Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New articles
New media comments
New article comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Articles
New articles
New comments
Search articles
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Dark Theme
Contact us
Close Menu
Are you a Tarantula hobbyist? If so, we invite you to join our community! Once you join you'll be able to post messages, upload pictures of your pets and enclosures and chat with other Tarantula enthusiasts.
Sign up today!
Forums
Off Topic Discussions
Off Topic Chit Chat
The threat to the First Amendment.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Metalman2004" data-source="post: 149586" data-attributes="member: 7681"><p>I usually stay out of these discussions simply because it is a stalemate argument and I can’t say that I’ve ever seen someone actively change their mind on the subject. I also don’t think that what’s good for America is necessarily good for the rest of the world. It is good for us though. All that being said, you’ve lobbed a couple of pitches right over the plate so I can’t help but swing <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>I think that the majority of people making the “its no longer relevant” argument never totally understood the relevance in the first place. When the revolutionary war started there were two types of people, those that didn’t want to fight because they were outgunned and those that fought even though they were outgunned. History is full of stories of the outgunned and oppressed fighting back and winning.</p><p></p><p>I will point out one big disconnect you have in the speeding analogy. Let’s do a side by side comparison. Cars are widely available to the public and if you pass the test you are aloud to get a driver license. If a kid steals the keys to his parents’ car (that are usually sitting on the kitchen counter) and runs people over he might be charged with manslaughter (sometimes they are let off with no jail time). End of story.</p><p></p><p>Gun laws vary from state to state, but ironically the states that have the worst gun violence problems are the ones that have the greatest restrictions on them. In Texas, one of the more lenient states, you have to pass a written test and shooting test to get a license (just like a drivers license) to carry a pistol. You are also legally required to keep your gun locked and away from children (the car keys are aloud to sit on the kitchen counter). If a kid breaks into his parents’ safe, steals their gun and shoots someone they are charged and the masses scream and debate about taking everyone’s guns away. There is no debate about taking cars away even though they are just as deadly because more people find cars useful. That doesn’t take away from those that do find guns useful though.</p><p></p><p>To sum up, steal a car and kill someone you might go to jail. Steal a gun and kill someone and half the country screams about taking away the tool that was used to commit said crime. Then we circle back to the relevance argument.</p><p></p><p>Despite what the media would have you think, there are gun laws here and murder is indeed illegal, whether by car or gun. The sad truth is the vast majority of the shooters obtained their guns by circumventing the law. Some stole the guns from others (and those others are rarely charged for not properly securing their weapon). Some passed background checks that they should have failed and the gov’t dropped the ball. It’s tough to even start talking about more gun laws when the ones we have aren’t enforced. Meanwhile the speeding laws are fully enforced <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>If you live in London I wouldn’t expect you to necessarily understand the usefulness of a good gun, but in a large portion of the US they are quite useful, from putting quality, ethical, free range food on the table to defense to controlling the invasive wild hog population that is wreaking havoc on this country. The average response time of emergency services here is 20-30 minutes because the US is so expansive. You can’t just rely on cops here because they might be a half hr away when your life is on the line.</p><p></p><p>The argument (in America anyways) that more gun laws only disarm the law abiding is rather valid. In a place where the criminals are already mostly disarmed that may not be the case, but America is loaded with guns both legal and illegal. If you start taking guns from the law abiding you have a huge population that are sitting ducks waiting to be taken advantage of by the criminals that are armed. You are looking at decades of not a century of defenseless citizens being taken advantage of by criminals. If you can come up with a good plan to disarm the criminals I’m all ears, but it’s basically inconceivable.</p><p></p><p>By the way, I myself am a more simple person when it comes to firearms. I had an AR but sold it years ago. They are incredibly versatile and my wife found it easy to use, it just isn’t my thing. I’m more of a big bore revolver and single shot guy.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Metalman2004, post: 149586, member: 7681"] I usually stay out of these discussions simply because it is a stalemate argument and I can’t say that I’ve ever seen someone actively change their mind on the subject. I also don’t think that what’s good for America is necessarily good for the rest of the world. It is good for us though. All that being said, you’ve lobbed a couple of pitches right over the plate so I can’t help but swing :) I think that the majority of people making the “its no longer relevant” argument never totally understood the relevance in the first place. When the revolutionary war started there were two types of people, those that didn’t want to fight because they were outgunned and those that fought even though they were outgunned. History is full of stories of the outgunned and oppressed fighting back and winning. I will point out one big disconnect you have in the speeding analogy. Let’s do a side by side comparison. Cars are widely available to the public and if you pass the test you are aloud to get a driver license. If a kid steals the keys to his parents’ car (that are usually sitting on the kitchen counter) and runs people over he might be charged with manslaughter (sometimes they are let off with no jail time). End of story. Gun laws vary from state to state, but ironically the states that have the worst gun violence problems are the ones that have the greatest restrictions on them. In Texas, one of the more lenient states, you have to pass a written test and shooting test to get a license (just like a drivers license) to carry a pistol. You are also legally required to keep your gun locked and away from children (the car keys are aloud to sit on the kitchen counter). If a kid breaks into his parents’ safe, steals their gun and shoots someone they are charged and the masses scream and debate about taking everyone’s guns away. There is no debate about taking cars away even though they are just as deadly because more people find cars useful. That doesn’t take away from those that do find guns useful though. To sum up, steal a car and kill someone you might go to jail. Steal a gun and kill someone and half the country screams about taking away the tool that was used to commit said crime. Then we circle back to the relevance argument. Despite what the media would have you think, there are gun laws here and murder is indeed illegal, whether by car or gun. The sad truth is the vast majority of the shooters obtained their guns by circumventing the law. Some stole the guns from others (and those others are rarely charged for not properly securing their weapon). Some passed background checks that they should have failed and the gov’t dropped the ball. It’s tough to even start talking about more gun laws when the ones we have aren’t enforced. Meanwhile the speeding laws are fully enforced :) If you live in London I wouldn’t expect you to necessarily understand the usefulness of a good gun, but in a large portion of the US they are quite useful, from putting quality, ethical, free range food on the table to defense to controlling the invasive wild hog population that is wreaking havoc on this country. The average response time of emergency services here is 20-30 minutes because the US is so expansive. You can’t just rely on cops here because they might be a half hr away when your life is on the line. The argument (in America anyways) that more gun laws only disarm the law abiding is rather valid. In a place where the criminals are already mostly disarmed that may not be the case, but America is loaded with guns both legal and illegal. If you start taking guns from the law abiding you have a huge population that are sitting ducks waiting to be taken advantage of by the criminals that are armed. You are looking at decades of not a century of defenseless citizens being taken advantage of by criminals. If you can come up with a good plan to disarm the criminals I’m all ears, but it’s basically inconceivable. By the way, I myself am a more simple person when it comes to firearms. I had an AR but sold it years ago. They are incredibly versatile and my wife found it easy to use, it just isn’t my thing. I’m more of a big bore revolver and single shot guy. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Off Topic Discussions
Off Topic Chit Chat
The threat to the First Amendment.
Top