Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#13 - comradvlad (04/21/2013) [-]
Using one retarded law to justify the creation of more retarded laws....
User avatar #715 to #13 - gorginhanson (04/22/2013) [-]
That was my comment #710
I forgot that I wasn't logged in
User avatar #753 to #715 - kgblack (04/22/2013) [-]
the only difference is a child could walk into a store and buy a kinder but not a weapon......
User avatar #758 to #753 - gorginhanson (04/22/2013) [-]
Good point.
What you're saying is that they wouldn't let a child buy a weapon.
Ok well how about this, how about don't let the child buy a kinder egg?
And while you're at it, why not check for mental instability before you sell a weapon to that guy muttering under his breath, or for that matter, to that normal looking guy with a history of mental illness.

I don't usually say this, but damn I'm good.
User avatar #849 to #758 - deadrifler (04/22/2013) [-]
Except it is illegal for any federally licensed dealer to sell to the mentally ill. The problem is, records of mental illness do not show up for very many states when a background check is ran because such records are kept separate. Even if the dealer questions your mental health, if you pass the check they can not refuse the sale once you pass.


Has a good article concerning the NICS. The system is in place, the problem is, the system has never been fully realized and barely attempted at completing. Many states do not submit mental illness documentation to the NICS, and without upkeep from the State side, it will sadly remain useless. Though it has accounted for 1.5 million guns from being sold to individuals that should not possess them according to article.
User avatar #859 to #849 - gorginhanson (04/22/2013) [-]
Are you trying t argue that background checks are 100 percent useless?

Because if they aren't, maybe you need to reevaluate your priorities about how fast you can get a gun in your hand versus national safety

and if you ARE saying that, you're going to need a heck of a lot more evidence to show it
User avatar #881 to #859 - deadrifler (04/22/2013) [-]
Did I ever once say the system was useless? No, I said the system was flawed. How fast I can get a gun in my hand versus national safety? Now you are a slippery slope.

First off, background checks are in place, but if the States themselves do not support and update the part that is their responsibility, it becomes useless. Yes, a background check will still stop criminals from passing.

But say I was a mental patient with diagnosed with severe depression, psychotic breakdowns and had been institutionalized for 5 years. OH and just to make things interesting, lets give me mild schizophrenia. If my state does not submit my mental records to the NICS, I can go out and buy a firearm from Walmart. Because my mental records are not on file, I pass my background check since technically I have no criminal record. My buying of the firearm is actually illegal, because I have a record of mental illness, but very few know this simply because my state does not do what it is supposed to do to assist the system.
User avatar #945 to #881 - gorginhanson (04/22/2013) [-]
That's just an argument that we need to change the record keeping with NICS, not ban background checks altogether
User avatar #960 to #945 - deadrifler (04/22/2013) [-]
Yes, which is what my argument was to begin with. Background checks are there for a reason, but they are only as effective as the support they get.
User avatar #1034 to #960 - gorginhanson (04/22/2013) [-]
Okay.... well Obama wants them, and since he's the anti-christ to republicans, and seeing as how they love their guns, they won't give it to him----- of course not literally
User avatar #1061 to #1034 - deadrifler (04/22/2013) [-]
Problem is, you are viewing this entire thing as Republican vs. Democrat. It is not, I for example do not vote for one party. Those who limit themselves to following a party simply out of loyalty are blind fools. I vote for which ever way I view as bringing the most benefit.

I remember a saying someone once told me, "The best followers are not those that follow blindly, but those who question it with every single step they take."
User avatar #1090 to #1061 - gorginhanson (04/22/2013) [-]
I would gladly vote for a Republican, if it weren't for the fact that they always side together on everything, and oftentimes at the expense of the country purely for partisan gain.
That and the ignorance of the majority of their representatives has turned me off from them for now and any time in the near future.
User avatar #1127 to #1090 - deadrifler (04/22/2013) [-]
Once again a blanket term. I'm pretty sure we could find someone on the Republican side who would say the same modus operandi is utilized by Democrats.

Good example, most Republicans I know would accuse Democrats of maintaining a dependent underclass that needs big government assistance. One that I am friends with in particular has discussed with me before the Democratic Party dragging its feet in regards to stronger border control while pushing for amnesty of illegals not for the benefit of the illegals but because that is 11 million potential voters from the Democratic party.

Here is what he asked me, so I'll forward it out, "If the Democrats thought these votes would be against them, which do you think they would do first, tighter border control or amnesty?"

Let's face it, in our two-party system, the gain of the party supersedes the gain of the people.
User avatar #1298 to #1127 - gorginhanson (04/22/2013) [-]
You won't find a Republican that sides against his party for anything important. They have a strict coalition and you won't survive in washington if you go against it.
The Democrats don't do it nearly to that extent, so the Republicans aren't getting my vote. Even the" best" candidate in the world wouldn't be able to do what he wanted to do under the republican visor.
And as for "the gain of the party", the Democrats have a MUCH more balanced operating system between good of the people and good of the party than Republicans.
Their whole mantra has been to vote against every single bill Obama presents, even if it is to their or the country's benefit, JUST to make Obama look bad (deny him a second term they called it initially, and now it's just to spite him) They can't be trusted at this point in time.

User avatar #883 to #881 - deadrifler (04/22/2013) [-]
Ignore the first with, sorry it is late here.
#800 to #758 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
Because if plan on buying a weapon to kill someone with, chances are you're not buying one that can easily be traced back to you. I.e. the black market. People always willing to make a buck selling illegal substances.
User avatar #796 to #758 - kgblack (04/22/2013) [-]
i agree there should be checks for mental instability and children are not aloud to buy kinders in the us they are banned and the reason they wont be unbanned is because no one cares enough about them. that being said we shouldn't take away weapons from people who pass the checks. why should i be punished for what others do with their guns when i buy it i accept the fact that if i use it wrong i will be dead or in jail.
User avatar #850 to #796 - deadrifler (04/22/2013) [-]
There are checks in place KG. I replied to Gorgin's comment #758 in regard to it.
User avatar #871 to #850 - kgblack (04/22/2013) [-]
i didn't say there isn't i said i agree that there should be
User avatar #885 to #871 - deadrifler (04/22/2013) [-]
Oh gotcha. Yeah my only problem with the restrictions in place is, they are outdated and not well maintained.
User avatar #803 to #796 - gorginhanson (04/22/2013) [-]
you're already punished for what other people did every day

a very easy to point to example is all that extra airport security since 2001

On that same topic, these gun toters weren't crying a river when Bush trampled the constitution with his patriot act
You may not like what Obama is doing, but it's actually all within the bounds of the second amendment, something the Patriot Act is a far, far, cry away from
User avatar #814 to #803 - kgblack (04/22/2013) [-]
as long as i have the right to buy weapons i don't mind extra security on purchasing them im not arguing for one side or the other i was just saying that this comparison was idiotic
User avatar #823 to #814 - gorginhanson (04/22/2013) [-]
On the surface, yes.
But on a deeper level (though I can't attest that the author saw this fact) it shows that the system is hypocritical and ineffective as a result of people's irrational emotions about their guns (people saying " Don't try to take my guns Obama"---which he wasn't even trying to do with the exception of assault weapons, I mean you don't see legalized ************* bazookas). as well as those that profit from them
User avatar #868 to #823 - deadrifler (04/22/2013) [-]
Except an assault weapon is a political term. The gun itself is nothing more than a semi-automatic rifle with ergonomic and cosmetic differences making it look the same as the "scary" assault rifle. The basis for banning "assault weapons" stems from the the fact they realized they could not go after semi-auto weapons in their entirety and they knew handguns would be impossible to pull off shelves in their entirety. So you attack parts of the system that you know you can stop.

High capacity magazines and "assault weapons". High cap mag bans would also affect handguns, since most pistols these days are not manufactured with less than at least a 10 round mag(Except revolvers, conceal carry .45s etc) they most typically are sold with what would be an illegal magazine, thus making the sale of said firearm illegal across the nation if such a ban is implemented. Hell, even quite a few .22 longrifles would be illegal under such a ban.(Referring to the 10 round mag ban they wanted to implement.)
User avatar #930 to #868 - gorginhanson (04/22/2013) [-]
Why would you think they want to ban all hand guns?

Honestly the purpose of the second amendment is quite irrelevant today as our military has become ungodly powerful.
If you want to enforce the second amendment, we should be slashing the defense budget like crazy. Hell, we should be doing that regardless. We spend more on defense than the next top 5 countries put together.
It's ridiculous. Republicans are the ones that want small government and yet they want a huge military which is the most physically powerful part of a government and the biggest waste of funds on the books. We can get by spending the same amount as the other top countries easily.
User avatar #954 to #930 - deadrifler (04/22/2013) [-]
Except the military doesn't respond to domestic problems and the average response time in regards to 911 emergency calls is 10 minutes.

Military is not a waste of funds, granted we spend too much on it, I will not argue that. Yet we are also one of the biggest threats in the world, we have invested so much in other countries we can not back out of being the military we are now. We have defensive pacts with enough countries know, where the scaling back of our military could be disastrous.

A good example is the current situation in Korea. We are sworn to defend South Korea, China is sworn to defend North Korea, both China and ours involvement in Korea was the only thing that stalemated the war. As it stands, there is chance of this war stepping up again, if South Korea was to be invaded, we would be forced to respond on a national front, thankfully signs are pointing to allegiance between China and North Korea being strained.(They actually supported North Korea sanctions and censure, the first time this has ever happened.)

Look at human history, sadly, might makes right. Throughout the history of humankind, the warrior has profited and the meek have been led. But enough on the subject of military.

Back to second amendment. Yes, the amendment was put in place in regards to militia, but this is another slippery slope. Say we stop acknowledging it because it is "archaic", how long till it is decided the 5th or 6th amendment is no longer needed?

Hell how long till they decide your 1st amendment is something that no longer need be ratified. When you do not question the loss of your rights, regardless of the right, you will question less in the future.
User avatar #1027 to #954 - gorginhanson (04/22/2013) [-]
Yes, those amendments might be obsolete in another 200 years, most likely because humanity will have given up the last traits that make them human, but for the sake of argument that would mean we don't need those amendments.

Giving up something you don't need is no crying shame.
We've gained countless rights since the constitution was written, and the Bill of Rights was originally just a compromise to get those who wanted small government (the mantra of today's Republicans) on board, so that's a hot cup of irony right there

We can give up the rights we don't need for the ones we do.
User avatar #1057 to #1027 - deadrifler (04/22/2013) [-]
The rights to due process, fair trial, and a speedy trial given up? I highly doubt it. Humanity despite what people like to think, rarely changes. How much have we changed in the written history of mankind? Sure, disease doesn't kill us like it used to, but behaviorally we are much still the same beast.

Sure, our persecution carries a different label now, it has evolved from its basic premises to a more complex machine, but it is still there. Societies are still xenophobic, land is still the dispute of the day, resources are still a strong basis of argument and confrontation. But the reasons we fight for these resources are different, it is less now about food and water and more about oil and other more luxurious items.

We still persecute those who are different, though steps are slowly being taken to improve this. The steps are small, but just because legally we are becoming more equal does not stop the populace from retaining such viewpoints. A good example is, the area I hail from. The KKK headquarters is considered to be somewhere about an hour to two hours north of my hometown if I remember correctly.

Pull history books from the medieval times or even further back to the days of the Greeks and how they portrayed themselves against others is not much different to this day and age. The more militaristic are respected, and viewed in a better light(The victor writes the history.) Aside from that, their societies are not that much different from ours. Sure our technological expertise and quality of life can be considered to be better, but how we interact with each other is not much different.

Socially you are judged whether or not you want to be. There are implications to how that judgement is made regardless of whether there should or should not be. Granted our social restrictions are not quite as extreme in this age as they were in previous ages but they still exist and limit.

User avatar #1085 to #1057 - gorginhanson (04/22/2013) [-]
Your doubt doesn't change reality.
We'll all likely be mechanized in another 200 years, meaning that we'll essentially become robots. It's already gaining more and more traction in the medical field. The next step is leisure enhancements, until it's so incredibly common-place that it will be done from birth.
And anyhow if you understood world history, you'd know that we've changed immensely. Hell in the last 50 years society has become completely and radically different. You would have to be blind not to notice that.
They're already unlocking the technology to change a baby into any desirable traits before birth, which to me sounds incredibly ****** up. Humanity is changing, so despite your doubts, we could easily move beyond the need for many more of the original amendments.
But that's besides the point. Your slippery slope argument is flawed because it wouldn't allow for beefing up any rules at all. I'd use airline security as an example (though I don't agree with it). It has been getting more and more strict over the years, but they still do it because supposedly it keeps us safe.
Anyhow, I would argue that your slippery slope argument is in and of itself a slippery slope of itself. Once you say that more gun regulation is a slippery slope, then you can argue increased regulation of any variety is a slippery slope to total control.
You know I'm right, and even if you don't, I still am.
I hope you've been given something to think about, but then again, it's no skin off my back.
User avatar #1223 to #1085 - kgblack (04/22/2013) [-]
and you realize the change in security only applies if you fly commercially. if you spend a bit of money(about 5 grand where i live) you can get a license to fly a plane and rent one for somewhere between 200~1000$ depending on how far you fly. its like this with guns as well if you have the money you can get real assault weapons fully automatic high capacity weapons. the government isn't going to band all planes though but if they get the chance they will ban all weapons. they continue to change the definition of assault weapon to take away more and more of our ability to purchase the weapon. have you ever fired or lived with a weapon? they don't make you a killer. I grew up around weapons i've shot many targets but you don't see me killing anyone. and even better is you complain about aircraft security and you say we will be robots in the future. thats incorrect(i assume its just a lack of some obscure vocabulary) we will be cyborgs and it will help us advance everyone will be smarter because of it but like with all things in our society the wealthy will benefit the most and the working poor will not benefit for many years after the initial benefit. next we could look at travel planes will still exist in 200 year(this is close to 50~100 yeas though) we will stop traveling by plane they are inefficient for this job. sometime this century we will start using maglev rails they operate in almost frictionless environments and can travel around 6000 kmh without hurting the contents. so we wont be worried about airport security any more maybe they will have a new form of security for that but that isn't really the point. they may have made it take a little longer to use the planes but they didn't take them away(nor will they unless we get a faster and more efficient form of travel) at that point people will only use planes for war and leisure and the government isn't really taking them away they are just falling to the wayside like boats(leisure vehicle now).
User avatar #1300 to #1223 - gorginhanson (04/22/2013) [-]
Ok buddy, the very vast majority flies commercially. I said robots, because we will keep evolving as cyborgs until we are so incredibly mechanical that there will be nothing human left, and it's that exact rationale you gave for becoming cyborgs that will get us there. And airport security was just an example, don't get too caught up in it.
User avatar #1316 to #1300 - kgblack (04/23/2013) [-]
it isn't possible for us to evolve into robots by definition. robots can become like us but we will always be fundamentally different
User avatar #1317 to #1316 - gorginhanson (04/23/2013) [-]
it's unnatural evolution

besides, we already are robots, we just aren't metalic
User avatar #1323 to #1317 - kgblack (04/23/2013) [-]
if you want to make a distinction between natural and unnatural evolution thats fine but in my opinion they are the same because the cybernetics are an extension of our evolution. its just a faster method than how nature usually is. it is a bi product of us evolving to be smarter and smarter
User avatar #1113 to #1085 - deadrifler (04/22/2013) [-]
Once again you fail to understand the aspect of a slippery slope. Taking away rights is not beefing up rules, it is the supplanting of a rule with a new rule, not beefing it up. You beef up a rule by adding more restrictions etc. You are really obsessed with airport security, but I'll leave that be, I work at one so go through such extensive security measures day to day. Yes, they beefed up the rules, but mainly because the rules that were in place were actually a joke. Did you ever fly in the United States before airport security was turned up? Granted, they took it to the extreme, but it was pretty pathetic before.

As for the rest of that red herring, I'll snip your jab at my knowledge of world history. Yes, humanity has developed, but behaviorally we have not. We have advanced, but culturally, xenophobia is still prevalent. Society has become radically different from GOVERNMENT standpoint. I'm going to assume you are a white male. Drive to Chicago or Detroit sometime and see how "radically different" people have become in the projects. They would love to hear that one.

People in poverty are still in poverty, are still in horrible living conditions. I am not being a cynic, I am being a realist. The advancements we see today, are only available to those with the money to benefit it. Which is how it has been throughout history. Once that advancement becomes obsolete or cheap/easy enough to mass produce, is when everyone else enjoys the luxury of it.

Most of these "upcoming" changes are simple conjecture. Life isn't Utopian, its business as usual. The poor have always suffered throughout history. Minorities are still the targets of heavy-handed tactics(Much like throughout history.)

Sure, we don't have slaves anymore, instead what would of been considered serfs and slaves these days are low income workers. Work a low-income job sometime, see how great they've got it. They are expendable in the work force to most companies.
User avatar #1120 to #1113 - gorginhanson (04/22/2013) [-]
I understood it perfectly. Did you not read a single word I wrote? If we're talking about the same thing about gun legislation, they were beefing up rules to be sure. Why don't you actually read the proposed changes instead of siding with the people that vehemently insist that "Obama wants to steal all of the guns".
And who gives a **** about xenophobia in the big picture, so you can go ahead and drop that and come up with some real examples. And as for the uneducated bumpkins in Detroit or Chicago, I seriously doubt reality is directly tied into what they find feasible.
If you're going to talk about "the projects", that clearly isn't a zoomed out view of the world changing. It's just some punk asses who haven't seen a fraction of what the world is like.
Life doesn't have to be "Utopian" as you keep insisting to become radically different. It wasn't Utopian back when the 2nd amendment was written, and it isn't utopian now that it has almost no meaning anymore.
And most of your examples have been about societal structures, and not the people that compose them.
User avatar #1143 to #1120 - deadrifler (04/22/2013) [-]
I'm going to stop arguing the points on social trends, it is a different subject and we are both ingrained into our own viewpoints.

I'm starting to wonder if you even grasp the concepts of what the assault weapon ban was actually trying to do. The ban itself, was simple a forefront. What they had attached to it was the real meat of the ban, since you told me to read it, I strongly suggest you go out and actually read the damned thing. The limitations imposed, therein were not just against assault weapons.

In the bill itself, they planned to ban ANY semi-automatic rifle or handgun with a detachable magazine(so pretty much any handgun out there that isn't a revolver.) with a capacity of 10 bullets or more. .22 Longrifles, a firearm commonly used to hunt squirrels would be subject to this ban. My Remington .22 has a 10 round and a 15 round magazine, both of which after the ban is enacted would be illegal to sell.

I strongly encourage you to go to Factcheck and take a look at the statistics for firearms. Gun violence is at the lowest is has been since 1981(A time before the assault weapons ban of 1994.) I would also like to point out that "assault weapons" are not even 10% of gun homicides.

"12,664 murders in the U.S., 6,220, or just under half, were committed using a handgun, while only 323, or around 2.5 percent of murders were committed with rifles, which include military-style assault weapons." From FBI Homicide statisctics.

http://www.fbi . gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expand ed-homicide-data-table-11

Hell, hands, fists and feet are a higher kill rate. So apparently we need to ban hands,feet and fist. I'll get the bone saw.
User avatar #1297 to #1143 - gorginhanson (04/22/2013) [-]
Sorry, bone saws are banned now
#862 to #823 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
Except "Assault Weapons" have already been banned. Now they changed what their definition of assault weapons is and are trying it again. Any weapon can be an assault weapon if you assault someone with it. In another 5 years they will change the definition of assault weapon definition to include handguns, in another 10 years they will add everything but black powder muskets. I don't see what "gun toters " opinions on other subjects has to to with these laws. IT is possible to be wrong about one thing and right about another. If you are against the government taking away your rights and freedoms as i infer from your bush comments, you should realize that it doesn't happen overnight. It happens one step a a time. This is one of those steps (Just as the patriot act was).
User avatar #932 to #862 - gorginhanson (04/22/2013) [-]
If you want to talk about freedoms, lets talk about some relevant freedoms, i.e.
Patriot Act
#976 to #932 - comradvlad (04/22/2013) [-]
How wonderfully hypocritical of you. "relevant freedoms" Relevant to who? You? AWSOME DUDE, lets run with your logic for a second. I'm not gay, so i wont support the freedom of gays to get married. Its irrelevant to me. Im not black so honestly i could care less if they cant vote, its irrelevant to my freedoms as a white male. Speaking of which i really dont mind if all the jews get put in interment camps as long as I HAVE THE FREEDOM THAT'S RELEVANT TO ME. Are these examples extreme? yes they are. But thats the point because as long as you take freedoms one small step at a time by the time you realize that what has happened is extreme its already too late.
User avatar #836 to #823 - kgblack (04/22/2013) [-]
you can buy explosives such as bazookas legally as long as you pay for the proper permits(they are very expensive) and pass the checks to own them. guns as well as other things are a choice that the government shouldn't prevent the majority of the population from owning. certain drugs should be banned because of what they do to our state of mind but a gun does not make you kill someone it just makes it easier. you still have to live with all the consequences. its similar to when the church said the crossbow was a weapon of pure evil and tried to ban it sometime near the 1300s it just made killing easier but its not the weapon that is to blame and thats why the weapon isn't incarcerated or executed
User avatar #845 to #836 - gorginhanson (04/22/2013) [-]
buy explosives? they start watching your ass if you buy too much FERTILIZER
and what could you possibly need with explosives as an individual? as a business that needs it, I could understand that, but what the hell possible use could an ordinary citizen have for a bomb?
you have a source for that claim that people can just buy bombs with a permit?
Anyhow, the argument is that assault weapons, just as mother ****** bombs, have no use whatsoever, other than mass shootings
You can protect yourself perfectly well with regular-powered rifalry

And if you want to see how this country really operates, foreign policy is a great cue

Iran isn't even allowed to have a nuclear program for power because they could potentially make a bomb with it----Meanwhile North Korea already has their prototypes ready and the U.S. hasn't done **** to prevent it (which maybe is a tangent)
But the point is that we can recognize potential for evil as a reason to ban something, and in this case, assault weapons have no potential for good

And that statement is coming from a person that wouldn't blink an eye if half the world's population killed over for no reason (as long as no one I know dies)
#878 to #845 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
Your example kinda makes sense... Until you realize that you are comparing the average american citizen to a dictator. The wont iran have nukes because they realize there is a very possible threat. A responsible law abiding American with an "assault weapon" is not a threat. You know who is a threat withc an assault weapon? A known felon. Luckily felons cant buy assault weapons... or ANY guns for that matter. Funny how they still manage to get them though... Its as though laws prohibiting weapons weren't preventing bad people who wish to use them for evil from obtaining them anyways. WHAT A SHOCK!
User avatar #934 to #878 - gorginhanson (04/22/2013) [-]
Ok buddy, a "known felon" is the same person as he was 10 seconds before he committed those felonies
And your argument is suggesting that we should have no laws whatsoever since people will break them
#964 to #934 - comradvlad (04/22/2013) [-]
Ok lets apply your logic to justify the patriot act which you seem to oppose. A known terrorist is the same person he was before he commited terrorist acts. Thats why we need the ability to spy on any american citizen with or without reason. The thing about logic is it has to applies across the board. Anyway, the boston bombing just proved you don''t need an assault weapon to cause damage. Two guys used ******* pressure cookers to kill three people, injure 170 (some very severely) and shut down an ENTIRE CITY for a day. What are you going to do now? Ban pressure cookers? Ban nails that were used as shrapnel? You seem like you would welcome the 1984 dystopia. After all if the governments sees and knows what everyone is doing all of the time youll be so safe and wont have to worry about crazies and terrorists. Sure youll be a slave but who cares as long as you get to serve your overlords until a ripe old age right?
User avatar #1045 to #964 - gorginhanson (04/22/2013) [-]
You're warping the logic. The government already spies on you, the Patriot Act is just a way to do it in a incredibly unconstitutional way. To compare background checks to the Patriot Act is just pure ignorance.

Anyhow, you think he built that bomb with just nails and a ******* pressure cooker? Obviously he got a hold of bomb material he wasn't supposed to.
And how are you simultaneously defending the Patriot Act and saying that gun regulation is evil? Seriously, how is your head not spinning right now?
#1222 to #1045 - comradvlad (04/22/2013) [-]
Thats my point dude... You can use the samle logic YOU are using to justify gun bans to justify the patriot act. JEsus thats the whole point. I DONT SUPPORT THE PATRIOT ACT. Im against ALL of the ****** laws that the government is trying to pass now a days. And what illegal things they werent supposed to get? Fertilizer? Pressure cooker? Nails? BBs? Maybe a cellphone for remote detonation? Most Of these bombs are made with everyday items, thats why these people can make them in the first place.
User avatar #1299 to #1222 - gorginhanson (04/22/2013) [-]
What? I never justified the patriot act. I was saying that Republicans supported that, and are against this, which is incredibly hypocritical.
And if you can make a bomb with JUST a cell phone, nails and bbs, and a pressure cooker, I will give you every cent I have.
User avatar #863 to #845 - kgblack (04/22/2013) [-]
i disagree on your understanding of an assault weapon. according to the laws assault weapons are classified that way based on looks. in my opinion an assault weapon must be fully automatic which is also legal under a class 3 weapons permit(explosives are either class 3 or 4 i don't remember). most of the laws about "assault weapons" are based on the attachments but you can buy equivalent semi automatic weapons that have the appearance of a hunting rifle but they don't count as assault weapons. and you're right buying chemicals used in bomb making such as saltpeter is watched because you can make explosives but with permits you can buy things such as 40mm grenades and c4 as well as own full automatic weapons and suppressors. the problem isn't the kind of weapons its the fact they are being taken away. this is a "slippery slope" argument if you take away one kind then the next kind is considered to dangerous and eventually we have no right to own weapons and stuck to be victim of crime the government can't protect against. they did a ban/take of weapons austrailia and guess what happened crime went up. not all the rises were gun based(some was) but the majority of increase was home invasion because criminals thought well they have no gun and were less scared of invading people homes. something i hope never happens to myself or others but if it does i will be defended
User avatar #942 to #863 - gorginhanson (04/22/2013) [-]
I seriously doubt that all guns will be banned on this slippery slope, especially since you're drawing an arbitrary line in gun regulation, saying that it's good exactly where it is ( we already have forms of regulation in place)

But, sure. I'll entertain your worst-case scenario idea for the sake of discussion.
The world would end if no one had any guns?
#1001 to #942 - comradvlad (04/22/2013) [-]
Except the governmet has a proven track record of taking all laws that impede freedom further and further. LIKE THE PATRIOT ACT, All the "copyright" laws, etc. Just out of curiosity, when the government passes more and more laws that restrict freedoms "relevant" to you. hen it finally makes life in America seem like life in North Korea, what are you going to do? Smack them in the face with your mighty book of anti gun laws? The second amendment allows American citizens to protect themselves from enemies forignt AND domestic. Do you really think the governments is restricting guns further and further for YOUR saftey? They could give a **** less about you. They allow carcinogens in our food, send our sons and daughters to their deaths to line their own pockets and allow banks to **** the average citizen... **** they actually PAY them to do it. Do you really for one second think that gun control is about anything other than another step allowing them more and more control over the masses (just like your hated patriot act).
User avatar #952 to #942 - kgblack (04/22/2013) [-]
no the world doesn't end but quality of life decreases i want to be able to be and feel safe in my home. honestly they change the definition of what is an assault weapon to continue to take away our rights and as you said life isn't over with a loss of guns but that being said you lead to the bigger slippery slope when does the government stop taking rights away from the citizens if you make a huge change to the bill of rights what comes after guns? they make small changes over long periods of time to eventually strip all rights away. its not only about the guns which most anti gun people fail to realize and that's not to say the democrats are the only ones who would be willing to take rights away because republicans are anti abortion which is another right that individuals should be able to make but it can all be taken away if we aren't careful
#710 to #13 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
But you could also argue that is a hypocritical rationale, that they only ban stupid **** that doesn't matter and they won't do something that matters for once.
#545 to #13 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
Thumbing down 231 thumbs. I feel useless
User avatar #544 to #13 - undereightyeight (04/22/2013) [-]
I logged in so I could thumb this up.
#458 to #13 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
gun control isn't retarded
#648 to #458 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
Gun control is

mental health control is not.
#338 to #13 - anon (04/21/2013) [-]
who cares, its funny
 Friends (0)