12/5/2012 4:43 PM
Harris Nails it. That is the best argument that can be made.

Should definitely be a caveat against Gino owning a gun. Or a crossbow. Or javelin.
12/5/2012 5:08 PM
Posted by harriswb3 on 12/4/2012 6:55:00 AM (view original):
When a murder is committed using a knife, do we try to ban knives?  When someone intentionally drives their car into oncoming traffic to commit suicide, do we try to ban cars?  When someone sets a fire to burn down a forest, or a building, or to kill others....do we try to ban matches?

Firearms are dangerous for sure, but PEOPLE make decisions.  Our founding fathers were some of the world's most brilliant people, EVER.   The right to bear arms is there for a reason.  We can debate the reasons, but IMO its largely based on the concept that a government should not be in control of the people.  The people should be in control of the government.
By the same argument you could say that nuclear weapons should be available to everyone.  We KNOW people make decisions, and we KNOW people make bad decisions.  Should stupid people making stupid decisions have the power to easily kill many innocent others?  I don't think so.  And if you think you need automatic weapons to hunt deer to survive or fight off those indigenous savages (or the British army), please join me in the 21st century
12/5/2012 6:03 PM
Nobody is saying they need automatic weapons to hunt or fight the British so your argument isn't all that great either, but what is scary is it sounds like you're a believer in protecting stupid people from themselves?? Sounds like something Stalin tried throughout the middle of the century.
12/5/2012 6:11 PM
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm

Some actual statistics instead of scare mongering.
12/5/2012 6:37 PM
Posted by dream76 on 12/5/2012 5:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by harriswb3 on 12/4/2012 6:55:00 AM (view original):
When a murder is committed using a knife, do we try to ban knives?  When someone intentionally drives their car into oncoming traffic to commit suicide, do we try to ban cars?  When someone sets a fire to burn down a forest, or a building, or to kill others....do we try to ban matches?

Firearms are dangerous for sure, but PEOPLE make decisions.  Our founding fathers were some of the world's most brilliant people, EVER.   The right to bear arms is there for a reason.  We can debate the reasons, but IMO its largely based on the concept that a government should not be in control of the people.  The people should be in control of the government.
By the same argument you could say that nuclear weapons should be available to everyone.  We KNOW people make decisions, and we KNOW people make bad decisions.  Should stupid people making stupid decisions have the power to easily kill many innocent others?  I don't think so.  And if you think you need automatic weapons to hunt deer to survive or fight off those indigenous savages (or the British army), please join me in the 21st century
There are a lot of stupid people that get to vote. Are we going to ban them from voting? That appears unlikely.

Yes I own a semi-automatic rifle and yes it can be used to hunt deer. I wish to keep that choice to do so and refuse to let you and other leftist liberals take away that choice. The problem is this liberal leftist fringe feels the need to make decisions for the entire populace.

12/6/2012 1:53 AM (edited)
Seems like 47% of the country is stupid---of course, if you ask Romney, it is the moochers of society; if you ask those who vote Democrat, it is those who voted for Romney!  I'm all for spirited debate, but you don't need to draw any inferences from what I say about what I either believe or feel.  If something that I believe or feel is relevant, I'll let you know!

I was simply showing that the reductio ad absurdum argument (which was skillfully applied by harriswb3) can be applied both ways, so it isn't the final word on the topic by any means.  Maybe I want the choice to own a nuclear missile!  Just because they weren't around in 1787, why should that stop me?  Neither were semi-automatic rifles!   I was also emphasizing that pro-gun folks often involve strawman arguments by stating that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" (Duh!) and similar slogans.  Finally, I just wanted to point out that although the framers of the constitution were very bright people, the document created is not necessarily applicable today in the same way that it was over 200 years ago, as life in the US is now very different--this last point I don't believe is a controversial one.

Should stupid people be protected from themselves and/or be restricted from voting?  Well, that is a more general matter, but I will say that I would be very much in favor of some forms of eugenics programs so we don't have to deal with the quandary in the first place!  ;)

BTW, though I do not own one, I am actually in favor of allowing gun ownership under most conditions, as long as reasonable background checks are in place---it just pains me to see the argument made poorly!    [Edit: I live in the great state of Nevada---Nuff said!]
12/6/2012 2:08 AM
Posted by rwings1927 on 12/5/2012 6:11:00 PM (view original):
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm

Some actual statistics instead of scare mongering.

www.vpc.org/press/0804gundeath.htm

Some other 'actual' statistics that may or may not scare you.
12/6/2012 2:38 AM
Dream brings up a good point guns are more powerful now then what they were. Someone can buy a semi-auto rifle and with some filling down and modification its fully auto. You can talk to statistics all you want turn on the news you see kids dieing from someone shooting at someone else and the bullet is so strong it goes through the whole apartment building. O well I guess chalk it up to "stupid people" I guess.
12/6/2012 5:46 PM
Posted by dream76 on 12/6/2012 2:09:00 AM (view original):
Posted by rwings1927 on 12/5/2012 6:11:00 PM (view original):
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm

Some actual statistics instead of scare mongering.

www.vpc.org/press/0804gundeath.htm

Some other 'actual' statistics that may or may not scare you.
I'm not arguing that looser gun laws usually equal more voilent crime but those stats are scewed by population with the exception of Hawaii, hence the "per capita " misnomer.
12/6/2012 5:59 PM
Posted by jibe717 on 12/5/2012 6:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dream76 on 12/5/2012 5:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by harriswb3 on 12/4/2012 6:55:00 AM (view original):
When a murder is committed using a knife, do we try to ban knives?  When someone intentionally drives their car into oncoming traffic to commit suicide, do we try to ban cars?  When someone sets a fire to burn down a forest, or a building, or to kill others....do we try to ban matches?

Firearms are dangerous for sure, but PEOPLE make decisions.  Our founding fathers were some of the world's most brilliant people, EVER.   The right to bear arms is there for a reason.  We can debate the reasons, but IMO its largely based on the concept that a government should not be in control of the people.  The people should be in control of the government.
By the same argument you could say that nuclear weapons should be available to everyone.  We KNOW people make decisions, and we KNOW people make bad decisions.  Should stupid people making stupid decisions have the power to easily kill many innocent others?  I don't think so.  And if you think you need automatic weapons to hunt deer to survive or fight off those indigenous savages (or the British army), please join me in the 21st century
There are a lot of stupid people that get to vote. Are we going to ban them from voting? That appears unlikely.

Yes I own a semi-automatic rifle and yes it can be used to hunt deer. I wish to keep that choice to do so and refuse to let you and other leftist liberals take away that choice. The problem is this liberal leftist fringe feels the need to make decisions for the entire populace.

I think your talking about the righteous conservatives that are constantly trying to impose laws on everyone that prevent a man from marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman or preventing a woman from terminating her own pregnancy. That' s what I think you meant about feeling the need making decisions for the entire populace.
12/6/2012 6:08 PM
reductio ad absurdum argument

Wow!  I must be smarter than I thought.  (well maybe not since I don't even know what that is...LOL)  I did not realize this was a debate over automatic weapons.  I thought this was a debate about "the right to bear arms".  Now, I did not say it in my original post, because I think it detracts from the issue, but I don't have a problem with weapon registration.

This is truly a matter of "overbearing government control" of the lives of the people that said government is supposed to serve.    If you read the constitution in its entirety and more specifically the Bill of Rights articles 9 and 10, it starts to paint a picture of the overall intent of the founding fathers.  I would also say that its true that the founding fathers could not anticipate machine guns and other current "weapons of mass destruction".  However, in their day, these smart men clearly had seen and understood that technology had improved over the course of their lives and that it would advance in the future.  Furthermore, in their day a mass killer might have had to pack 6 flintlock pistols and carry two flintlock rifles, along with a hunting knife and a tomahawk...but they could certainly inflict many deaths or serious injuries with those weapons.

 I post this from the national archives:

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.


ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
12/6/2012 6:20 PM
I don't have a problem with a thorough background check. I had to pass these with my latest purchases. Should someone who has robbed a conveniance store be able to legally buy a gun? I think not. They have forfeited that right.

As for gun registration. I am against it. It should be no ones business as to someone else owning one.



12/6/2012 6:27 PM
Posted by osgonlz on 12/6/2012 5:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jibe717 on 12/5/2012 6:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dream76 on 12/5/2012 5:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by harriswb3 on 12/4/2012 6:55:00 AM (view original):
When a murder is committed using a knife, do we try to ban knives?  When someone intentionally drives their car into oncoming traffic to commit suicide, do we try to ban cars?  When someone sets a fire to burn down a forest, or a building, or to kill others....do we try to ban matches?

Firearms are dangerous for sure, but PEOPLE make decisions.  Our founding fathers were some of the world's most brilliant people, EVER.   The right to bear arms is there for a reason.  We can debate the reasons, but IMO its largely based on the concept that a government should not be in control of the people.  The people should be in control of the government.
By the same argument you could say that nuclear weapons should be available to everyone.  We KNOW people make decisions, and we KNOW people make bad decisions.  Should stupid people making stupid decisions have the power to easily kill many innocent others?  I don't think so.  And if you think you need automatic weapons to hunt deer to survive or fight off those indigenous savages (or the British army), please join me in the 21st century
There are a lot of stupid people that get to vote. Are we going to ban them from voting? That appears unlikely.

Yes I own a semi-automatic rifle and yes it can be used to hunt deer. I wish to keep that choice to do so and refuse to let you and other leftist liberals take away that choice. The problem is this liberal leftist fringe feels the need to make decisions for the entire populace.

I think your talking about the righteous conservatives that are constantly trying to impose laws on everyone that prevent a man from marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman or preventing a woman from terminating her own pregnancy. That' s what I think you meant about feeling the need making decisions for the entire populace.
As for this, if the fruits wanna do their thing I'm not standing in the way. I personally find it detestable but I don't tell you how to live your life. As far as calling it marriage that's a matter of opinion.

On the terminating of a pregnancy that's murder. Just as much as if someone takes a gun and shoots their girlfriend, That fetus is a life.

I know you disagree and I don't care. But you brought it up and I didn't and there is two sides to the story.

12/6/2012 6:38 PM
Actually you brought it up with your leftist comment. But its ok,  I could care less if we agree or not. I was posting an opinion just like you. 
12/6/2012 7:20 PM
Posted by osgonlz on 12/6/2012 6:38:00 PM (view original):
Actually you brought it up with your leftist comment. But its ok,  I could care less if we agree or not. I was posting an opinion just like you. 
Sorry you brought up the abortion and homosexuality agenda. My liberal comment was made with gun control in mind.
of 4

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.