing wrong with citizens being prepared for the worst.  It's not the job of government to tell citizens what they can and can't defend themselves with.

And yes, for the record, I believe the second amendment guarantees the right to own any weapons that can be used for defense.  The idea of the  militias as envisioned by the founding fathers was for citizens to be able to defend themselves against invading armies (or even their own government, should it come to that).

I don't think the means for defense should belong only to governments and criminals.

 

2) Stay on target, Porkins.  I'm still not sure  what changes in firearm design you think the government so urgently needs to enforce.  (As politicians know so much more about guns than gun-makers.)

 

3-5)  Okay, I get the point, you want a draconian nanny-state rather than a free republic.  I disagree.

 

It should be obvious that the malice of deliberately killing an innocent person is much, much more evil than careless stupidity, and should be judged and punished accordingly.  It's simple justice.  That's why the law distinguishes between murder an manslaughter.  And there's a wide range of situations, with a gun or anything else, that can lead to accidental death - from blatant idiocy, to things that were more hard to see coming.  The courts should judge such things on an individual basis.

 

 

If you are distracted while driving, and entirely unintentionally run over and kill someone you did not see, you should not be judged the same as if you deliberately run your truck over them with the intent to kill.

 

Malice is much worse than stupidity.

 

That should be an obvious principle of justice, but at this point I'm honestly not sure if you're maliciously troll-lol-lol-ing, or really are that stupid.  If it's stupidity, it won't be just to punish you further for it.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Socrates

[havok579257]

 

My apologies if this pic is immature. 

 

 

i am no fan of obama, trust me, although let's go after the man for stuff he actually did and not made up stuff like gun grabbing laws that are not real.

[havok579257]

1)  In a situation of being attacked by multiple armed aggressors, a simple double-barreled shotgun or hunting rifle probably isn't going to do the job. You're certainly going to want a magazine with more than 7 rounds (or whatever the arbitrary number proposed by the ninny nanny-state pols is).  I pray I'm never in such a situation, but there's nothing wrong with citizens being prepared for the worst.  It's not the job of government to tell citizens what they can and can't defend themselves with.

And yes, for the record, I believe the second amendment guarantees the right to own any weapons that can be used for defense.  The idea of the  militias as envisioned by the founding fathers was for citizens to be able to defend themselves against invading armies (or even their own government, should it come to that).

I don't think the means for defense should belong only to governments and criminals.

 

2) Stay on target, Porkins.  I'm still not sure  what changes in firearm design you think the government so urgently needs to enforce.  (As politicians know so much more about guns than gun-makers.)

 

3-5)  Okay, I get the point, you want a draconian nanny-state rather than a free republic.  I disagree.

 

It should be obvious that the malice of deliberately killing an innocent person is much, much more evil than careless stupidity, and should be judged and punished accordingly.  It's simple justice.  That's why the law distinguishes between murder an manslaughter.  And there's a wide range of situations, with a gun or anything else, that can lead to accidental death - from blatant idiocy, to things that were more hard to see coming.  The courts should judge such things on an individual basis.

 

 

If you are distracted while driving, and entirely unintentionally run over and kill someone you did not see, you should not be judged the same as if you deliberately run your truck over them with the intent to kill.

 

Malice is much worse than stupidity.

 

That should be an obvious principle of justice, but at this point I'm honestly not sure if you're maliciously troll-lol-lol-ing, or really are that stupid.  If it's stupidity, it won't be just to punish you further for it.

 

 

well since you have the maturity level of a child and have to resort to name calling i think i am done here.  I won't be wasting my time with someone who can not have a simple adult debate without resorting to name calling.  Next time, act like an adult and don't stoop to calling people stupid.  In the end it makes you looks immature.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

well since you have the maturity level of a child and have to resort to name calling i think i am done here.  I won't be wasting my time with someone who can not have a simple adult debate without resorting to name calling.  Next time, act like an adult and don't stoop to calling people stupid.  In the end it makes you looks immature.

where are you going? I just heated up another bag of popcorn :( :( :( 

[havok579257]

where are you going? I just heated up another bag of popcorn :( :( :(

sorry, can't help you here.  i don't waste my time on the internet debating with adults who are very immature and resort to name calling.  Time's to precious to waste it on people like this.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

sorry, can't help you here.  i don't waste my time on the internet debating with adults who are very immature and resort to name calling.  Time's to precious to waste it on people like this.

Aren't you all Catholic? I'm might become a Jehova's Witness. At least they're nice to each other. I bet they make better cookies too.

[Ed Normile]

I agree, a gun is a tool and the proper and trained use of one can result in saved lives only by seriously injuring or killing another. In the same vein it is still possible to be fully trained in the use of a weapon and still have an accident. Guns are tools. However based on this girls argument, there should be larger penalties for those who steal previously registered weapons and sell stolen weapons to criminals.

 

God bless-
LGLG

 

This may have been addressed already but i did not want to stomach reading through a bunch of liberal emotional responses to how guns kill people.

 

The fact is there are mountains of legislation addressing stolen guns, gun crimes etc. The current administration prosecutes less than 1% of gun crimes in this country, in fact this adminstration supplied guns to mexican drug cartels which in turn killed American citizens. The truth is that they dont want to enforce laws, actually cutting down on crime, they would rather have a crisis to rally the sheep behind to get guns outlawed. Rahm Emanuel was quoted as saying " You never want to let a crisis go to waste" referring to using it as fodder for their agenda.

 

Responsible citizenry and law enforcement officers have stopped millions of crimes by brandishing a gun without firing a single shot, and at times the shot taken has saved their lives and the lives of others. No law will ever stop evil people with evil intentions from taking lives, do we need to outlaw backpacks, fertlizer and anything usuable as schrapnel in the wake of the Boston marathon attack? I am sure you will find legislation outlawing the use of the above mentioned components to create a bomb to kill or harm human life, but evil people will find a way to circumvent any law if that is their intention. 

 

ed

[havok579257]

it seems to many people on here and in life automatically assume anyone who does not agree with every aspect of their politics is a liberal.  its getting so old.  just because someone does not toe to conservatism line on every aspect does not make them a liberal.  let's be a little more intelligent when addressing the opposite side and not try to in sult them by using liberal as an insult.  this forum so many times resembles washington dc. 

[Nihil Obstat]

it seems to many people on here and in life automatically assume anyone who does not agree with every aspect of their politics is a liberal. its getting so old. just because someone does not toe to conservatism line on every aspect does not make them a liberal. let's be a little more intelligent when addressing the opposite side and not try to in sult them by using liberal as an insult. this forum so many times resembles washington dc.

Most of us are whinging about dirty statists, actually. I wonder if statism is the new Christian heresy. :smile3:

[havok579257]

Most of us are whinging about dirty statists, actually. I wonder if statism is the new Christian heresy. :smile3:

 

 

this is just another example.  if someone does not agree with everyone on of your beliefs then the answer is throw out words that are used on here as insults.  Let's face facts, if any one form of government was perfect, a utopia then we have proof.  Although no form of government is perfect and all have things that are bad about it.  Also I don't think any catholic on here is really for these so called evil intentions others make it out to be.  Just because somoene does not agree with you does not automatically make them wrong and in need of terms that are ment to be derogatory.  This is why washington is a joke.  Instead of actual discussion and comprimise they prefer to dig their heels in and get no where.

[Nihil Obstat]

Please point out where I have assumed evil intentions. Lol, you were just complaining about that in another thread! Geez, chill out a bit. My goodness.

[havok579257]

Please point out where I have assumed evil intentions. Lol, you were just complaining about that in another thread! Geez, chill out a bit. My goodness.

 

 

all those who talk about us so called statists(just because we do not subscribe to every single belief of yours) corralate us with the evils that the congress and presidents do and act like we support them in their evil deeds.

[Nihil Obstat]

all those who talk about us so called statists(just because we do not subscribe to every single belief of yours) corralate us with the evils that the congress and presidents do and act like we support them in their evil deeds.

Quite the hidden assumption there. You sure that is entirely accurate?

[havok579257]

Quite the hidden assumption there. You sure that is entirely accurate?

 

 

here is one example from winchester:

 

 

I follow the non-aggression principle. You don't appear to grasp that. I'm certain you'll find something negative to read on it, and let it form your opinion. Like I said, your side won. Your side includes Obama, Bush, Pelosi, McCain, Reid, Santorum, Gingrich, Cheney, and a host of other murderous bastards. Nice company you keep.