Who has seen ...

[danalec99]

I get too upset to continue this thread.. I feel hurt, threatened, frustrated..so many feelings. I find this very emotional for me. so I will just drop out and not read anymore thank you.
Dee

Didn't you know we all dropped out long time ago?

 

[Sharkbait]

Don't drop out.

Be cool, stay in school!

 

[Osmer_Toby]

Don't drop out.

Be cool, stay in school!

:lmao:

... or not. right now, i'm stuck in a classroom with no ac and temps projected to hit 95F.

 

[danalec99]

Don't drop out.

Be cool, stay in school!

:lmao:

... or not. right now, i'm stuck in a classroom with no ac and temps projected to hit 95F.

 

[doxx]

coming from Germany and living in the US my observation is
that "needing a gun to protect my home" is a very american thing
(no offense here, okay).
Sh*t like this happens all over the place and it gets worse, because
some members of our society simply lack responsibility.

Why do kids have access to guns? Because guns and ammo are
all over the place. If parents would be more responsible, the kids
would NOT have access to a gun and take it to school in the first
place. If I recall it right the ammo in Columbine was bought at a
K-Mart? If the salesperson would be responsible, the 'right'
person gets the ammo.

In Chicago it's impossible to buy booze in a store after midnight
to prevent drunk driving? Buy your booze before midnight, get lit
and hail a cab...

I'm 33 years old and obviously look like it - but sometimes I get
carded to buy cigarettes or beer? Now - that's a responsible
cashier.

All I'm trying to say here is that I think it's time to update a few
twisted laws and the constitution to v2 (it's 2004 already).
Things just worked differently 150 years back... Again, just an
observation - no offense here.

 

[Sharkbait]

All I'm trying to say here is that I think it's time to update a few
twisted laws and the constitution to v2 (it's 2004 already).
Things just worked differently 150 years back... Again, just an
observation - no offense here.

In a lot of ways I agree with you. It seems like our entire legal system is sort of like a computer hard drive that needs defragged. There's just been too much accumlated garbage over the years. I'm not really a religious guy, but in many ways I think our legal system (and society) would work better if we followed more of a ten commandments approach--NOT for the religion side of it, but just the common sense side--don't kill somebody, don't take something that's not yours, etc. KISS principle, ya know? Or maybe I'm just talking out my butt. :|

 

[Sharkbait]

Hey Doxx, not to hijack, but you said you're from germany originally. Do you know Geisen? My wife had to go there on business a couple times. 3/4 of my family is from germany (about 2 generations back)

 

[doxx]

hey Shark, I have never heard of Geisen.
If you mean Gießen - I know the Autobahn
exit

NOT for the religion side of it, but just the common sense side--don't kill somebody, don't take something that's not yours, etc. KISS principle, ya know?

now that would be opening another can of worms :roll:

 

[Osmer_Toby]

amen, doxx. the second amendment is outdated. i believe havoc was the first to point this out in this thread- it was one observation for which i had been waiting. the founding fathers included the second amendment to protect us from the established military engines of the day- most notably the english. pre-rev. war, the king of england had decreed that colonists did not have the right to bear arms- this was a strategy intended to strengthen his own hand here in the colonies. the second amendment was a direct response to this threat to our sovereignity. there is no such threat today, as we have a well established military of our own (in case you hadn't noticed). thus, the original impetus for the right to bear arms no longer exists.

as for the argument that guns kill, not people, this is ludicrous. gun control advocates would do well to concede this point. people kill people. guns are merely a tool. let's take that a step further, though. the purpose of the gun is to kill. gun rights advocates would do well to concede this point.

so, that brings us to the question: should guns be allowed in the hands of ordinary citizens? hmmmm.....

i find it hilarious that we have banned smoking almost everywhere in this country, because cigarettes cause cancer and are harmful to non-smokers who inadvertantly inhale the second hand smoke, yet we can not get an assault weapons ban passed on a permanent basis.
why is this same logic (cigarette ban) not applied to guns? guns kill much more definitively than second hand smoke, yet some argue that they have the right to own a gun regardless of the danger it poses to other citizens. ahhh, now i hear some of you saying: well, if you're gonna outlaw guns for the ave. citizen, using that logic, you must outlaw knives, and baseball bats, and any other tool that can be used to kill. to that i reply: it is the efficiency of the gun that makes the arguement for it's ban. no other tool kills as easily, and thus no other deserves such consideration.

guns are designed to kill. i'm ashamed for the conditions in my country which allow for our inability to curb the danger caused by the rampant proliferation of guns on the street. i firmly believe the founding fathers would be appalled, too.

 

[danalec99]

Well concluded!

 

[Sharkbait]

I think we need to clarify one point. With all the hoopla for years now about the "assult weapons" legislation, we need to make clear that that what you probably think of as an assult weapon is NOT legal for the average joe-schmo to own.

Yes, you can go out and buy an AK-47, AK-74, AR-15, M-16, or whathaveyou. In fact, I know of a couple places where given the cash, I could put my hands legally one any or all of those guns within probably a day. What IS illegal (and has been for as long as I can remember) is to have any weapon like that that will fire fully automatic (or even 3-round burst). All those weapons sold legally are semi-automatic.

In my eyes, it's really apples-to-oranges. If you ban so-called "assault weapons", great, more power to you, but you will most definitely not remove fully automatic firepower from the hands of criminals; in fact you probably won't even make a dent in it. It would be a reactionary law that would make the uninformed public feel good, while really all you'll do is shut down the firearms collection hobby. You or I might go out and plunk down $1500 on new camera gear, the guy down the street might drop $1500 on an AK. That AK will have less "killing power" than most hunting rifles that you can buy at the local Wal-Mart, and will fire in exactly the same way--one pull of the trigger = one shot fired.

 

[Geronimo]

why is this same logic (cigarette ban) not applied to guns? guns kill much more definitively than second hand smoke, yet some argue that they have the right to own a gun regardless of the danger it poses to other citizens. ahhh, now i hear some of you saying: well, if you're gonna outlaw guns for the ave. citizen, using that logic, you must outlaw knives, and baseball bats, and any other tool that can be used to kill. to that i reply: it is the efficiency of the gun that makes the arguement for it's ban. no other tool kills as easily, and thus no other deserves such consideration.

guns are designed to kill. i'm ashamed for the conditions in my country which allow for our inability to curb the danger caused by the rampant proliferation of guns on the street. i firmly believe the founding fathers would be appalled, too.

You are treating the end result, not the symptons. Following your logic here, why not stop the catalyst for a lot of violence? Drugs ( both alrealy illegal and legal drugs), Alcohol and etc. Why not elimate cars as well. They kill a lot of people too. They are efficent as well arent they?

As far as the 2nd adm. intentions being out of sync with today's society, I find that to be wishfull thinking. What if we the people would need to fulfill our duty to stop a repressive gov't sometime, not now but sometime. This was the intend of the 2nd adm. I find arguements against this idea, just as unfounded as the need to remove the Electoral College.

 

[Osmer_Toby]

Following your logic here, why not stop the catalyst for a lot of violence? Drugs ( both alrealy illegal and legal drugs), Alcohol and etc. Why not elimate cars as well

i'm confused- are you saying that drugs and cars are tools which often result in death, or are you saying that they are things which lead to violence and the use of guns? if you mean the former, i fall back on the argument that guns are designed for the express purpose of killing, and are far and away the most efficient in fulfilling that purpose, thus making them a class by themselves. they should be regulated.

as for bearing arms against some unforeseen threat that our own military can't or won't defeat, i think the odds of that are extremely long, and those odds have to be balanced against the odds that guns will be utilized here and now in such a manner that our very society is torn apart. as for this last, the odds are not very long at all- in fact we are confronted daily with news of just such occurances.

 

[MDowdey]

"In 1996 there were over 34,000 gun deaths in the U.S." --LA TIMES/CDC



"Tobacco companies make a product that kills 440,000 Americans a year."--CDC/THE TRUTH

"Tobacco kills more Americans than AIDS, drugs, homicides, fires, and auto accidents combined."--CDC/THE TRUTH


im not quite sure how anyone can sit here and claim a gun is the most effective killing device...

md

 

[oriecat]

as for bearing arms against some unforeseen threat that our own military can't or won't defeat, i think the odds of that are extremely long

I think Gero meant the bearing of arms against our own military or gov't, should it become corrupt and need to be forcefully removed. At least that's how I read it...