How much gun control?
- Thread starter Jerrek
- Start date
- Status
justiceusa
Registered Senior Member
Mystech
The Israeli Desert Eagle 50 caliber has a total muzzle energy of 1185 ft lbs. The new S&W has a whopping 2600 ft lbs. Oranges and apples in comparison.
The Israeli Desert Eagle 50 caliber has a total muzzle energy of 1185 ft lbs. The new S&W has a whopping 2600 ft lbs. Oranges and apples in comparison.
Haha, that's what I call the fox news channel.
I hate to break it to you, but misquoting the 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right to own a gun. There is no provision in the constitution which guarantees a private citizen to own a gun. It says that citizens have the right to bear arms as part of an organized state militia. The also specify that this right is granted because a militia is essential to the protection of a state.
Do any citizens belong to a state run militia in this day and age? No. Why is this? Because a militia is NOT essential to a states defense in modern day. As such that part of the 2nd amendment is completely obsolete and does not provide protection of your right to have a gun, sorry guy!
I don't bring this up because I'm against gun ownership, but simply because I like dealing with strong arguments.
Last edited:
Re: Re: ThePHNX
I wish that republicans could get together on the issue of what rhetoric to spout about liberal leadership.
Can we get together once and for all and determine if the democrats just don't have a fucking clue, have no strong leaders and are going in every which way so long as it's innefective and unAmerican, or are they so organized that there's an enormous liberal conspiracy working to taint our childrens minds? I'd really like to hear a consensus on this, hehe.
Anyway, what do you mean the sourses are classified for now? What are you some kind of conspiracy theorist, or are you trying to make a legitimate argument, here?
I wish that republicans could get together on the issue of what rhetoric to spout about liberal leadership.
Can we get together once and for all and determine if the democrats just don't have a fucking clue, have no strong leaders and are going in every which way so long as it's innefective and unAmerican, or are they so organized that there's an enormous liberal conspiracy working to taint our childrens minds? I'd really like to hear a consensus on this, hehe.
Anyway, what do you mean the sourses are classified for now? What are you some kind of conspiracy theorist, or are you trying to make a legitimate argument, here?
i was trying to emulate the you folks, cause i was afraid i might otherwise not fit in the gun club. Of course guns don't come with free humour.
did any of your intellectual brains ever manage to answer my question if it is not very superficial to morally justify the possesion of guns because a piece of constitutional paper says so?
As I can remember that was the only reason you gun toting patriots could come up with.
As I can remember that was the only reason you gun toting patriots could come up with.
NOT! there are so many scholarly approaches that support the Individual Right concept, any from Language analysis, through Logic and History, that I am amazed you are still reciting nonsense. Strong arguments indeed. How is it that the individual right was not challenged until 200 years after the Constitution and Bill of Rights was written?
Even Ashcroft has stated unequivocally that the Constitution guarantees an Individual Right. Although I suspect his full position may constitute a far cleverer and more diabolic attack on Liberty, in that he goes on to say, `subject to some regulation', in essence, ignoring and trashing the "Shall not be infringed".
This is far more dangerous and easier to get by the Supremes (who have been dodging the issue ever since they threw FDR's boys a bone on the MIller case (even then they did not deny and rather supported the individual right concept)).
This concept of `some regulation' bothers the hell out of me as it is easier to get by the Constitution and Bill of Rights then the blatantly deficient argument you just put forward, as a `Strong Argument' no less?!?
Re: Re: Re: ThePHNX
I'm sure you know that the original meaning of liberal was applied to the individuals not the collectivists.
First, it is sources not "sourses".
Second, if you don't want to accept my original comments without further reference (which I expect you will try to dismiss regardless), so be it, that will have to do for now.
You do not have a `right' to all the information I have.
On `conspiracy theories' they are and were put forward on a regular basis in the intelligence communities as ideas for implementation. Not always can we tie the tail to the donkey, but we can connect cause and affect. As a rule I don't cotton to conspiracy theories as they usually require a degree of human perfection and infallability that doesn't exist. It is NOT impossible nor even unlikely for a nation to use its vast source of funds to covertly corrupt components of an enemy nation. Do you really think Soras earned the wealth he started with?
I'm sure you know that the original meaning of liberal was applied to the individuals not the collectivists.
First, it is sources not "sourses".
Second, if you don't want to accept my original comments without further reference (which I expect you will try to dismiss regardless), so be it, that will have to do for now.
You do not have a `right' to all the information I have.
On `conspiracy theories' they are and were put forward on a regular basis in the intelligence communities as ideas for implementation. Not always can we tie the tail to the donkey, but we can connect cause and affect. As a rule I don't cotton to conspiracy theories as they usually require a degree of human perfection and infallability that doesn't exist. It is NOT impossible nor even unlikely for a nation to use its vast source of funds to covertly corrupt components of an enemy nation. Do you really think Soras earned the wealth he started with?
The highest moral obligation and responsibility is to preserve your own life and that of your loved ones. As long as firearms exist, and it is Very Good they do (think about `equalizers' they are one of the most effective answers to brute strength overcoming the weak ever devised) no government should have control over them and the ability of the individual to protect themselves. For every unhappy consequence of free firearms ownership there are at least as many fortunate ones.
The individual right to be armed is not `moral' because of the Constitution, the constitution is moral because it provides for that right.
I do not consider myself an intellectual, just your plain everyday guy with an IQ of 160. I am right, not just as opposed to Left , just right but that of course is opposed to left!-)
Sorry I took so long getting back to you Xev. On the Miller case and its inference. Haven't time or space here to elaborate so forgive my summarization: The Supreme Court in ruling on the oft misquoted and somewhat infamous `Miller Case' did not have to contend with counsel for the Defendant Miller as there was none present, nor was Miller himself, a simple backwoods man who felt discretion and disappearance the better part of valour.
Having just recently suffered enormous pressure and serious threats from FDR for having ruled almost all his presidential initiatives unconstitutional the court decided they too would choose the path of discretion over valour. Still they could not bring themselves to overturn the lower courts ruling that Miller's (sic. Individual) rights were being violated under the 2nd, instead they ruled that a sawed off shotgun had as far as they could tell no practical use as a military arm. Certainly, had counsel been present much evidence could have been submitted to persuade otherwise; more importantly, by saying Miller's right's under the 2nd were not relevant because the weapon of contention had no Military use was in essence saying he DID have the right to individually own military weapons or weapons for military purposes. thus underscoring the lie not only that the 2nd did not grant individual rights (as the rest of the BoR) but also that arms were only for hunting.
BTW: `comfortable' guns are not just a matter of caliber size. Felt recoil is a function of mass v/ true recoil force. Simply put, the heavier the piece the more it will absorb recoil. Fit, comb and angle of stock (this is what makes the Weatherbee's so special, and in handguns the Luger whose grip angle is emulated by Glock).
the only reason I can think of that the P95, a 9, is not your choice is the `fat' grip which is related to hand size; are you a female of smaller stature?
In such case I would recommend the glock (if you can get used to the odd trigger) or a used S&W 2nd generation self loader, of the x59 series. Used one, the 459, here and abroad, and it served me well, always liked the `feel' of that gun.
ThePHNX:
They did not leave a "hell hole". When most of the emmigration of my country to the "New World" took place, it was generally out of economical reasons. There you could make a fortune by exploiting the land, using a cheap slave force, and selling your products back to your home country with quite a profit. Sure, you could call it "balls", i call it unethical business.
Next time, try to nail me with factual arguments, then you have an interesting discussion and you'd even have a chance of changing my mind.
Sorry? I've to keep quiet because i happen to be born in another country? A curious concept of freedom you have. On the matter of these ancestors, albeit a bit off topic:
They did not leave a "hell hole". When most of the emmigration of my country to the "New World" took place, it was generally out of economical reasons. There you could make a fortune by exploiting the land, using a cheap slave force, and selling your products back to your home country with quite a profit. Sure, you could call it "balls", i call it unethical business.
You've something against a democratic government? How do you envision a nation controlled by "the individual"? How does that work?
Again, my ancestors... your generalistic statements have absolutely no factual background. To clarify my point, i have a government that poses restrictions on me. Yes. That's a good thing. I can not kill people on random and get away with it. Therefore, i have no absolute freedom. Good. But i do have the basic liberty to speak my mind, to rally against the government, to start my own political party and participate in elections in an effort to change existing laws. That's why i do not need a gun to protect myself from my government, it has never been a threat to me nor do i expect it to be a threat in the forseeable future. If i disagree with current politics, i'll vote differently. If i disagree passionately, i'll protest. If i disagree even more and discover that more people disagree with me, i'll start my own political movement. The fact that my government only allows guns when you have a license and you carry them out of sight and unloaded, is a restriction placed on me that i accept and agree with as i also accept and agree that i can not drive through a red traffic light without the risc of a fine. If a lot of people here would have thought that any of those restrictions is completely ludicrous, than there is potential to change any of those laws imposing them.
So, you are implying that if you are pro gun control you are either stupid or lack character. This board is called "science forums", debates should not go in the lines of "you have oppinion x, so you must be stupid or have no character". Moreover, your statistics are absolutely useless. An IQ number or lack of character does not have any proven correlation with an oppinion regarding gun control. Also i wonder how 75% of a population sample can be labeled "think challenged idiots", if 50% of a pop. sample has an average (100) or lower IQ. That's a flat contradiction.
Next time, try to nail me with factual arguments, then you have an interesting discussion and you'd even have a chance of changing my mind.
Last edited:
The subject is/was on gun control in America, it is absolutely none of your business, and your opinions coming from another culture (to put it kindly) are not only irrelevant they distort the poll.
You sure have a tutored take on things. Of course I'd have to know where `your' particular piece of foreign soil is. It is possible people came from your country for economic opportunity, but there is nothing wrong with that. Calling development and advancement unethical just doesn't ring with me, unethical applies to people who need someone else to create jobs for them unionizing to force demands on the creator. Unethical, BTW, is bleating the kind of nonsense you Europeans talk then asking us to help arm you and defend you from others. Please research this on your own I haven't the time to teach you, and consider it a near impossible task, you are obviously programmed.
If you don't understand Democracy is deeply flawed, you are even further gone than I thought.
It works the way our Constitution and BoR intended, as a Republic "I Pledge Allegiance to,,,,,and The Republic for which it stands". again, I haven't time to train you (or is it `untrain you) but read our Constitution and Bill of Rights, then our Pledge of Allegiance.
The premise of America, which admittedly has brought us much grief along with the good, (there has always been contention that we overdid the open invitation to immigration; maybe your countrymen were the ones in mind!-); that premise is that men are essentially good and will not go about and "kill people on random".
This is borne out by facts and common sense.
Americans have had the right to bear arms un-infringed by government for over 200 years, and random killings have been rare (whereas the killing of baddies (including the ones after you) has been happily frequent). It is only in the last 75 years after socialism and corruption of the courts started by FDR and advanced by Demo-cat's whenever they have the chance that our society has become as whacko as those in Europe.
One of the reasons modern statistics confuse is that firearms related crimes and perp's are treated differently in the reportage. Murder of Irishmen by Brits is not considered firearms violence. Political violence, in abundance throughout the world, is not classified as `Gun Violence', and on, and on, and on......
I myself have wondered about that "sciforums" that deal with politics and philosophy, free thought, etc. Well, anyway it is a great site with many worthy posters. You might even qualify if you stuck to topics in which your input was relevant; which is Definitely NOT Here!
I actually don't recall calling you stupid, I won't deny however that I think it may be true!-)
- I admit I tend to think of anyone who does not want and insist on true freedom (which includes of necessity the right to bear arms) is lacking, whether it be character, brains, or both.
- Well now there you have me puzzled, last I knew 100 was the threshold between above average and below average intelligence. IQ < 100 sub normal, IQ >100 above, now how is that a contradiction? It Is NOT the threshold of headcount (pun intended)
I suspect "nailing you with the facts" is about as difficult as squeezing Mercury.
It wasn't challenged until roughly 200 years after it was put into the constitution because that's how long it took for the political climate to change. For much of that time the constitution was correct, and applicable, a militia was essential to state defense, and it's only been in relatively recent years that gun violence has become a big problem (and certainly the capacity for gun violence has increased with ever more powerful, and accurate weapons. It was a lot harder to hold off the cops with a musket than it would be with a modern assault rifle or submachine gun). If you're trying to imply that the second amendment is applicable today, simply because there was a historic precedence for it, then you are mistaken. Times change, the wording of the second amendment is out of date for allowing citizens to own fire arms in today's world. I'm not saying that as such we should take that right away, but certainly if you want that right secured, more up to date legislation is required.
Your appeal to authority falls on deaf ears. That's an informal fallacy, and doesn't even make much sense to begin with. You'd have to make a pretty convoluted case in order to show what authority the attorney general has over interoperating constitutional rights.
I'd remind you that my motivation here is not to prove why Americans shouldn't have the right to own a fire arm. I am in support of our right to own guns, however I do not think that such poorly thought out arguments help that cause at all.
Re: Re: Re: Re: ThePHNX
I'm sorry, but I just have no idea what you are talking about here.
Perhaps you did not realize it, but you are currently engaged in an argument, as such if you wish that your opinion be seen as valid, you should not be trying to conceal a source of information that you are citing. Until you clear this up, I see no reason why anyone would bother to take you seriously.
I'm sorry, but I just have no idea what you are talking about here.
Perhaps you did not realize it, but you are currently engaged in an argument, as such if you wish that your opinion be seen as valid, you should not be trying to conceal a source of information that you are citing. Until you clear this up, I see no reason why anyone would bother to take you seriously.
shrubby pegasus
Registered Senior Member
i am firmly against guns in all forms. i dont believe them to be essential to ones freedom in anway. [im saying this is what i believe so dont flip out on me 
]
from my understanding most deaths from guns are caused by accident or fits of rage. in moments of passion it is easy to pull a trigger without considering the consequences.
i also read somewhere, dont ask me for quotes cuz i cant remember where, that in a lot of self defense attempts with guns the person either hurts him/herself or loses the gun to the assailant. i doubt that most people have the calm demeanor necessary to wield a fire arm in a high pressure, intense situation. we are not afterall trained soilders.
someone mentioned something about needing a gun to protect themselves from everyone else who has guns. im curious if you agree then that it is fine that north korea, iraq, iran, etc all pursue weapons of mass destruction. going by the same logic as stated previously, the only way they can properly protect themselves is by having these weapons. furthermore i think that i should be able to purchase a tank and all of its armanents if i have the money. i need to one up my protection over the next guy. do you see where im going with this? it is kind of like a mini arms race. where do we draw the line?
if we look at statistics of japan there is something less than 10 deaths a year by fire arms. japan is a stable country with freedoms. people have liberty there. they dont need to protect themselves from the government.
how would a pistol, shot gun, or rifle protect you anyway if the government all of sudden decided to become totalitarian over night? if you have tanks driving down the street i think you are pretty much out of luck.
this country wasnt founded by criminals either. someone said something along those lines. australia was started as a prison colony as was georgia. if you look back though, those that came to the new world were largely fleeing religious persecution. quakers and puritans were by no means militant people. so i just dont see how that can explain the violence in the US.
to conclude i really dont see the need for anyone to have a gun, maybe besides hunting. but people can use bows right ( :
i just dont understand why people cant wait a month or so to buy a gun. where is the immediacy? i dont see the problem with back ground checks either. if you want consider it as an extension of the persons murder sentence. if someone killed once with a gun, i dont see how it can be justified that they could just walk down the street on the first day of their release and get a new shiny gun.
]from my understanding most deaths from guns are caused by accident or fits of rage. in moments of passion it is easy to pull a trigger without considering the consequences.
i also read somewhere, dont ask me for quotes cuz i cant remember where, that in a lot of self defense attempts with guns the person either hurts him/herself or loses the gun to the assailant. i doubt that most people have the calm demeanor necessary to wield a fire arm in a high pressure, intense situation. we are not afterall trained soilders.
someone mentioned something about needing a gun to protect themselves from everyone else who has guns. im curious if you agree then that it is fine that north korea, iraq, iran, etc all pursue weapons of mass destruction. going by the same logic as stated previously, the only way they can properly protect themselves is by having these weapons. furthermore i think that i should be able to purchase a tank and all of its armanents if i have the money. i need to one up my protection over the next guy. do you see where im going with this? it is kind of like a mini arms race. where do we draw the line?
if we look at statistics of japan there is something less than 10 deaths a year by fire arms. japan is a stable country with freedoms. people have liberty there. they dont need to protect themselves from the government.
how would a pistol, shot gun, or rifle protect you anyway if the government all of sudden decided to become totalitarian over night? if you have tanks driving down the street i think you are pretty much out of luck.
this country wasnt founded by criminals either. someone said something along those lines. australia was started as a prison colony as was georgia. if you look back though, those that came to the new world were largely fleeing religious persecution. quakers and puritans were by no means militant people. so i just dont see how that can explain the violence in the US.
to conclude i really dont see the need for anyone to have a gun, maybe besides hunting. but people can use bows right ( :
i just dont understand why people cant wait a month or so to buy a gun. where is the immediacy? i dont see the problem with back ground checks either. if you want consider it as an extension of the persons murder sentence. if someone killed once with a gun, i dont see how it can be justified that they could just walk down the street on the first day of their release and get a new shiny gun.
guns are just a big egotrip anyway.
If you all really just loved guns as a sport, you would be happy with the kind of wimpy guns they use in the olympics. But apparently they are not good and powerful enough and some people feel so much fear that they are obsessed with protecting themselves and even their country.
One could argue that mentally unstable people (such as those who fear daily life) should not have access to guns.
One could argue that it is impossible to defend a country with mere guns (look at how outclassed Iraq was against a modern army)
what's still left then?
If you all really just loved guns as a sport, you would be happy with the kind of wimpy guns they use in the olympics. But apparently they are not good and powerful enough and some people feel so much fear that they are obsessed with protecting themselves and even their country.
One could argue that mentally unstable people (such as those who fear daily life) should not have access to guns.
One could argue that it is impossible to defend a country with mere guns (look at how outclassed Iraq was against a modern army)
what's still left then?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ThePHNX
Sorry if you lack the wit to understand but I have the wit to stop wasting my time with you. We are not arguing. I posted a meaningful and informative message, understood and taken seriously by many but, of course, not by those less equipped to understand. The latter opinions, frequently chart the course of lemmings to their doom, precisely why Democracy unbridled is flawed.
There are the `blind' but none are so blind as those who refuse to see.
Some people are difficult to ignore because they are intelligent, some because they are spirited. Persistence, your only virtue, qualifies for neither. Bye!-)
Sorry if you lack the wit to understand but I have the wit to stop wasting my time with you. We are not arguing. I posted a meaningful and informative message, understood and taken seriously by many but, of course, not by those less equipped to understand. The latter opinions, frequently chart the course of lemmings to their doom, precisely why Democracy unbridled is flawed.
There are the `blind' but none are so blind as those who refuse to see.
Some people are difficult to ignore because they are intelligent, some because they are spirited. Persistence, your only virtue, qualifies for neither. Bye!-)
- What else is there really, are you one of those taught to use the lower case I coming from the latest Spock Spawn?
- The original purpose of the Olympics was to encourage personal development for practical application. The skills learned with smaller caliber firearms are, to a great degree, translatable to large pieces. Small caliber's are not necessarily `wimpy' the 22 in the right hands can be extremely effective. Sadly, now that they have amassed enough followers like yourself, those who would be King are trying to stifle even those.
- Who is to be the judge? To me, you might appear to be mentally unstable. Do you consider yourself that? Should government be the arbiter. Wasn't that a common strategy for Schikelgruber and Stalin?
- One might more correctly argue that many of the Iraqi people welcomed their liberation (one of the significant vindication's of Bush's actions) and that those who were undecided or submissive lacked resolve leaving a minority of armed resistors who are still causing problems. Had the Iraqi people acted en masse, armed and with conviction, our losses would have been severe and any intel' suggesting that possibility would likely have dictated a different policy and procedure.
- What is still left then? The Individual versus the government, read more, learn more.
the idea is that you can be an individual under any circumstances and don't need a gun for that. You can choose to have a gun if you want to, because everybody is free to do whatever they want, be it legal or illegal, but don't pretend it is a right.
- Status