Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Exterminatus Now. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Ronnie Barrett is my hero.; lol california.
Topic Started: Jan 27 2006, 05:46 AM (706 Views)
Legion
Member Avatar
Mongrel Student
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Yes. Gun crime is rising. I hardly see how removing the ban on ownership is going to help matters though.

Games aren't designed to kill. If you can kill someone with a gme, be my guest. (Well, I suppose you could snap the disc in half and use it to cut someone's throat, but I digress.) Jack Thompson is a nut because he's blaming a random form of electronic entertainment for murder. Blaming the availablity of lethal weapons for murder does not really fit into that catagory of frothing claims lawyer.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
HunteRS
Member Avatar
Power is all that is needed.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I was merely stating that the ban did nothing. It punished legitimate gun owners by removing thier possesions. If no one knows you've got one then it didn't rally work. It's an issue close to my heart as I grew up in the country alongside guns my fathers friends had. I'm probably biased but still, I think the point's valid.

Quote:
 
Games aren't designed to kill. If you can kill someone with a gme, be my guest. (Well, I suppose you could snap the disc in half and use it to cut someone's throat, but I digress.) Jack Thompson is a nut because he's blaming a random form of electronic entertainment for murder. Blaming the availablity of lethal weapons for murder does not really fit into that catagory of frothing claims lawyer.

Hack Thompson is saying that X=crime, death and all sorts of naughtiness. X=Games. Now replace that with, guns. or knives. Or Forks, LP's Computer monitors or fish. See? People have all been killed by someone with each of these items-should they be banned?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Legion
Member Avatar
Mongrel Student
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Again, forks, computer monitors, games and... fish aren't designed to kill. Neither are knives, to an extent, depending on what type of knife you're talking about. Guns are designed to kill. I'm uncomfortable enough about the police running around with the things, never mind the average person. The only thing that fits your 'X' perfectly is the murderer themselves. But guns fit it a lot better than most other things.

As a side note, my cousins were in Dunblane. (I just realised howthat could be interpreted. No, they weren't killed, or even injured particularly. But they were in the school at the time.) So, yes, I'm biased as well.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Major Maxillary
Member Avatar
Anarcho-Fascist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
But they can, and have, all be used as weapons.


but you're missing the point, here. say person A and Person B both have knives.

Person A goes and kils person C.

You have both Person A and person B give up their knives.

Why would you take Person B's knife away? person B didn't commit any crime. therefore you're punishing one for the actions of another.


But then, like I said many times before;

What's right for one may not be right for some.

Inanimate objects are incapable of excercising any form of mind control over humans. save for the One ring.

If a person commits a crime, punish the person who committed the crime, not everyone else.


HunteRS,Jan 28 2006
01:02 PM
Actually the nastiest insult up on Capitol Hill is to call someone a 'liberal'. Don't ask me why-maybe Americans are still genetically programmed to think Liberty=Commies!!


Actually, the reason is that most Liberals are about as liberal as a ham sandwich.

Me, I am a liberal in the textbood sense, as I have alot of quirks that go against the accepted norm. one being my stance on gun ownership, another being my stance on sexuality, another being my stance on religion, and another on my idea of government. But it's funny, Conservatives caleed me a liberal, liberals call me a right-wing facist nutjob, and it doesn't occur to either that I'm actually a moderate. Everyone here is so polarized they forgot that there's even such a thing as a middle ground.


The democratic party was infiltrated by communists, and a large chunk of the top players in the party are still card carrying commies. they all claim to be "progressive" and "Liberal" but it's all just window dressing to hide what they really want. To rule America now. At least the Republicans are willing to wait a while.


but it's not just the communism and all the hypocracy that pisses most people off about them. It's the elitism.

They all think that they know what's best, and that their oppinion is the only one that should be agreed with.

Dianne Feinstein, the lead "gun grabber" in California, has a Concealed carry permit, which she herself has stated should not bee allowed to Americans.

During a little PR duckhunt, John Kerry broke several firearms laws, including illegal transportation of a firearm across state lines; a federal crime.



So that's why people hate liberals. They think they know what's best for you, and'll be damned if you do anything to the contrary, the especially rich and powerful often act like the rules don't apply to them, many are communists, and they're almost always douchebags. a few Democratic senators are decent folks, hell, one even supports the second ammendment, but the overwhelming majority are as I previousley described.



HunteRS,Jan 28 2006
01:02 PM
Hmmm..vietnam per chance?

Vietnam, the Phillipines, Iran, Bosnia, ect. ect. ect.

time and again history has shown that if properly motivated a small force can possibly beat, or at least stand up to, a larger, better equipped force.

Of course, what won Vietnam wasn't force of arms, but propoganda.

The best example I can think of would be the American Revolution.

when the populace supports the underdog, there's not much the big guy can do.

HunteRS,Jan 28 2006
01:02 PM
It doesn't technically matter. Major, your point is that by removing the right to buy .50 cal bullets and guns the American is having is right to bear arms violated. Not really. America=capitalism where consumer choice is king. There are plenty of other and indeed messier ways to defend your home. Everyone else is basically saying guns=teh bad. Your right. They are nasty implements of death. But most people don't use them like that. Most enjoy them for practising thier skills or have an antique intrest in them. The arguement seems suspiciously Jack Thompsonish ie Games are whats making these kids kill-take them away. Replace Game with Gun and you get your argument. People who kill others often do so out of either A) passion or B)Being emotion fucked (like my good self.) Guns make it easier to kill people? So do arms, legs and people just being people in thier attitudes.



Unless you live out in the middle of nowhere, you're only real options for a home defense weapon would be a shogun, a carbine, or some form of pistol. but that's not the issue.

The second ammendment is being violated by this ban, because of the language of the second ammendment;

Bill of Rights,July 4
1776
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Now, for the record, Infringe means Invalidate, undermine, defeat, ect.

That's what this ban does, it denies people one form of firearm, Now, the machinegun laws are not infringing on anything, despite what many say, because you can still buy them. the .50 rifles, however are illegal in California, of course, as i said, a few were illegal even before the .50 ban due to the Assault weapons ban which is still in effect in California.

In anycase, we basically agree.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Lothar Hex
Member Avatar
Illogical
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I feel safer knowing nobody on my street owns a gun. You can't tell me you would feel safer knowing everyone on your street owns one.

Sure criminals will get them. But having them readily available from shops and such makes them far easier to get/steal than if there wasn't anywhere for them to be readily available. Most guns are stolen yes, but from places that get them in legally.

Why should we take person B's GUN away (stop bullshitting about knives)? Because then he's less tempted to use it. I know I'd be more tempted to use a gun if it was readily available.

Now frankly, we're going to go round in circles on this, and you haven't given a good arguement why everyone should be allowed a gun. SO unless you have something new, don't bother.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rawkko
Member Avatar
Closet furry
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Seems I started something incredibly stupid with my knife metaphor. Go figure.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Major Maxillary
Member Avatar
Anarcho-Fascist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Lothar Hex,Jan 28 2006
06:39 PM
I  feel safer knowing nobody on my street owns a gun. You can't tell me you would feel safer knowing everyone on your street owns one.

Sure criminals will get them. But  having them readily available from shops and such makes them far easier to get/steal than if there wasn't anywhere for them to be readily available. Most guns are stolen yes, but from places that get them in legally.

Why should we take person B's GUN away (stop bullshitting about knives)? Because then he's less tempted to use it. I know I'd be more tempted to use a gun if it was readily available.

I do feel safer knowing other folks on my street are armed. and most of my life, most everyone around me did own a gun. even the gay couple down the street.


Readily available from shops provided you submit to a background check, and wait three days.

fail the background check, you don't get your gun.


Person B was never tempted to use his weapon in the first place. it's person A who is a killer. I've been around guns all my life, my grandfather tought me how to shoot before I could read, my father tought me how to keep from shooting myself before that. I currently own a gun. I have never once shot a person in anger or otherwise. there were a couple times when the notion was real attractive because of some insufferable fuck or another, but never once have i actually done it.


I've given many arguments as to why people should be allowed to have firearms.
but this thread wasn't supposed to be about a one's right to own guns. it was about a retarded ban that people are proving is retarded by sercumventing it.


Lothar Hex,Jan 28 2006
06:39
Now frankly, we're going to go round in circles on this, and you haven't given a good arguement why everyone should be allowed a gun. SO unless you have something new, don't bother.


Okay, here's one that I probably haven't used yet;

The philosophy of liberty is based on Self-Ownership. This means that you own your life and property.

To deny this implies that someone else has a higher claim on your life than you do. No person or group owns your life, nor do you own the lives of others.

You have your life, Liberty, and property, property being the fruits of your labor.

At times, some people use force or fraud to take from others without consent.

To take Life is murder, to take Liberty is slavery, and to take property is theft.

It is the same wether these actions are taken by one against another, many against a few, or by officials; be they tyrants or otherwise.

You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property from the forceful aggression of others. But you do not have the right to initiate such actions against others.

You have the right to seek leaders for yourself, but you do not have the right to impose leaders on others. Regardless how they are selected, or come to power, they are only human, and have no rights or claims any higher than other humans. regardless of the imaginative labels for their behavior, or the numbers of people encouraging them. You cannot give them any rights that you do not have.

As stated, you own your life, liberty, and property. You do not rent them from others who demand your obedience. nor are you a slave to others who demand your sacrifice.

Your actions on behalf of others, or others on your behalf, are virtuous only when there is mutual consent.


This is the basis of a truly free society.


Remember, disarming law abiding citizens has always been the first act of every tyrant. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, ect.

Sometimes, the only way to keep others from taking your life, liberty, or property, is to force them to back off. When they are bigger than you, stronger than you, or have help from others, you need something that can give you a better chance. This can be a bat, a knife, a gun, or whatever.

Freedom can only exist when you are capable of protecting it.

Political power flows out the barrel of a gun.



Yeah, is all sounds like i'm repeating myself, because it's such a simple argument.


This whole anti-gun corntoversy is like this;

one side says guns are evil, and common people don't derserve them, they are generally motivated by an irrational fear of guns, a need to dominate others, a lack of trust for others, or some combination therof.

The other side says guns are not the problem, they provide facts and give reasonable arguments, they advocate personal responability and are often driven by a refusal to be dominated.

Some want the other side to shut the fuck up, others want their opposites to listen to reason. none will budge on the issue.

Both sides use the same arguments repeatedly because there isn't much else to the issue.


You're terrified of an armed person, and would rather not be around them even at the cost of your own freedom if nessisary, I can understand that, all I ask is that you understand that I refuse to give up my liberty, regardless of what the perceived benefits are.

I guess what I'm getting at is, Let's just agree to disagree.


otherwise, allow me to direct you to some articles that can convey the issue further.
http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0102.htm
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/gunlaws.htm
http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Legion
Member Avatar
Mongrel Student
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Major Maxillary,Jan 28 2006
10:40 PM
This whole anti-gun corntoversy is like this;

one side says guns are evil, and common people don't derserve them, they are generally motivated by an irrational fear of guns, a need to dominate others, a lack of trust for others, or some combination therof.

The other side says guns are not the problem, they provide facts and give reasonable arguments, they advocate personal responability and are often driven by a refusal to be dominated.

Yup. Way to give a balanced view of issue. Thank you for dismissing my arguments as the irrational ravings of a control freak. Thank you for standing your own viewpoint up as the pinnacle of liberty.

Generally, when you're reduced to insulting the other side in a debate, not their views, that's when you know debating has ceased and it's degenerated into a very wordy slanging match.

We've been disarmed for almost a decade now. Say what you like about Blair, but he's hardly tyrant material now, is he?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Hercule Pyro
Member Avatar
You've done some terrible things, Mister Harry
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Legion,Jan 28 2006
11:10 PM
We've been disarmed for almost a decade now. Say what you like about Blair, but he's hardly tyrant material now, is he?

Like I keep saying Legion, those who protest most strongly for gun ownership are the ones most likely to back a Right-wing dictatorship in the US (As lets be honest guys, the Left are never going to get a level of power that they can rule the country in their tyranical, tofu eating grip). Which is why three times out of four to find that argument a load of cobblers. Though I will concede there are plenty of Left and Centre-leaning gun supporters, just Right-wingers seem to be more likely to own 'em. Just my observation.

Blair isn't exactly tyrant material, but the ID card thing doesn't help his image as a promoter of peace.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rust
Member Avatar
Rank of Some Significance
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Dammit, Maxillary, you're giving the Americans a bad name.

Or a worse name, depending on your perspective. Just cram it. I knows me a lost cause when I sees me a lost cause.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
red demon
Rank of Some Significance
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I think the problem is this is a natural case of the 3 sides.

The first side being the Hippies who want to get rid of guns all together feeling that people will be safer without them.

The next one is the neutral people who couldint give a shit.

The final one are the military people who think guns protect and serve.

But there's a problem.

Guns protect but people always know that they can HARM as well. Gun's aren't your freind there a tool. A mindless tool that you can use any way that you want. Because of this guns can be used either way.

One thing that you should also remember is that keeping a gun in your house can be dangerous to your children as well because one slip up and it'll fall into there hands.

Not only that but accident's CAN and will happen. Now if I lived in a house knowing everyone on my street had a gun I wouldint feel safe. I mean it has been shown that people who begin as your freinds can infact turn on you.

Giving people weapons makes them feel secure and MAYBE protect them in certain situations but overall they actually seem to cause more harm.

why? Because when you have a gun in your hand you feel stronger and more like you can do whatever you want (absolute power corrupts absolutely) which can lead a person to do things they normally wouldint (meaning crime).

But the Major has a point. It's true that haveing a gun can protect you if you are attacked in or outside your house but the majority of robbers actually don't even carrie a gun. It's true, they almost always wait until you and your family are out of your house and move in, they almost always go in with little more then a knife and even when robbing banks they usually just threaten that they have a gun.

Now there are robbers and crooks that carrie guns but the way I see it gun's usually do cause about as much harm as they can prevent.

Weather they prevent or cause harm I'm not sure but. Would betting rid of guns entirely help? people say that guns cause war.

Wich maybe they do. But remember that human kind is bored. We made technology to serve most of our needs and it's because of this that we created war. Because we needed something to do. You don't want war? you don't want guns? then I suggest you convince the entire world into getting rid of all technology and go out to live in the wilderness and survive like our ancestors.

So who volenteers?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Major Maxillary
Member Avatar
Anarcho-Fascist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Legion,Jan 28 2006
11:10 PM
Yup. Way to give a balanced view of issue.

Way to blow my comments out of proportion and make rediculous assumptions that i'm insulting people for their views, fears, and motivations.


There are certain issues that can wind up turning completely rational people into raving fanatics. this is one of them. I posted an amusing event , which for the record is the Barrett .416 round, because it's funny. It's funny because california legislature passed a retarded law banning the .50BMG rouns -one fucking caliber!- and then several people start making new cartriges to make the .50 rifles legal again. like the .416 round, this other cartridge that has the same bullet and powder as the .50 BMG, but different case dimentions thereby allowing the same power with only a different caseing, thereby making the ban useless. that is funny to me, and it would be funny to anyone who would just think about it alone, and not focus on the broader gun issue.

But do we just chuckle at how stupid a law banning only one caliber(and not even every other cartridge, like .50 Action Express is still california legal, or the .50 Beowulf which can be fired from a modified AR10) is? Do we just laugh at the futility of it? no. we all go on blasting and ranting about our views. never stopping to realise that nothing we do or say about the issue is going to change it. we're all set in our ways, nobody is going to go and say "Wow, your angry rant really swayed my oppinion, how could i have been so wrong." In the end on all sides there are retards and useful idiots wo only know the propoganda, there are people who want to exploit their side to further their career, there are people who just don't give a flying fuck, there are intelligent, rational people, and there are those who have a vested interest in getting their way wether it be god or ill.

So yeah, this is about as balanced as anyone can get on this issue.


For the record, Lots of countries disarmed their civillians, only a few have done it completely. of the few that did, most fell under the boot of tyranny.


Rust,Jan 29 2006
01:05 AM
Dammit, Maxillary, you're giving the Americans a bad name.



Bullshit. America can do no good as far as the international community is concerned. every other hour I see someone ranting about how evil buchstalinhitler is, or how we're warmongering oil barons, or how we murder innocent babies and kittens to pass the time. Even the most inane thing is spun into something about Bush declaring himself cesar or some shit. Hell, it seems that every time I come here I find the residents bitterly attacking America. The world couldn't hate us more, and frankly, i don't give a flying fuck. I gave up caring about what others thought of me when I was five.

I am what I am and that's all that I am.


@red demon

Guns don't protect. People use guns to protect. just as people use them to attack. they are weapons, it's their function. they remain at rest until moved to action by someone.

Keeping a gun around idiot children and not bothering to teach them about gun safety is irresponsable parenting. so is not locking them all up.


The way to reduce accidents is through education.

The reason I feel safer when everyone on my streed being armed is that, if one guy flips out and unloads with his semiautomatic or bolt action rifle, everyone else with put two or three rounds in him. If a horde of barbarians tries to rape and pillage our little section of suburbia we can fight them off. If something really bad happens and the police are buisy with more important shit, like, oh, the aftermath of a category five hurrican, we can protect ourselves from looters and other ruffians.

Being secure in our persons and property. I'd hardley call a gun absolute power, but if everyone has this "absolute power" then everyone cancels everyone else out.



Having a gun allows you to protect yourself, the gun doesn't do shit unless you make the decision to.

With a gun you can prevent a bad situation from getting worse, you can make the bad situations even worse, you can stop a crime, you can commit a crime, you can save a life, you can take a life. they are tools, dependant souley on how you use them.


You know what the cause of war is? it's very simple. Necessity.


all animals fight each other, for territory, for mates, for food.

Man is no different. w fight wars for teritory, for expansion, and for resources. Most of the time we throw some religious meanings in there, but when you get roght down to it, it's because we want something, or we just flat out got pissed off at someone else who was moving in on our turf.


That being said, I completely agree with the rest of your post.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
HunteRS
Member Avatar
Power is all that is needed.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Though I will concede there are plenty of Left and Centre-leaning gun supporters, just Right-wingers seem to be more likely to own 'em. Just my observation.

Blair isn't exactly tyrant material, but the ID card thing doesn't help his image as a promoter of peace

As long as Blair promises to not sing in any bands again...(shudder) But I agree that the stereotypical gun user is a pot bellied, trucker cap wearing, beer drinking yahoo named Bubba. This helps no one. As I said-I think the gun laws in the Uk should be, if not repealed, relaxed a little. Everyone points to America and it's crime rate and says "See it's the GUNS!!" What about Japan? Or Sweeden or Denmark? These countrys all have high levels of gun ownership-yet the gu crime figures are tiny. Maybe it's just the American mindset being as unique as every other countries mind set.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Felix
Member Avatar
Propagandist
[ *  *  * ]
If you're wondering where you are politically, Major Maxillary, you're what would generally be called a Libertarian (which is actually quite different from a Liberal). Although personally, I find the attempts to pigeonhole people's political status an exercise in pointlessness.

Anyway, back to guns. Whilst guns themselves are property, (which in a liberal democracy such as Britain or America is owned by the populace) they cannot be treated like ordinary property, because of the consequences of their usage. One has to way the benefits of allowing their free ownership to the downsides. I'm not stupid enough to assume that making guns illegal would remove gun crime from society - someone already pointed out gun crime is still present in Britain. But you must accept that, with legalised gun ownership, there will be an increase in tragic gun accidents, as well as an increase in their use by various groups in a violent, destructive manner.

Also, on the subject of corrupt politicians who don't do what you want: welcome to democracy. No one gets what they want, because it works on consensus. If you want to stop politicians banning guns, then as a voter and citizen you have the power to lobby and stop it from happening. In fact, there is a very large and vocal gun control lobby in the US already. But you must understand the state is not out to get you. Sure, politicians are often corrupt or stupid. But the state exists for a reason, and politicians act as your representatives to work out how best to organise society.

I would also like to point out that the original purpose of the second amendment was to protect the fledgling american state, that was (in the 18th century) under threat from the British, as well as other potentially hungry European empires. Now though, who the hell do you need to protect yourselves against? America is by far the strongest country in the world, and no one would dare attack it, because it just would not be worth it. There is no longer a practical reason for full gun ownership.

One final point. Fox hunting was recently banned in Britian. I'm not proud to admit it, but my mother is (was) a hunter. She of course wanted to keep it, but society decreed otherwise. And you know what, she accepts it. She doesn't like it, but as we live in a society where the idea of hunting for sport was deemed unfair and cruel, she accepts it.

Disclaimer: I'm not against hunting in principle (ie. it can often be necessary). But I do not accept it's classification as a sport, as it is cruel to make a sport out of the killing of something.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Felix
Member Avatar
Propagandist
[ *  *  * ]
HunteRS,Jan 29 2006
02:06 PM
Everyone points to America and it's crime rate and says "See it's the GUNS!!" What about Japan? Or Sweeden or Denmark? These countrys all have high levels of gun ownership-yet the gu crime figures are tiny. Maybe it's just the American mindset being as unique as every other countries mind set.

Oh, gun ownership is not the only thing that contributes to gun crime and mis-usage. But it definitely has a contribution. And if a society is using them in an irresponsible manner, surely you might want to rethink about having them.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Hercule Pyro
Member Avatar
You've done some terrible things, Mister Harry
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
*Sigh*

Is it me, or does everything even vaguely political on this board develop into a discussion on firearm ownership?

Locking this because I can. If you want it reopened, PM me with a good reason.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · The CABAL Network · Next Topic »
Locked Topic