Want to ban guns?

bde0001 said:

yeah, lol I joining the navy because I thought Military guys were badass and I thought i wanna gonna get hand to hand combat training etc....Turns out I hated it, never got hand to hand combat training and it was nothing what I expected it to be....did get very little training with a m9 though....

Click to expand...

If you wanted hand to hand combat training and massive fire power tutorials, why join the navy? The ship is the weapon, the man (you)are just a cog in that great iron war machine.
surely the army would afford the weapons/fighting training you desired, though the army offers Iraq and Afghanistan, is that why you choose the navy? Just as the airforce can offer none of this.
The army fight on the ground, man to man, brutal fighting and killing, they will teach you, it's in yours and every bodies interest you now how to kill in close quarter combat. Again i can only ask,why the navy?
when you know it's the army who fight this way,
i take it you don't fancy Afghanistan then?
you'd like the military to train you to become a cold heartless bare handed killing machine,
why? So you can utilise it down the pub?
you want those skills, join the army, though in return you may have to use those skills to save your very life.
i've heard about this in the media, loads of youngsters joining up to aquire top class educations with practical experience, these people view the actual job of war fighting,killing and being killed/maimed, as,
"they got so many,they don't need me. They sign up for??? Years, get trained in everything they desired, even playing with big boys toys!
only to finds the big boys toys and the top class training is to serve one purpose, for you to be the point on foreign policy, to wage war and kill super efficiently.
though these people thought the army was there to educate them brilliantly, feed,clothe,pay and train you,just leave and be successful with a dark dangerous edge...llol so when said people end up in afghan, they piss theirselves with fright etc.
military = war,war =killing,Killing without dying=training, the army provides this,not the navy,not the airforce,army are boots on the ground, massive firepower,and the risk of death,serious injury.
why did you join the navy again?
respect to our war fighters! Thank you! K.K.

UncleBuck said:

the right to bear arms was put in there to keep the brits away. since we now have a standing army, it's obsolete. unless you count the constitution as a living document, you don't really have the right to bear arms anymore.

Click to expand...

sorry homes but you're wrong again, the right to bear arms is in the constitution because the founding fathers wanted the power to remain with the people and not a corrupt government, ...you know, like the one we have now.

...so that right is there to give us the means to protect ourselve's from our own government and not 'to keep the brits away'.

...you use a lot of words but you don't really say anything meaningful, ...just a lot of liberal hot air.

bozo

The government is corrupt if people don't have the right to put ten bullets in someone or something they don't like???!

xKuroiTaimax said:

but you speak to some guys and it's like taking away their gun means cutting off part of their penis or something.

Click to expand...

...we object to you wanting to take away our FREEDOM dude, once a corrupt government takes a freedom away they almost never give it back.

...so it ain't about the penis, it's about freedom.

bozo

xKuroiTaimax said:

is true... But why let it escalate? I think seeing the guns taken from cartels in Breaking the Taboo really brought it home for me, seeing how the complexity and potential for massive damage evolved over a short period of time, the weapons becoming more and more horrific. Like when it got to the point of A bombs being tested/used. Does it take a Hiroshima to make people realize 'hey, maybe no one should be allowed to have this sort of devastating power?' Like those calling for the abolition of all nuclear weapons or power were called crazy lobbyists, then Chernobyl. Does it take another one (Fukushima anyone?) to drive the point home?


Will it take another Columbine for people to get the point? Well I suppose since there have already been several, and people are expect anything other than for a call to tighten gun laws, then people are never ever going to get the point, Neer Neer

Put all the gun lovers on an island and wait for the to all shoot eachother. Self defense of course... Just an answer to the suggestion that gun haters should be deported to Britain.

The world is violent enough without it being a Battle Royale- with a weapon available for every hand. Things that wouldn't have otherwise happened had there not been such easy access. People will alway find what they want on the black market, but it'd be a damn sight harder if there were tighter restrictions..

Click to expand...

You and I "take opposite points" from Columbine. Columbine can be argued to have happened because of inconsistently restrictive gun laws. Just one armed adult in that miserable "gun-free zone" would have made a difference.

Imo you're operating form a precarious premise in the first paragraph. If I arm myself against an assailant, am I "escalating"? The alternative would be to submit. I will not trust in the mercy of an attacker. cn

olylifter420 said:

Im sorry k, but i am a very responsible adult and teach my family the importance of gun safety. Do not blast my right to speak and my right to bear arms cause you do not understand them

And why dont you quote me?

Click to expand...

Apostrophe missing. You give the impression of being a very responsible adult by saying you should be allowed to play with guns because it's fun. Very nonlinear argument there, on the other hand I've considered the need for guns by hunters, sportsmen and people in remote locations at risk of attack. Even though I am against hunting I could at least say I understand people wanting to carry a gun just for hunting.

All you have to say is 'it's fun'. You can't have it both ways. Should people be allowed to carry knifes in te street because knives are fun to throw? And knives arent even made for the sole purpose of killing, maiming and destroying unlike guns.

And still, I give up my knives (I'm an artist' if I am caught with them because I know the authorities are only doing all they can for public safety. Why should I complain about my knives being taken and then lament the death of someone being staved because a knife wasn't taken from the attackers hands enforce it could happen. Has no one heard of a bit of sacrifice? Humans want everything all the time.. God I don't understand them

cannabineer said:

You and I "take opposite points" from Columbine. Columbine can be argued to have happened because of inconsistently restrictive gun laws. Just one armed adult in that miserable "gun-free zone" would have made a difference.

Imo you're operating form a precarious premise in the first paragraph. If I arm myself against an assailant, am I "escalating"? The alternative would be to submit. I will not trust in the mercy of an attacker. cn

Click to expand...

Yes. I believe there comes a point where our desire for self preservation crosses into a realm of arrogance. Our lives don't mean much. Submit or deem myself worth shooting someone over?

I will respectfully disagree and leave. Threads like this should be in the politics forum anyway. Too much stress.

justanotherbozo said:

...we object to you wanting to take away our FREEDOM dude, once a corrupt government takes a freedom away they almost never give it back.

...so it ain't about the penis, it's about freedom.

bozo

Click to expand...

Mid you want freedom let's make rape and murder legal.

xKuroiTaimax said:

Yes. I believe there comes a point where our desire for self preservation crosses into a realm of arrogance. Our lives don't mean much. Submit or deem myself worth shooting someone over?

I will respectfully disagree and leave. Threads like this should be in the politics forum anyway. Too much stress.

Click to expand...

Let me get this straight. If you're in a binary situation, shoot/get shot, you'd chose option B?? cn

I've only ever been sorely punished or looked down upon for defending myself. People need to make the rules universal; it is either acceptable to lash out and attack people or it is not.

If I hurt someone who attacked me, I look like a bitch because I am a fighter, believe it or not.

So if I an told to do so is wrong... If it is not acceptable for someone to shoot/rape/beat you it's not acceptable for you to do it either.

I give up. Fighting achieves nothing but garnering more enemies and hatred.

xKuroiTaimax said:

I've only ever been sorely punished or looked down upon for defending myself. People need to make the rules universal; it is either acceptable to lash out and attack people or it is not.

If I hurt someone who attacked me, I look like a bitch because I am a fighter, believe it or not.

So if I an told to do so is wrong... If it is not acceptable for someone to shoot/rape/beat you it's not acceptable for you to do it either.

I give up. Fighting achieves nothing but garnering more enemies and hatred.

Click to expand...

Oh Kuroi. You poor dear. You were told something oh so very wrong. I get it: I am very receptive to moral opinion and tend to have a hysteresis effect: it sticks.

But you were done wrong. Please hear me when i say that. You have the right, verily a duty, to stand up for yourself. You've been shorn of your self-esteem, and that makes me lament. cn

As much as I roll my eyes when I read your posts sometimes Kuroi. I feel the need to echo the bear here. You deserve the ability to defend yourself and if that was stripped from you with your self esteem the individuals responsible are guilty of abuse of the highest order.

against hunting? do you eat meat kuroi?

justanotherbozo said:

sorry homes but you're wrong again, the right to bear arms is in the constitution because the founding fathers wanted the power to remain with the people and not a corrupt government, ...you know, like the one we have now.

...so that right is there to give us the means to protect ourselve's from our own government and not 'to keep the brits away'.

...you use a lot of words but you don't really say anything meaningful, ...just a lot of liberal hot air.

bozo

Click to expand...

complete nonsense.

your interpretation lacks historical context completely and your logic leads to a reductio ad absurdum where we should have the right to bear nuclear bombs.

either the second amendment is outdated and obsolete or the constitution is a living document. can't have it both ways, sock puppet.

justanotherbozo said:

...we object to you wanting to take away our FREEDOM dude, once a corrupt government takes a freedom away they almost never give it back.

...so it ain't about the penis, it's about freedom.

bozo

Click to expand...

it's a right, not a freedom, idiot. and all rights are abridged.

you might understand this if you took the fist out of your ass.

UncleBuck said:

complete nonsense.

your interpretation lacks historical context completely and your logic leads to a reductio ad absurdum where we should have the right to bear nuclear bombs.

either the second amendment is outdated and obsolete or the constitution is a living document. can't have it both ways, sock puppet.

Click to expand...

With respect, UB: his interpretation has tons of historical context. The logic would lead there if it was a continuum argument. If you invert it, you get "nukes are bad, so ban guns!" It doesn't work well in that direction either. cn

olylifter420 said:

Because they are fun to shoot and the AR system is very functional

Click to expand...

makes it nice and easy to gun down a couple dozen kindergarteners, too.

i like seeing two master debaters in the same room at once, and not feel weird...

even easier to run them over on a cross walk...

cannabineer said:

You and I "take opposite points" from Columbine. Columbine can be argued to have happened because of inconsistently restrictive gun laws. Just one armed adult in that miserable "gun-free zone" would have made a difference.

Imo you're operating form a precarious premise in the first paragraph. If I arm myself against an assailant, am I "escalating"? The alternative would be to submit. I will not trust in the mercy of an attacker. cn

Click to expand...

in fact,1 armed person has stopped a school shooting before.The principal had a .45 in his car.He took the little mf'r out.If everyone (or most everyone)carried a firearm,these freaks wouldn't have the nerve to attempt their cowardly acts