ITT Sarien "finishes" his AK-47 Build

[Squeezer]

everyone that i know that gets a gun (thats a LOT of people fyi) is responsible with their weapon. Most people understand that its pretty serious to have something like an M16/M4/9 mm so they dont act like idiots when they get them. The people that would be irresponsible with the weapons and use them to attack other people would get them anyway. Laws have never stopped criminals

And one of my high school classmates got shot in the head and will be blind for the rest of his life. What's your point?

Like I said, we disagree. I've acknowledged many times in this thread that I personally know responsible gun owners and hardly think they're the problem. At the same time I know one person in my class that shot someone and another that was shot (see above). I've also said the argument that some will be responsible and protect us from the crazies isn't enough for me to justify the sale of firearms nearly everywhere.

I believe it serves the greater good to remove these devices from American civil life.

[Jerome Scuggs]

and you really think that an unarmed populace with an armed police force would work out well. i see many instances of this in the real world. wait. no, i don't, and if i do, it's in countries that are far from a "democracy". btw, "democracies" are far from anything that would preserve whatever ideals you hold - democracy is mob rule. your fantasy ends when a pro-gun puppet gets elected.

and if someone wanted a gun, someone with malicious intent, then all they gotta do is join the police, or military. such a society would have a tendency for the worst kinds of people to join those institutions. what, you think getting rid of guns will change peoples' minds about them? of course, your solution will be "make the requirements to enlist tougher". unless you can show specifically what that implies, then it's a pipe dream - surely they would do it if they could, and they can't. i'm pretty sure it's easier to join the military than it is to get a concealed weapon license.

it's as ridiculous as a marxist utopia. and it is flawed on the same principle: the idea if achieving some "non-material" goal - by controlling materialism.

paradise: don't lie, you were high when you wrote that. it made even less sense.

[Jerome Scuggs]

the way i see it, there are two groups of argument here. the first is rights based: people have rights, property and ownership being the foundation of a free and functioning society. the second is a more arbitrary and positivist group: that you can whittle humanity to perfection, banning this and regulating that.

if you annul the second amendment, you annul the contract. you annul rights. you annul whatever lofty goal you wish to accomplish - you can't protect freedom by taking it away.

for every person killed by a weapon: you can only blame the shooter. for every person killed because they were defenseless: that blame falls on you.


morals don't play into it. the argument against gun ownership isn't moral, it's... statistical.

and speaking of statistics: guess what has killed the MOST people? i'll give you a hint: governments. why not ban them? no - a better idea. let's ARM them!

you can't say "oh, people have rights - except guns." that just means that people do not have rights - that the government just lets us enjoy the other 99% of "freedom". but that freedom isn't freedom, if the state can remove it whenever someone feels like it might "benefit society". don't argue rights if you argue gun control. especially the "right to life" bit - because gun control doesnt protect that right, it merely puts the decision into a politician's hand. this isn't a gray area. you either protect rights, or you don't. you are either free, or you are not.

[genocidal]

For some reason or another Squeezer and Epi believe that our society is "advanced" enough to where eradicating legal gun ownership would be safe. Inherent in that is a trust in both their government and their fellow citizens that Jerome, Sarien, wark, and I do not share. In fact I believe that thinking society is "advanced" enough to where taking human lives is something we can control is more dangerous than an armed populace.

You can take away guns but there will still be killings. You can bring up the statistic for gun-related deaths and then I can point to knife-related deaths in Britain. I'll take my gun-related crime rates with my liberty because it means a lot worse things probably won't happen. I guess here is the point where Epi calls everyone anarchists who distrust their government and the argument ends but that's hardly what I am (I can't speak for Jerome). I fear and respect my government, I don't love and accept it and I never want that to change.

[Jerome Scuggs]

wow, does that make you an anarchist? seems like that would make you a founding father. but hey, what do those guys know? it's not like they fought tooth and nail to defend and later illuminate that idea, or anything. and besides, we all know that ideas automatically become incorrect when they reach a certain age, and "liberty" is an idea hundreds of years old. we know better now, which is why the world is more peaceful and harmonious than ever.

[Vykromond]

Yes but was was more beautiful back then, techniques, tactics and skill played a much bigger role in the military back then than it does today.

y type if -2know nothing at all, not even the barest dregs of proto-information, not even a little tiny bit, not even a layman level knowledge, just total 100% ignorance, about military history or tactics-

for every person killed because they were defenseless: that blame falls on you.

not... rly...

oh and the 2nd amendment isn't really my favourite amendment but i'm cool with keeping it around. Just For The Record

[kthx]

Actually war history is interesting, I read a lot about it.

[genocidal]

oh and the 2nd amendment isn't really my favourite amendment but i'm cool with keeping it around. Just For The Record

What is your favorite Amendment?

[Jerome Scuggs]

if someone is killed where self-defense - a right - has been effectively taken away, then the intervening party (the state) has violated rights. this goes beyond property and ownership (which is also violated), to the issue of the right to life. deliberately impairing someone's right to self defense - even in the name of 'protecting them' - is still removing their right to life. or, to be more specific: the right to their own life.

if someone is killed with a gun, it's not like a politician forced everyone to own weapons, or gun manufacturers encouraged the use of their products against other people. the murder was committed by the free choices the killer made - deciding to buy the weapon, deciding to violate someone else's person, etc. but if the victim can't defend himself - not because he chose to not buy a gun, but because he was deliberately prevented - that law would serve as accessory to murder, no matter the intentions. intentions didn't save that life.

[Sarien]

What is your favorite Amendment?

The third. Damn that quartering of troops!

[Sheep]

is that your.... BOOOMSTICK?!

[Epinephrine]

For some reason or another Squeezer and Epi believe that our society is "advanced" enough to where eradicating legal gun ownership would be safe. Inherent in that is a trust in both their government and their fellow citizens that Jerome, Sarien, wark, and I do not share. In fact I believe that thinking society is "advanced" enough to where taking human lives is something we can control is more dangerous than an armed populace.

You can take away guns but there will still be killings. You can bring up the statistic for gun-related deaths and then I can point to knife-related deaths in Britain. I'll take my gun-related crime rates with my liberty because it means a lot worse things probably won't happen. I guess here is the point where Epi calls everyone anarchists who distrust their government and the argument ends but that's hardly what I am (I can't speak for Jerome). I fear and respect my government, I don't love and accept it and I never want that to change.

Jerome is an anarchist, because he specifically calls himself an anarchist. In his world, you should be able to do whatever you want, and the only thing stopping you is capitalism (perhaps you don't have enough money to do what you want, or other people pay off someone more powerful than you to stop you from doing what you want).

Therefore arguing anything about laws is pointless with Jerome. This could be an argument about outlawing kiddy porn for instance and Jerome would be up in arms of it because that's government interference.

[Jerome Scuggs]

you should really rephrase that as "in my highly flawed idea of jerome's world". it's obvious that you do not spend a particularly significant amount of time studying rights or law (not that you should, you're a doctor and people naturally tend to specialize.) i merely ask that you refrain from talking bullshit, which is what that entire post was. way to quote gen to veil the ad hominem. why don't you quote my posts? and show how my conception of rights "allows everyone to do whatever they want"? have i even mentioned capitalism? red herrings and straw men. awesome.

edit: the guy quoted in my sig, by the way, wrote an interesting book on the subject of law and natural law, and its relation to government. check it out.

[Epinephrine]

^^ Shrug. Gen thought I was calling him an anarchist because he likes guns, but I was only calling you an anarchist because you personally call yourself an anarchist.

There is no point arguing with you about anything about the government, because you always give the exact same reply to anything that vaguely involves the government, which is that government is bad and interferes with your rights to decide everything for yourself. It's like trying to argue religion with anyone who is super religious, it just goes nowhere.

By extension it is also pointless to argue with you about laws, because laws are created and enforced by governments (or religion hah) and since you don't find any type of authority to be legitimate, I can't see how you can possibly find laws to be legitimate.

I don't even see what the problem is with the law. The US constitution can be amended if enough people vote for it, so the 'right to bear arms' can be taken away if it is amended. As for 'rights', since when was owning guns a fundamental human right?


And I'm sorry, before you start proclaiming 'straw man!', you shouldn't start the ball rolling first:

of course, your solution will be "make the requirements to enlist tougher". unless you can show specifically what that implies, then it's a pipe dream - surely they would do it if they could, and they can't. i'm pretty sure it's easier to join the military than it is to get a concealed weapon license.

t's as ridiculous as a marxist utopia. and it is flawed on the same principle: the idea if achieving some "non-material" goal - by controlling materialism.

Way to randomly put words into my mouth, and then directly compare my idea about gun control to some ideal of a marxist utopia? WTF?

[Kontrolz]

The US constitution can be amended if enough people vote for it

Good luck creating an amendment that completely takes away an entire freedom from the bill of rights. Men smarter than you and the average joe decided those first 10 amendments and put great emphasis on how important they are.

One typical argument is that the 2nd amendment is out-dated. That when it was written automatic guns weren't invented yet. Which is true, but the amendment allowed citizens to own and operate the same fire arms the military and government used to keep things level.

The most popular and realistic argument though is that guns are dangerous and they kill people. Would the world be a better place without devices that are specifically designed to kill people? Yes. The problem is that humans (along with all other species) have been killing each other long before ANY devices of any kind were created. We are simply becoming more efficient at finding ways to kill things along with all of our other technologies.

So you can cry and complain about how guns are dangerous. NOBODY THINKS GUNS AREN'T DANGEROUS. It's not about me owning a dangerous weapon so I can feel cool, or so I can kill. It's about having the FREEDOM OF CHOICE, should anyone want a weapon.

Only an idiot would give up freedoms seeing as once you do you will never get it back.