GOP * 3

[Edric O]

he can be a tad left wing

I'm beginning to like this guy already! :)

LOL, Ace, that picture says everything! ;D

[SurlyPIG]

Why can't the president be a relatively right-winged economist, but relatively left-winged in the social and ethics departments...Grr...there is never a happy medium...

How are the NRA evil? I've thought about joining when I turn 18, because me and my friend, who is already a member, talk about guns all the time and which are better.

Sorry, but I don't see any point in owning a device designed only to kill people unless you plan to kill people. If you're a hunter, I suppose that could be accomodated for, like in my country, but anyone who wants to get his/her hands on a gun in your country, for whatever use or purpose, can. And not just an ordinary gun. A concealable weapon or even an assault riffle. Think guns are cool? Like debating which ones are better? Buy a FPS. Not a gun.

[Edric O]

Anyone who thinks killing machines are "cool" is a danger to the community.

[SurlyPIG]

I don't, but I'd rather a gun fanatic read about them or play simulations with them instead of using or playing with a real one...wouldn't you? Granted I think it'd be better if nobody had the desire to own or operate a killing machine, but it's better than the alternative...

And to the person who compared guns to cars...think of it this way; cars are meant to transport people and their things. Guns are meant to kill people (and animals). My computer can be used to hack and cause damage. Does that mean it's the computer's fault? No, it would, of course, be the users.

Point is, if they made a computer that was designed ony to hack and cause damage, it would be banned immediately. But because of these gun fanatics and constitutional radicals, the US will never be able to rid themeselves of guns.

Funny story...the NRA's best defense to anti-gun activists is that the "right to bear arms" is written in the constitution. In the NRA's constitution, it says an NRA leader can only be in the position for two terms. Yet Charlton Heston is serving in his third term as leader. Oh, I get it...so the constitution CAN change ;D.

It's odd, though, that the constitutional law made 200 years ago to "bear arms" still exists despite all the changes to society that have occurred in those 200 years. The "right to bear arms" was pretty much put in there so that pioneers could own muskets to defend themselves from the Red Coats two centuries ago. And now people are dying because of it.

[Acriku]

Do you mean killing "machines" or being killing machines?

Anyways, ACE, most of NRA are collectors, and hunters, not people like the sniper and his son, and guns are their pasttime. But no one said they had to use them on people.

[Edric O]

I mean killing machines as in guns.

And people who kill living beings for fun are pathetic inhumane bastards who deserve nothing more than my contempt.

[SurlyPIG]

[quote author=Acriku

[TMA_1]

err actually michael moore, the same guy you were talking about Ace, is a card carrying NRA member and is a master marksmen. He just is afraid of the mass of weapons in america. Though I dont agree I highly respect him.

[ethan]

i like guns. i just target shoot, dont hunt. and i sure dont go on rampages killing people edric. you know, some people take target shooting as a hobby. no offense, cause, when most people think of guns they think of klling people and people and bad stuff.

[Acriku]

Exactly Ethan, and ACE good points however guns don't people, people shoot people, so keep that in mind ;)

[SurlyPIG]

People always have and always will kill others. Now, think to yourself, knowing that some will always take it upon themselves to kill others, should we make it extremely easy for them to do so?

Ludacris. Nobody using good, theoretical logic can answer yes to that. Granted it's WAY too late for that in the USA but it's nice to dream...

You can run from a knifer. You can resist a knifer. You can hold off a knifer. You might even be able to subdue him if you have combat capabilities. You if the knifer has a gun, you're dead. You're just plain dead. I just wonder how many more presidents will have to be murdered, how many more John Allen Mohammed's there'll be, and how many more Columbines will happen before enough people realize that.

[TMA_1]

lol another P.C. lover. I am afraid that your idealism doesnt fit the world system. it would be great to stop crime by taking away guns but you forget the black markets and whatnot. Criminals are killers. Criminals can find ways to get a gun if they want one. You dont seem to live in america. Your egocentric attitude about america (which you have never grown up in apparently) is false because you have no idea how to combat problems here. Quick fixes change nothing. The only way to stop crime is by controlling people to the extreme. Then you have an even greater crime of totalitarianism. I am sure you will have loads to say about this. But usually what you say isnt worth reading.

[SurlyPIG]

K obviously you hate me for some reason so I'll keep this brief...

Where do you draw the line? Does your precious "right" to bear arms end at guns? How about high powered sniper rifles? Mortars? Rocket launchers? Tanks? Missles? Bombs? Nukes? Where TMA? Where is that line and why is it there?

YES - Criminals can get guns in YOUR country if they want to. Not in mine though. Not in others. It's far more difficult if not impossible.

And by PC do you mean Progressive-Conservative? If so then I wouldn't be a lover...maybe a voter, perhaps a supporter. If not, what do you mean? BTW, everything I've said about this has been idealistic and theoretical. I never ONCE said a damned thing about practical application.

Look at international weapon-related crime statistics in relation to gun laws and you'll see just how wrong you are.

[rogue1896]

just something i thought i'd add. The United States Constitution was written in 1776 or something. sorry if i'm off. i haven't studied American History that far back for a few years. anyway, back then, owning a rifle was essential to daily life. whether it was to ward off British soldiers (no insult intended) or to find yourself a meal for the day. the usefullness of a firearm has significantely been downsized. it is no longer a necessity to daily life. ppl do not NEED a weapon such as a gun to carry out simple tasks. to find some meat to eat for dinner, simply go to the local grocery. that's just my opinion. i'm not sure if someone already said this but i didn't feel like re-reading the whole post. if someone already did, sorry for the spam.

[TMA_1]

you stop it at the point when the firepower outmatches that which the federal government uses.

Also guns are accessable everywhere. It is your culture that makes things different. We are different from you. America cant be changed by how you talk. You have this idea that you know america and you are just another person that lives in a country I have no care about. America cant solve problems by what you are talking about. It is an american's right to own a weapon. We dont need them at all. We dont have to have them. We have rights though. Rights that may be pointless to you. (though you should thank every ideal you have for philosophers that spurred ideas for the United states to exist) They are not pointless to us though. It isnt the gun that is important. It is the idea taht we can have a gun that is important. You cant compare other countries to us because we are not the same. No nation is the same. America is no where near perfect. But it is where I live. All nations have been changed by america, bad and good. It just so happens that your nation has benefitted. Your arguments are insulting. I wish you would see the flaw in the ideas you have because if they arent realistic than they are irrelavent.

[rogue1896]

for the record, i do live in the US. NJ to be exact. what you're saying is that since we have the right to have a firearm, we should have firearms? i don't agree. i agree with you on one point tho. America is not perfect. and now it is very likely nearly impossible to get rid of all the guns that the public has. the fact is that the guns SHOULD be removed. or at least given the smart technology stuff so that little children don't get hurt. i'm pretty sure its a fact, i'm not sure where, that guns do more harm than good. i think it said they kill more innocent ppl than criminals. i could be wrong tho. i never actually read that. i heard it from someone.

[Gobalopper]

http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/Crime.html

The UK has a higher crime rate in all but a few categories and they have much stricter gun laws then the US does.

[rogue1896]

my point isn't crime, it's murder and accidental deaths.

[Gobalopper]

People murder each other with lots of things guns are just one way to do it. Same goes for accidental deaths. People do a lot of stupid things but if someone wants to protect themselves they should have the right to do it.

[rogue1896]

true, true. but as far as i know, and i may be wrong, are guns one of the leading causes of murders and accidental deaths?

[Edric O]

1. The purpose of a gun is to kill.

2. You do not buy an object unless you wish to use it.

1 ^ 2 => People who own guns wish to kill. Whether it would be in self-defense, or hunting, it doesn't matter. The point is that THEY INTEND TO KILL.

Speaking of self-defense, TMA, you call yourself a Christian? There are no exceptions to the Ten Commandments. "Thou shall not kill". Not even in self-defense.

you stop it at the point when the firepower outmatches that which the federal government uses

Then you would have to give NUKES to everyone.

[Acriku]

Edric, you are misguided my friend. Guns are not meant to kill, bullets are meant to kill. Millions of people get guns just for the gun, to instill fear in the perpetrator trying to do something with them, to fend off criminals trying to break in, and also to scare the crap out of carjackers, etc.

[rogue1896]

wel then if ppl just want to instill fear in a car jacker...why not use a squirt gun? if they don't plan to fire it, how will anyone know? just paint a water gun black, one that looks like a gun, and voila, you have yourself something that can instill fear.

also, why not get a gun that uses non-lethal rounds? hmm? if you want a gun for a sense of security, you can still have that same security, but you wouldn't have to kill, you could instead just injure or knock out the assaulter. it's much more efficent that using a lethal gun. i'm not sure if non-lethal rounds are available for the public, but i know some policeman have them. if they aren't out now, i'm sure they'll come out in time.

[Acriku]

Rogue, if we use a squirt gun, what will we do if the situation rises and becomes very hostile, where you would normally be forced to use it (like shoot his leg) - what are you going to do then? Shoot him in the eye with water, hoping it will blind him? The fact is, people need the real thing for the sense of security, if they have a fake gun, they will always know that and won't have the sense of security. Non-lethal rounds, which should just incapacitate the person, are very good and I think they should be used as well.

[Edric O]

Guns are not meant to kill, bullets are meant to kill.

So tell me, who buys a gun and never gets any bullets for it?

The Police is there to give you security. You don't have to (and shouldn't) take justice into your own hands. The principle of owning a gun for protection against other gun owners is just as demented and ridiculous as the principle of a country owning nuclear weapons to protect against other nuclear powers.

Mutually Assured Destruction