|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Sept 16, 2011 14:23:19 GMT -5
Honestly, there must be something in the water in Texas. Yes, it's called republican piss.
|
|
|
Post by Seclusion on Nov 9, 2012 17:02:15 GMT -5
I'm a social liberal and social democrat.
|
|
|
Post by Prophet626 on Nov 10, 2012 20:04:17 GMT -5
What did people think about Obama winning again?
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Nov 10, 2012 22:01:07 GMT -5
Better than Romney but I seriously think people screwed themselves by not picking Gary Johnson. That guy would have saved the country by taking the best of both worlds. Libertarian FOREVER!
|
|
|
Post by Prophet626 on Nov 10, 2012 22:54:07 GMT -5
I think people thought that a vote for Mitt would of been like bring bush back?
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Nov 10, 2012 23:06:02 GMT -5
I think people thought that a vote for Mitt would of been like bring bush back? The people that voted for him didn't even like him for the most part. Almost everyone I talked to that intended to vote for him only was doing it because they think Obama is the devil. I am firmly against voting for who you want to lose. We should be voting for who we want to win and yes, there is a difference. Maybe if we stopped with a two-party system, the people that hate Obama could have gotten their wish.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Nov 10, 2012 23:43:23 GMT -5
Maybe if we stopped with a two-party system, the people that hate Obama could have gotten their wish. or you could just move to Canada where we don't have a two-party system
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Nov 11, 2012 0:12:14 GMT -5
Maybe if we stopped with a two-party system, the people that hate Obama could have gotten their wish. or you could just move to Canada where we don't have a two-party system Pfft! Canada has Canadians. Ewwww!!!
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Dec 17, 2012 12:05:42 GMT -5
So you've given up the argument about domestic murders? If you think domestic murders will flat line by taking away American constitutional rights, you live in La La Land. Show me stats of total murders in America and the UK, guns are not the problem, people are. You take away our guns (won't ever happen safely, count on that) people will just find other ways to murder, only this time around, you have taken away a person's right to defend themselves in the way that is best for them. You talk about Superman being your idol and stress how his code is anti-gun (something I don't think had ever been part of his character) when he has the biggest gun on the dang planet and he uses it on the daily, sometimes without need.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Dec 17, 2012 12:18:29 GMT -5
You let the few dictate how the many will be governed and you have lost.
|
|
|
Post by Supreme Marvel on Dec 17, 2012 12:48:51 GMT -5
So you've given up the argument about domestic murders? If you think domestic murders will flat line by taking away American constitutional rights, you live in La La Land. I think you're living in denial en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateTake away guns, then people will be less likely to kill. Pulling a trigger is much easier than getting in someone's face with a knife. You buy a gun, you don't even need to be next to that person to kill them. And you don't have to make a precise to hit them. For example, the person that started this argument. Skinny white guy. That skinny white guy, with a gun, turns into a hulk. The constitution was written for a time when guns were not as effective as they are today. Now they’re extremely deadly to where you just point and shoot, don’t have to hit a vital organ to cause death. A person shouldn't have the right to pick up a gun after a bad day and go on a rampage. Actually, if you read it again, properly this time. I never mentioned a gun with Superman, just said he had a moral code I could look up to. Batman I stressed the anti-gun stance.
|
|
|
Post by jakefury on Dec 17, 2012 12:50:25 GMT -5
I'm not anti-gun even though I've been a victim of a home invasion. I just think there should be more strenuous laws to acquire them. Walking down to the local pawn shop and waiting 5 days is too easy.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Dec 17, 2012 13:09:59 GMT -5
I think you're living in denial It's not denial. Almost every home in America owns at least one gun. No government would successfully take them away. Might as well try to outlaw having children because you would get just as much of a fight. Take away guns, then people will be less likely to kill. Pulling a trigger is much easier than getting in someone's face with a knife. You buy a gun, you don't even need to be next to that person to kill them. And you don't have to make a precise to hit them. For example, the person that started this argument. Skinny white guy. That skinny white guy, with a gun, turns into a hulk. Wrong! America enjoys a healthy murder rate without guns. Like I said before, take away guns and you just have people murdering in other ways. Try to take away guns, you quite literally will get a war and a massive surge in illegally purchased guns. It does not matter if skinny white guy has a gun, he is still a skinny white guy. Placing a gun in his hands isn't going to change that. Especially when he has not fired one before and is up against Muricans that sleep with the things under their pillows. The constitution was written for a time when guns were not as effective as they are today. Now they’re extremely deadly to where you just point and shoot, don’t have to hit a vital organ to cause death. A person shouldn't have the right to pick up a gun after a bad day and go on a rampage. A gun has always been lethal. In fact, it could be argued that they were more lethal in the 1700s since the ammunition was like mini wrecking balls. They didn't cut through the body, they smashed through it. Being shot almost was a guaranteed death sentence. A man can enter a school and stab his way through the entire building, killing every individual without missing a step. In fact, had that killer used a knife, he might have killed more since knives make a lot less noise than assault rifles. Victoria would not have been able to hide her classroom full of children without those shots and the body count may have climbed to the hundreds. All one has to do it attack the teacher of any given classroom and the panic button never gets pressed. It is possible that no one would even have known about the massacre until after he has cut his way through every living soul in the building had it not been for his noise.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Dec 17, 2012 13:12:50 GMT -5
You will fail when trying to control the masses due to the crimes of one single person. No rational man would try to control the many based on the wrongs of the few. That is control for the sake of it. That is megalomania.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Dec 17, 2012 13:25:02 GMT -5
A man takes a car and runs down an orphanage. Should we outlaw cars?
|
|
Akoot
Sidekick Ledger
Well, hello there.
Posts: 103
|
Post by Akoot on Dec 17, 2012 13:58:53 GMT -5
Heyy, I'm not around these parts...at all very much once a year maybe... But that doesn't mean my opinion is invalid hopefully, I'm a friend of Supreme Marvel, been following this discussion for a while. Just want to raise a few points and ask a few questions. Erik-El, are you opposed to more gun control entirely? What people have in mind when talking about gun control isn't usually the government stomping into your home and stealing all of your guns, what I'd like to see is more rigorous background checks and such to make sure with as much clarity as possible that it is safe to allow that person to own a killing tool. Please don't lessen this with "should we sell cars because they can kill people?" A car's primary purpose is not to harm, I'd like to see an argument that guns are not made for that purpose. And please please don't try to argue that a knife is as easy or easier a killing tool as a gun, especially an automatic firearm. In the hands of a regular man or woman, a gun is a much easier killing tool to use, and screams attract almost as much attention as gunshots unless you're some kind of expert assassin. I'm from a little Island nation called the United Kingdom, and contrary to belief, it is legal to own a gun here! There are forms, background checks, etc. But it is possible, you may say we're being controlled because we can't just swap arcade tokens for firearms, but this is the sensible way to do it in my opinion. Here is a sneak peak into how you go about legally owning a firearm in the UK: www.shootinguk.co.uk/goshooting/starting/126232/Shotgun_licence__shotgun_certificate_application.htmlCriminal history, police interview, checks on your medical history, so invasive! Well that's what has to happen when you're attempting to purchase such a dangerous object in this country. While you're doing that, a little mental health awareness & help wouldn't go amiss. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Dec 17, 2012 14:25:22 GMT -5
Hey Akoot!
No, I am not opposed to certain aspects of gun control. I personally believe those with violent criminal histories should not be allowed to own a gun. Your suggestion of rigorous background checks appeals to that opinion.
A gun, at least in the United States, is available to the public as a means of personal or public defense. The fact that they harm is irrelevant. Your policemen carry batons that are purposed to harm and you likely carry a knife that is purposed to harm.
It is a legitimate counter-argument. People want to steal the rights of others based on the insanity of one man. What Supreme is suggesting is what is called a slippery slope. Take away one right to please the masses and it snowballs. The cars argument would be one end to that slippery slope. It does not lessen the discussion, it spotlights the fallacy.
A knife is a killing tool and its ease of killing is largely dependent on the skill of the wielder, just like a gun. A skilled bladesman will be able to cut through an otherwise defenseless teacher like they were butter. Hard to scream with a cut throat I imagine.
Screams in an elementary classroom? Not uncommon. It is not a guaranteed effective "alarm".
|
|
Akoot
Sidekick Ledger
Well, hello there.
Posts: 103
|
Post by Akoot on Dec 17, 2012 15:01:15 GMT -5
Fair enough, you're open to some gun control, that's good. What would be feasible I think would be not to remove the right to own a gun, but to make it far more difficult to get one on short notice, and without lots of checks.
I don't carry a weapon with me because in the area I was raised, you're more likely to be stabbed/injured if you're carrying a weapon than if you're not. The knives I own are not primarily killing tools, they are kitchen implements. It's actually illegal here to carry around a knife past a certain size (it's quite small) as to do so would be intending to cause unnecessary harm to someone. For example, carrying a knife for self-defense is still intending to do harm, so you could be arrested for that.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Dec 17, 2012 15:20:09 GMT -5
I am in full support of a process that affords time to appropriately evaluate an individual AND weapon, since many guns are purchased used.
I don't carry a weapon because of weapon bans on school property but if they allowed it, you can bet top dollar I would carry. If some lunatic walked onto my school gunning people down as they ran, I would be the one taking the head shot on that psycho. Then I would go home and sleep like a baby knowing my right to have a gun saved dozens of lives.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Dec 17, 2012 17:30:47 GMT -5
Wrong! America enjoys a healthy murder rate Out of context quote of the day!
|
|