Liberals in public schools

[Bern80]

Originally posted by nycflasher
We sure have gotten off-topic. Anyway...

reasons the average citizen shouldn't be able to own a tank:

1. Same reason you can't own a surface-to-air missile. These items are used for defense of our country, not play.

Well, that's the main one. All other reasons I can think of are related to that one.

And your reasons for wanting to own a tank or reasons for justifying such ownership?

What you use it for is up to you. I don't think what something is used for is what defines it. Some people think no one should own guns because they are used to kill people, yes that is one use of a gun, but it is not what a gun is. there are plenty of people that use guns soely for shooting targets, i.e. trapshooting.

Now, I would have to own an awful lot of land to shoot targets with a missle, true, unless some one created a missle range business similar to a trap range. The point is i'm not hurting anyone so what do you care?

You seem to be essentially arguing that people don't need tanks so they shouldn't have tanks. Liberals have said the same about the rich. they don't need all that money so they shouldn't have it.

The boat where people only acquire what they need sailed a long time ago.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by mattskramer
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

Pistol, rifle, semiautomatic, automatic, grenade, grenade launcher, bazooka, flame-thrower, miniature tank, etc....where do we draw the line?

I draw when you start hurting innocent people with them

 

[mattskramer]

"Can't we agree on the right to bear arms, within reason?"

Okay. We agree that there should be reasonable limits. The issue then becomes: "Where do we draw the line? Many people can't agree on what is within reason.

The "liberal left" wants harsh limits (perhaps some on the liberal left think that no private citizen should have any arms).

The "conservative right" wants few or no limits (perhaps some on the conservative right want no limits).

Is a 2-day waiting period unreasonable? Are safety locks unreasonable. Is a 2-day waiting period and safety locks combined unreasonable or reasonable? Is registration and/or licensing reasonable or unreasonable? Should there be a limit on the number of guns you own? Should there be a waiting period between purchases? What is reasonable and what is unreasonable?

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by mattskramer
"Can't we agree on the right to bear arms, within reason?"

Okay. We agree that there should be reasonable limits. The issue then becomes: "Where do we draw the line? Many people can't agree on what is within reason.

Yes there should be limits, but they should be on what you can do, not what you can own.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by mattskramer
"Can't we agree on the right to bear arms, within reason?"

Okay. We agree that there should be reasonable limits. The issue then becomes: "Where do we draw the line? Many people can't agree on what is within reason.

The "liberal left" wants harsh limits (perhaps some on the liberal left think that no private citizen should have any arms).

The "conservative right" wants few or no limits (perhaps some on the conservative right want no limits).

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Bern80
Yes there should be limits, but they should be on what you can do, not what you can own.

Hmm, well ya can't own child pornography even if you aren't the sick fuck who captured it on film.

So, eventhough it's quite a different issue, I similarly feel that you shouldn't be able to own a weapon which sole purpose is to kill large amounts of people from quite a distance or in a short period of time.

As far as I know, M-16's and Grenade Launchers are outlawed and this I am happy about Maybe I'm wrong though, mosr people I hang out with have no need for these things and I'm unsure.

I can see your point about limiting what people do not what they own, but unfortunately too many people committ murder and I would at least like to see it remain on the smallest scale possible.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by nycflasher
So, eventhough it's quite a different issue, I similarly feel that you shouldn't be able to own a weapon which sole purpose is to kill large amounts of people from quite a distance or in a short period of time.

I don't care what it is MADE to do. If I want to use an UZI to blow apart my malfunctioning computer(which incidently wasn't originally designed to be a target) so be it.

As far as I know, M-16's and Grenade Launchers are outlawed and this I am happy about Maybe I'm wrong though, mosr people I hang out with have no need for these things and I'm unsure.

It has nothing to do with need. Again that ship has sailed for most americans.

I can see your point about limiting what people do not what they own, but unfortunately too many people committ murder and I would at least like to see it remain on the smallest scale possible.

And i don't believe in punsihing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Bern80
I don't care what it is MADE to do. If I want to use an UZI to blow apart my malfunctioning computer(which incidently wasn't originally designed to be a target) so be it.


It has nothing to do with need. Again that ship has sailed for most americans.



And i don't believe in punsihing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty

Well, I think the law is on my side for the time being.
Intersting use of the word punished, to describe how you feel about not being able to own a tank or rocket launcher.

 

[Gop guy]

Originally posted by dingessman
I go to a public school and its scary how much liberal bullshit kids belive so i go here to reassure my self that there are people with brains out there. Get this in my school they said that the purpose of the second amendment was that america needed a militia against britain. That may be parrt of the reason but they never stated that it was to protect america from a corrupt government and that the only people who wouldn't want it are liberals whom are afraid of the poeple being stronger than them

Welcome, yes liberalism in our schools is poisoning the minds of many in our generation.

I'm glad you can see this, I'm dealing with it at my school right now.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Gop guy
Welcome, yes liberalism in our schools is poisoning the minds of many in our generation.

I'm glad you can see this, I'm dealing with it at my school right now.

How are people's minds being poisoned?

 

[Gop guy]

They are hearing the liberal side and nothing else.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
.50 caliber sniper rifle will do me just fine. Since I can take out a target at 800 yards, i'll get them before they ever see me.

Thanks, but I'll stick with my Remington Model 700 .270cal, fiberglass/composite stock, Leitz 7x12 scope, 180 grain Winchester silvertip, 1 shot 1 kill every time. The deer never see what hit them.

For squirrels I use a Ruger .22cal and 7x Leitz scope. Doesn't make alot of noise, and you can sit in the same spot for hours and pick off the the squirrels you want to eat. Never have needed an assault weapon or riot shotgun to put meat on the table though.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Intersting use of the word punished, to describe how you feel about not being able to own a tank or rocket launcher.

I said that in the context of you referring to people who use GUNS to kill people

I can see your point about limiting what people do not what they own, but unfortunately too many people committ murder and I would at least like to see it remain on the smallest scale possible.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Bern80
I said that in the context of you referring to people who use GUNS to kill people

Okay. But we do have to deal with people who kill, and placing some restrictions on guns and gun ownership are in order. Do you agree? If so, what restrictions do you agree with?

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Okay. But we do have to deal with people who kill, and placing some restrictions on guns and gun ownership are in order. Do you agree? If so, what restrictions do you agree with?

And what about the fact that there are a similar amount of guns in Canda and the US, but they have maybe 1 gun-related death for every 60 of ours?

How about the fact that we have over 11,000 gun related deaths a year in the US?

Japan=39
Australia=65
UK=68 (where the Bobby's don't carry guns!)
Canada=165
France=255 (and they're fucking crazy: )
Germany=381

I forget where I got these statistsics, but I think they're pretty accurate.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Okay. But we do have to deal with people who kill, and placing some restrictions on guns and gun ownership are in order. Do you agree? If so, what restrictions do you agree with?

I agree with criminal background checks before the purchase of any firearm. I strongly encourage the use of guns locks, but see no reason to mandate it.

I think we are targeting the wrong people in our efforts to reduce gun violence. Another fact is that most guns used in crimes were acquired illegally in the first place.

How about the fact that we have over 11,000 gun related deaths a year in the US?

Japan=39
Australia=65
UK=68 (where the Bobby's don't carry guns!)
Canada=165
France=255 (and they're fucking crazy )
Germany=381

I forget where I got these statistsics, but I think they're pretty accurate.

How about the fact that state with conceal and carry laws have lower crime rates. I strongly encourage you to read "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott for more interesting gun ownership factoids.

You also need to look at the big picture. I assumed your number are correct and i divided them by the population of each of these countries. This way you get a better measure of the rate of gun deaths compared to population.

US = .00039%
Japan = .00003%
UK = .00011%
Canada = .00051%
France = .00042%
Germany = .00046%

You need to take the populations of the countries into account when you give the number of deaths in year. I think, (haven't quite thought it through) that the percentages tell you the percent of deaths attributable to guns.

In order that's Canada, Germany, France, US, UK, and Japan. Clearly the U.S. is not the one with problem.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

Bern, you're my hero; I'm with you all the way man!!