PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gun Control Debates
     LIVING WITH FEAR

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
WBPV253

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

Both pro gun and anti gun lobbies will argue their point to the death and each can provide all sorts of statistics and data to further strenghten their argument.  Lets face it, we don't live in a perfect world and we could spend the rest of our lives arguing and changing things in an a never ending effort to makes things better from our own point of view.  Yeah, ban all guns and my child will never get shot at school but then he gets run down by a drunk driver.  Our concern for our safety has made us all live in fear and this fear is breeding contempt for our fellow man.  As much as we would like to we can't be in control of every variable that may affect our lives.  Get on with your own life and enjoy it, who knows what tomorrow may bring.
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 01:16 AM on April 19, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well said.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 6:55 PM on April 19, 2007 | IP
nurseguy

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Amen brother.


 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 02:34 AM on July 17, 2007 | IP
Sirius

|        |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What's important, rather than complaining about this and demanding that be banned, is to teach our children responsibility.

Past generations in America and many other countries embraced guns as readily as we embrace cars. They were a tool, essential to everyday life. Yet gun crime wasn't nearly as prevalent as it is now. What changed? The people.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 7:25 PM on November 4, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I just don't want some one else to limit my rights.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 7:42 PM on November 22, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Don't confuse rights with privileges.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:19 PM on November 22, 2007 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thats right Mr. Meyers. To own a firearm is a right, to drive a car is a privilage.


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 11:43 PM on December 28, 2007 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Cars and guns are both privileges.

Privilege is by virtue of right. Virtue is an expression of 'right of way' modified, of-course, as reality happens in 'the way' to infinite ends. Right, or right of way, is an expression of 'experience allowed' or 'all equal' as is sensed in the way of living. Virtue, as the right of way, is the action, or moment,  experienced as the right, in retrospect; Right is present tense, virtue is retrospective.

Privilege is will; Right is life. Right is equal, right of way is equitable.

Guns and cars are not equal to you and I. Just as you love your guns, I do not, and I encourage everyone to stop using  guns to kill, just as I encourage everyone to stop using cars to kill. I am ashamed to think there are humans out there that love themselves so much more then life that they are willing to poison the earth, and kill, for sake of selfish advantage and nothing else. I guess the world is too big for some people to care about so they shoot at it and drive cars on it, and hate it, and wish it was dead so that they will not have to give away any of the love they privilege themselves.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 4:59 PM on December 29, 2007 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you think that owning a gun is a privilage then , free speech, privacy, religion, etc. are all privilages too.

If you want to stop the killing talk to the biggest offenders. Governments, in the last century Governments killed an estimated ( this number does not include casualties of war or famine)  56+ million disidents. Add in the other two catigories and your apx. tripling to quadrupling that number. The most evil part of mankind is the governments they create.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
---
 China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
---
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---
 Uganda established gun control in 1970.  From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.



-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 5:12 PM on January 9, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Focus. You support the argument that guns are used to commit murder. It does not matter who is killed, who is killing, or what excuse they use to try and get away with it.

You are saying, if the government has the option of killing large numbers of people with firearms, you should have the option of at least killing a few, and that is immature and inhuman.

The facts you present do not support your argument that owning a gun is a right. Do you really love the idea of shooting somebody so much that you will try and secure the means as a right? Grow up man, who do you think you are anyway?


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 9:25 PM on January 9, 2008 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from forfunt1 at 9:25 PM on January 9, 2008 :
Focus. You support the argument that guns are used to commit murder.


No I didn't. Just about anything can be used to kill a hammer, knife, baseball bat, car, pencil, etc. Where murder lies is in the heart. It is only the hand that wields the item that changes it from a tool to an instrument of murder. Take away one item and another will take its place. Once murder is in the heart the method used to complete deed is irrelevant, the only important factor is that the objective is achieved. I thought my point was obvious, but I'll explain since governments murdered on average 2 million innocent people a year. Why do you advocate disarming their intended victims? Is it that you really don't care that the innocent public is put at risk?

It does not matter who is killed, who is killing, or what excuse they use to try and get away with it.


I thought my point was obvious, but I'll explain since governments murdered on average 2 million innocent people a year. Is it that you look at death as Stalin did? 1 death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic. Why do you advocate disarming their intended victims? Is it that you really don't care that the innocent public is put at risk?

You are saying, if the government has the option of killing large numbers of people with firearms, you should have the option of at least killing a few, and that is immature and inhuman.


Don't be foolish I am armed so I can protect my family and friends. I hope I never have to. But if cornered; given no other choice, and will only as a last resort with plenty of warning. What is immature is to believe that by giving the government and criminals a world where there will be no opposition to the mayhem that they will wreak on the innocent public. Being a man means being willing to stand up and fight for what is right and to keep your family and friends safe.    

The facts you present do not support your argument that owning a gun is a right. Do you really love the idea of shooting somebody so much that you will try and secure the means as a right? Grow up man, who do you think you are anyway?

You don't believe that a person has the right to protect themselves from tyrannical governments or violent criminals? I have no interest in shooting anyone all I want is to keep the violent criminals and governments at bay. So this what you actually think naive you are. What do you propose that us victims do? Wave the white flag and surrender. That will really make the violent criminals think twice. Yup now they don't have to worry about you being able to put up a defense and fight back.



(Edited by TRIGGER 1/10/2008 at 9:12 PM).


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 9:11 PM on January 10, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'll give you a break. You are having a hard time keeping up, and it seems you have not been understanding everything I have written. I will not give you the credit of meaning what you are writing, because there is little sense that you have been able to grasp the concept of this conversation. So, re-read everything, and reflect as you must in order to find the words to express your understandings. I have been unfair to proceed as if you are at the same level, so this is your chance to catch-up.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 12:20 AM on January 11, 2008 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have been waiting for you to respond with something more than just gratuitus assertions. You make assertions with out any substance to back it up. If you think I can't keep up well it is tough when I'm debating on other sites. Unlike here with you they actualy do debate me by actualy countering or at least trying to counter my statements.


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 01:04 AM on January 13, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I speak for myself, while you think aloud. It seems I have not made myself clear enough to this effect: I will not think with you or for you.

Have you something real, or current to say?
Is it wise to jump in if you are unsure how to swim? You sound unsure to me, and that is why I encourage you to catch up. If you take your time to finish thinking, you may have something to say.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 8:28 PM on January 14, 2008 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
---
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
---
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---
Uganda established gun control in 1970.  From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.


This is a ridiculous generalization. Those instances are not as simple as gun control instantly resulted in executions.

However, gun ownership is a right. The 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges. The OP is talking about the laws of the land, not the philosophy of innate rights and privileges.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 9:23 PM on January 14, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Which version of the second amendment states 'gun ownership is a right'? Obviously not the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Have you read the constitution? If not, you may find this site handy:

http://www.usconstitution.net/


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 10:44 PM on January 19, 2008 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From your own source.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2


Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.


(Edited by quatin 1/20/2008 at 11:25 PM).

Are you intending to argue that "guns" are not "arms"?

(Edited by quatin 1/20/2008 at 11:40 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 11:24 PM on January 20, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I hate to do this, but some of this is from a comment I posted in another forum.

The constitution states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. This is the vocabulary, of the time, for stating in simplest reasonable terms, that people will-by-right in order to defend themselves. Consider this a way of saying that the mechanisms for self preservation in any human will, at some time, in circumstances of certain mortal threat, motivate the individual to act by any/all means necessary to prevent loss of life.

The whole statement is designed so that two main ideas are understood: 'to keep and bear arms' is established 'right'; the security of a free state may call on militia. The statement is designed to further clarify that no law may (by design) infringe on these actions, understanding that rights and 'necessity' are law.  

The word gun is not in the constitution, because the gun is not the only means, and therefore not the necessary means, for an individual to bear arms.

The statement 'bear arms' has been bastardized; the roots of the meaning have been obscured by the complexities of modern context and confused by the idioms of modern idiots.

(Edited by forfunt1 1/21/2008 at 10:20 PM).


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 9:44 PM on January 21, 2008 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are arguing that a gun is not necessary for maintaining "security of a free state" as it applies to the world we live in today. That a "militia" can be armed without guns and still be an effective force to be called on?

Or

Are you arguing that people have a right to be "armed", but not entitled to specific arms so long that they are granted some of them?

(Edited by quatin 1/22/2008 at 02:05 AM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 02:00 AM on January 22, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The people are granted the same privileges as the government by virtue of the right to bear arms. Representatives are still citizens, and equal by law to all other citizens.

Rights are universal; they apply to all citizens, equally. If the U.S. government has guns and bombs, the people are entitled to guns and bombs; The means by which any citizen secures a right, may be the means by which all citizens secure the same right, and if so, the law does not allow any infringement on the process being equal; any access to, or advancement of, the means to self preservation must be made available to all (U.S.) citizens by (U.S.) law.

Guns are only a reasonable means of securing the right to bear arms only because they can be used for self defense. There is no law of nature making certain that they are the only reasonable or necessary means.

(Edited by forfunt1 1/22/2008 at 5:14 PM).


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 5:10 PM on January 22, 2008 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


There is no law of nature making certain that they are the only reasonable or necessary means.


If you believe that a gun is not the only "reasonable or necessary means", that suggests there are alternate methods that excludes guns in bearing arms for a militia. Therefore, are you implying that a "militia" can be armed without guns and still be reasonably used to defend the freedom of the state?
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 6:46 PM on January 22, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 8:40 PM on January 23, 2008 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Can you elaborate your position on how a militia today can be armed without guns and still be "reasonably" used to defend the freedom of the state?

 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 9:37 PM on January 24, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sure, I'll do my best.

First of all, it helps to clarify that freedom cannot be defended, because freedom cannot be put into jeopardy. The second amendment uses the term 'security' to describe the concept that protects privileged status by virtue of right.

Second, it is helpful to clarify that 'bearing arms' does not mean using violence, or even causing any harm, and the term itself is not defined as a necessary action-cause of harm.

It may seem reasonable by circumstance for an individual to harm or end another life, and this is where the right of bearing arms comes into play; by virtue of the right to bear arms, the individual may will-to-act any/all ways possible by reason. ‘Bearing arms’ is a way of expressing the response to the influence and consequence of action-by-other that calls on the mechanisms of self-preservation.

If a citizen realizes full accountability for (their) influence and consequence, the right to bear arms is not a definite term of action.

A possible answer to your question, as to how militia may be armed for reasonable defense of the security of a state, is that there are no certainly reasonable or certainly unreasonable means. Every person chooses the means most appropriate to their circumstance, and to their desired effect. I feel that security is not worth killing for, and since guns and bombs are only made to kill, I do not keep or bear either, even though my right to bear arms allows me to. Freedom cannot be put at risk,  so I do not arm myself in order to secure it.

Consider the state of the U.S., and how 'terror' is used as reasonable cause (not just cause) for increased action to defend security. Any and all reasonable means will be used to defend the security of the U.S. state against terror, and the government does not discriminate against one threat or another; as long as there is reason (enough) to suspect the threat means to kill, the threat will be killed. So, I do not have any weapons that could be labeled as reasonable means to kill another person for the disruption of ‘national security’. The government looks for individuals that present a risk, and the most significant factor identifying risk is the possession of (a) weapon(s).

I feel it is only sensible for the people of a (supposed) free state to be aware that freedom is not a cause of war, and does not create the 'necessity' to murder for the illusion of security; people kill for the illusion of security, and use freedom as an excuse to send gullible kids to die in war.

I ask anybody that has ever used a gun to kill (military and police included): Does the blood on your hands, and death on your consciense, make you feel free?






(Edited by forfunt1 1/27/2008 at 9:25 PM).


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 8:04 PM on January 25, 2008 | IP
kindrox

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

freedom cannot be defended, because freedom cannot be put into jeopardy

A woman is being raped, which by definition is happening against her will.  It would seem to me her freedom is past being in jeopardy.  Duh!

people kill for the illusion of security

A rapist breaks open the door to "help himself" to the lady of the house.  She stops him by shooting him, which then leads to his death.  Has she defended her freedom?  Duh!

A simple example shows how an empty-headed windbag uses logic wrapped in stupidity to rationalize a bogus conclusion.

I have not had to use lethal means to defend my family and I certainly don't look forward to having to.  But hands down, you make yourself a serious threat to my wife or children and you better believe I will feel better using deadly force to defend them than I will watching be raped or maimed.

Only a coward refuses to defend his family.
 


Posts: 54 | Posted: 02:00 AM on January 29, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, Kindrox, how's the weather out there?


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 5:29 PM on January 31, 2008 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

kindrox watch out he's a legend in his own mind. But what do you expect I think he's French.


(Edited by TRIGGER 2/21/2008 at 7:37 PM).


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 7:33 PM on February 21, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sweet, a french legend. I've never been either before :-)


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 8:11 PM on February 21, 2008 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

only in your mind.


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 10:10 PM on February 21, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

duh...


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 5:48 PM on February 23, 2008 | IP
Ethmi

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from forfunt1 at 8:04 PM on January 25, 2008 :
Sure, I'll do my best.

First of all, it helps to clarify that freedom cannot be defended, because freedom cannot be put into jeopardy. The second amendment uses the term 'security' to describe the concept that protects privileged status by virtue of right.

Second, it is helpful to clarify that 'bearing arms' does not mean using violence, or even causing any harm, and the term itself is not defined as a necessary action-cause of harm.

It may seem reasonable by circumstance for an individual to harm or end another life, and this is where the right of bearing arms comes into play; by virtue of the right to bear arms, the individual may will-to-act any/all ways possible by reason. ‘Bearing arms’ is a way of expressing the response to the influence and consequence of action-by-other that calls on the mechanisms of self-preservation.

If a citizen realizes full accountability for (their) influence and consequence, the right to bear arms is not a definite term of action.

A possible answer to your question, as to how militia may be armed for reasonable defense of the security of a state, is that there are no certainly reasonable or certainly unreasonable means. Every person chooses the means most appropriate to their circumstance, and to their desired effect. I feel that security is not worth killing for, and since guns and bombs are only made to kill, I do not keep or bear either, even though my right to bear arms allows me to. Freedom cannot be put at risk,  so I do not arm myself in order to secure it.

Consider the state of the U.S., and how 'terror' is used as reasonable cause (not just cause) for increased action to defend security. Any and all reasonable means will be used to defend the security of the U.S. state against terror, and the government does not discriminate against one threat or another; as long as there is reason (enough) to suspect the threat means to kill, the threat will be killed. So, I do not have any weapons that could be labeled as reasonable means to kill another person for the disruption of ‘national security’. The government looks for individuals that present a risk, and the most significant factor identifying risk is the possession of (a) weapon(s).

I feel it is only sensible for the people of a (supposed) free state to be aware that freedom is not a cause of war, and does not create the 'necessity' to murder for the illusion of security; people kill for the illusion of security, and use freedom as an excuse to send gullible kids to die in war.

I ask anybody that has ever used a gun to kill (military and police included): Does the blood on your hands, and death on your consciense, make you feel free?






(Edited by forfunt1 1/27/2008 at 9:25 PM).



Yeah, I have one comment.  Who are the militia members?  If your town gets invaded now, who's going to defend it?  Not the US Military, they'll all be in DC protecting King George Bush!  The militia members are the people!  And if terrorist invade our town, it is our responsibility to stop them from doing evil.


-------
I like Swedish women.
 


Posts: 68 | Posted: 05:51 AM on March 23, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is the U.S. military made up of non-people?


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 3:01 PM on March 24, 2008 | IP
Ethmi

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from forfunt1 at 3:01 PM on March 24, 2008 :
Is the U.S. military made up of non-people?



That argument seems extremely illogical.  I will prove this by quoting myself:  "The militia members are the people!"


-------
I like Swedish women.
 


Posts: 68 | Posted: 3:35 PM on March 25, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What?


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 4:59 PM on March 27, 2008 | IP
Stunt_Pirate

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A quote from you: "I feel that security is not worth killing for."

Another, "Just as long as those that chose to carry guns, do for me, and every one else that chose not to, a favor; Shoot themselves, or another gun-toting psycho before an unarmed person gets shot."

So security is not worth killing for, but you want people with guns to kill each other so you feel more secure...

I almost feel bad debating you, but I don't expect that you understand much of what is being said (which includes statements made by you).
 


Posts: 38 | Posted: 04:52 AM on April 8, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There you go, being funny again.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 5:36 PM on April 9, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Stunt_Pirate at 04:52 AM on April 8, 2008 :
A quote from you: "I feel that security is not worth killing for."

Another, "Just as long as those that chose to carry guns, do for me, and every one else that chose not to, a favor; Shoot themselves, or another gun-toting psycho before an unarmed person gets shot."

So security is not worth killing for, but you want people with guns to kill each other so you feel more secure...

I almost feel bad debating you, but I don't expect that you understand much of what is being said (which includes statements made by you).



Ya, it would be much better for the armed thugs to rob and kill me.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 8:32 PM on April 14, 2008 | IP
racerba

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from forfunt1 at 4:59 PM on December 29, 2007 :
...I encourage everyone to stop using  guns to kill, just as I encourage everyone to stop using cars to kill. I am ashamed to think there are humans out there that love themselves so much more then life that they are willing to poison the earth, and kill, for sake of selfish advantage and nothing else.


So who are using guns to kill besides criminals?  There are 80 million legal gun owners in the US.  How come there are not 80 million murderers?  Not all (not even the majority of) gun owners are killers.

 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 5:35 PM on August 28, 2008 | IP
racerba

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from forfunt1 at 4:59 PM on December 29, 2007 :
Cars and guns are both privileges.

No - guns and cars are tools.  Driving a car is a privilege and owning a gun in order to defend one's security is a right.


 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 5:37 PM on August 28, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I could make my car a more deadly weapon than a AK4.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 11:09 AM on November 5, 2008 | IP
Skittles

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm in Afghanistan right now serving in the United States ARMY. So what you're (forfunt1) telling me is that you want to take away the means by which we defend AMERICAN lives so that innocent people WON'T die? My uneducated guess is that you have NEVER been in a LIFE OR DEATH situation where the ONLY way you or your soldiers that you are tasked with the welfare of will see their families EVER again lies in the ability to handle a firearm. Combat and confrontations of any sort are UGLY. I have never known a person, including the SOLDIERS that I am responsible for that would willingly and for no justifiable cause commit murder. I don't know what your walk of life is, so I won't comment further.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 7:52 PM on May 10, 2009 | IP
hopnpop

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from forfunt1 at 9:25 PM on January 9, 2008 :

You are saying, if the government has the option of killing large numbers of people with firearms, you should have the option of at least killing a few, and that is immature and inhuman.

The facts you present do not support your argument that owning a gun is a right. Do you really love the idea of shooting somebody so much that you will try and secure the means as a right? Grow up man, who do you think you are anyway?



Love the idea of shooting someone?  That is a strong generalization.  My owning firearms and fighting for the preservation of the right to do so is no indication of a WANT to shoot a person.  I love the idea of having the common-sense right to effectively protect myself and my loves ones from viable threats.  I don't want to ever have to use my gun on another human.  However if someone puts myself or family in danger and fear for our lives, I want the most effective means of protection.  You seem to think that the majority of gun owners see it as an offensive weapon, whereas I believe you would be more accurate in thinking they see it as a defensive tool, just as I do.


-------
If it has to come down to either him or me - I'll send flowers.
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 7:13 PM on May 14, 2009 | IP
hopnpop

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



Guns are only a reasonable means of securing the right to bear arms only because they can be used for self defense. There is no law of nature making certain that they are the only reasonable or necessary means.

(Edited by forfunt1 1/22/2008 at 5:14 PM).



So there is no law of nature making sure they are the only reasonable or necessary means.  What other means would you suggest for EFFECTIVE self-defense?


-------
If it has to come down to either him or me - I'll send flowers.
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 7:22 PM on May 14, 2009 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.