Presidential Race Discussion (Romney NOOO!!!)

[PokePop]

'Pop, you essentially get how things should work: people deserve guns, but control needs to exist. However, that doesn't disprove Homeofmew's point: there are "way" more members or associates of the Democratic party that believe in _no_ gun rights.

That's not the position she or the NRA or conservatives are taking, though.
They're not saying, "OK, we'll have sensible restrictions".
They are pushing to block EACH and EVERY restriction, including those supported by Police organizations. There may be some radical positions among some Democrats, but you have to acknowledge that the positions on the Right are more radical and widespread in their unwillingness to look at moderate compromises for the common good.

 

[DarkJake]

at this rate i dont care who gets elected b/c its impossible to have a worse prez than bush. thank goodness for the 2 term limit. theres no where to go but up!

-lickylicky

Another stupid post. Bush was certainly one of the better presidents.

Also, Romeny's speech should've been said on monday, lol whoops. And yeah, Huckabee/Ron Paul have no chance, I don't see why people keep on mentioning them, there's no way they're gonna win, don't waste your vote.

 

[moza]

No offense, but that's just plain stupid.
No other way to put it.

Pokepop, I respect you as a smart human on this planet, even though we obviously disagree. And even though I did not take offense to your statement, try not make ones like that again. It does lower your "reputation" in the eyes of the people who read this.

Did this guy get killed?
Why yes, he did.
So apparently HE dared to shoot people with armed people (police) nearby.

Yes, the police properly used their weapons.

So, where does that put your argument?
The same number of people would be dead.

Unless, of course, his victems were armed. Then they wouldn't have had to wait for the police, and might have been able to "subdue" the shooter.

"that doesn't force gun sellers to sell them a gun"
So, why are they doing it then?
What the heck does that mean?
They are selling anyone and everyone a gun that they can.
Sure, there are responsible gun sellers.
But it doesn't take very many who don't care who they sell to to get as many guns on the street as the criminals can want.
Your statements hold no water.

You have the RIGHT to own a gun. This means that no one can tell you that you have no ability/right to own a gun. That does NOT stop gun store owners from choosing NOT to sell a gun to people. Most gun shops, if you haven't noticed, not only have a wait period but also ask that you fill out a form/give them your medical records. It isn't that easy to be crazy and get a gun(or it shouldn't be, anyway).

****, why not outlaw boulders? Those are easy to get and can kill people, a large group of people, easily. It also blends in with its surroundings, making it concealable.
Or knives? Lets outlaw knives, no matter what purpose. Hundreds of people die from stab wounds a year.
Why not cars while we are at it? Horses are good for transportation.
Or swimming pools? Because remember, safty>fun/learning/enjoyment, always no exceptions.

And then would it be illegal for me to own the materials to make a gun? Would I be arrested if I had the same amount of material laying around to make an AK-47?

And another question, what gives police the right to own guns instead of citizens? Last time I checked, I didn't give away my authority to own a gun to the cop on the corner. I trust myself more then most cops I have ever seen(James bond is the exception).

The 2nd gives you the right to bear arms. This is for the safety of the citizens from the government. An unarmed population is a population under tyranny.
Just because you have the right to own something does not mean you get it. Some people are never happy, millions of people are never concepted. The right to own a gun does not force anyone to sell me a gun. Gun store owners should do more thourough background checks on whom they sell guns to.
I would rather buy a gun from a safe seller then a seller who does not require me to fill out a form. I want to own a gun that was sold to me under harsh inspection so I know that it takes a clean record to get one, because a clean record is usually an indication of an honest person.

If you have crazy teenage years and can't get a gun because of it, that was YOUR fault. YOU proved you weren't responsible enough to own a gun, and are now less able to respond to threats, whatever or where-ever they may be.

Also, Romeny's speech should've been said on monday, lol whoops. And yeah, Huckabee/Ron Paul have no chance, I don't see why people keep on mentioning them, there's no way they're gonna win, don't waste your vote.

Yes, Ron Paul doesn't have a chance for the GOP nomination, I admit that. However you should not say it is "wasting" your vote to not vote for the frontrunner. It's my vote, and in a democratic society, I should be able to vote for whoever I damn well please, most likely someone I agree with. I vote because I want that person in office, not because I want to "waste" my vote.
Why not just take a poll and vote for whomever is #1? Don't throw away your vote on #2!

 

[bullados]

The wait period is government enforced, not store-owner enforced. As are background checks into a potential gun buyer's background. These are NECESSARY precautions to ensure that those who cannot properly handle guns (mentally or physically) are not able to obtain them.

So you support the citizen's right to freely purchase weaponry that would shame entire COUNTRIES? Because that's what you're saying. You can pretty much take over half of Africa with a single Uzi and unlimited ammo. Do you really think that the average person can handle even a semiautomatic weapon with any degree of skill AND restraint?

The reason that the police are given sidearms are many. First, police have to go through an extensive period of training and psychological and physical tests in order to ensure that they are prepared to use said weaponry. Second, they are given sidearms that are not even semi-automatic. They are portable sidearms that are generally nonlethal depending on the aim of the officer. Again, training and testing help ensure that the officer won't use the weapon for "bad" purposes. Notice also that the bastions of anarchy, gangs and the mob, have FAR more powerful weaponry and defenses than the police do. However, the government has been "kind" enough to limit the use of high powered weaponry to those that do not fight on American soil, and to those who have been specifically trained and tested even MORE extensively to use said weapons.

You're arguing for a complete LACK of gun control. It's an argument that simply cannot be won. Give people virtually unlimited rights to sidearms, and you'll see the streets littered with the corpses of those who are sane enough NOT to want sidearms. The only ones left will be those in hiding, and those performing the killing.

 

[PokePop]

Pokepop, I respect you as a smart human on this planet, even though we obviously disagree. And even though I did not take offense to your statement, try not make ones like that again. It does lower your "reputation" in the eyes of the people who read this.

My apology for being too blunt.

****, why not outlaw boulders? Those are easy to get and can kill people, a large group of people, easily. It also blends in with its surroundings, making it concealable.
Or knives? Lets outlaw knives, no matter what purpose. Hundreds of people die from stab wounds a year.
Why not cars while we are at it? Horses are good for transportation.
Or swimming pools? Because remember, safty>fun/learning/enjoyment, always no exceptions.

Of those things, only guns, and certainly some of the ones that are being used most to kill, are made made and engineered specifically to kill people. Maybe knives, but on the other hand, those ARE regulated and should be, just as much as guns.
Not talking about kitchen knives here, just like I'm not talking about hunting rifles. I'm talking about the weapons whose sole purpose is to kill people.

You're not comparing apples and oranges, you're comparing apples and hand grenades.
It reminds me of the Monty Python sketch where they are teaching self defense against fruit.
"C'mon! I had to shoot him. He came at me with a banana!"

I'd like to see you go around with a concealed bolder on your person.

 

[moza]

The wait period is government enforced, not store-owner enforced. As are background checks into a potential gun buyer's background. These are NECESSARY precautions to ensure that those who cannot properly handle guns (mentally or physically) are not able to obtain them.

Good, exept for the government enforced part. Governments aren't efficent.

So you support the citizen's right to freely purchase weaponry that would shame entire COUNTRIES? Because that's what you're saying. You can pretty much take over half of Africa with a single Uzi and unlimited ammo. Do you really think that the average person can handle even a semiautomatic weapon with any degree of skill AND restraint?

I don't think the average person would go around shooting people if he/she were given the chance. Pardon me for thinking people are naturally nice to one another =(

The reason that the police are given sidearms are many. First, police have to go through an extensive period of training and psychological and physical tests in order to ensure that they are prepared to use said weaponry.
I have seen many cops who should not even be allowed to drive a car, let alone use a gun.
Second, they are given sidearms that are not even semi-automatic. They are portable sidearms that are generally nonlethal depending on the aim of the officer. Again, training and testing help ensure that the officer won't use the weapon for "bad" purposes.
So a 9mm is non-lethal in the hands of a cop, but not in a citizen?
And have you heard of police brutality? Maybe you should train them a little bit better before the taser a women for asking why she was being arrested(It was for an expired liscence plate)
Notice also that the bastions of anarchy, gangs and the mob, have FAR more powerful weaponry and defenses than the police do. However, the government has been "kind" enough to limit the use of high powered weaponry to those that do not fight on American soil, and to those who have been specifically trained and tested even MORE extensively to use said weapons.
I need a point to counter-point

You're arguing for a complete LACK of gun control. It's an argument that simply cannot be won. Give people virtually unlimited rights to sidearms, and you'll see the streets littered with the corpses of those who are sane enough NOT to want sidearms. The only ones left will be those in hiding, and those performing the killing.

Lack of gun control by the government. Let gun salesmen decide who to sell what gun to on their own terms. You could have some sort of law to force them to do background checks, I would not currently be against that.

And do you really think that the streets would be littered with bodies? Apperently the gun control laws in place now really don't do much to stop murdering from happening.
Are people really inherently that bad? Do you really think a lot of people would go kill freely if they could?

My apology for being too blunt.

No offense taken, no apology needed.

Of those things, only guns, and certainly some of the ones that are being used most to kill, are made made and engineered specifically to kill people. Maybe knives, but on the other hand, those ARE regulated and should be, just as much as guns.
Not talking about kitchen knives here, just like I'm not talking about hunting rifles. I'm talking about the weapons whose sole purpose is to kill people.

..no, they are specifically engineered to shoot a bullet out of a barrel with great force and precision. I haven't seen a gun labled "Purpose: To kill humans, and to kill humans only". And how is a kitchet knife different from a hunting knife? There might be a few minor, but both are sharp blades of steel, both easily capable of killing someone.

And maybe if you banned all guns, people WOULD start to use those other things to kill people. Taking away guns won't take away hatred. A good parent and good education can though.

I lol'd at the monty python comment, <3 python.

Perhaps not a boulder but a large rock would be easy to. Or any blunt object, like a fist. Ban fists!

 

[Spotter]

<*Wonders if certain forum moderators agree with the anti-gun sentiments, which is why they haven't waltzed in to redirect this thread back "on-topic" like they have others. . . . . .*>

 

[moza]

Could a mod get a seperate thread for this gun discussion?

 

[bullados]

Simple economics. If you remove controls by the government, the individual enterprises are NOT going to self-regulate. The purpose of going into business is to make money. Regulations hinder sales, so businesses will tend to reject them. Show me ANY self-regulating entity in the commercial world, and I'll show you government pressure to self-regulate, usually using the threat of government regulation in order to make their point. The only reason that guns are NOT self-regulated is because the gun manufacturers, distributors, and retailers have outright REFUSED to self-regulate. Need proof of this? Look no further then the NRA.

 

[moza]

Simple economics.

Economics are never simple =(

If you remove controls by the government, the individual enterprises are NOT going to self-regulate. The purpose of going into business is to make money. Regulations hinder sales, so businesses will tend to reject them. Show me ANY self-regulating entity in the commercial world, and I'll show you government pressure to self-regulate, usually using the threat of government regulation in order to make their point. The only reason that guns are NOT self-regulated is because the gun manufacturers, distributors, and retailers have outright REFUSED to self-regulate. Need proof of this? Look no further then the NRA.

Depends on if you want to buy from a "safe" gun shop with background checks etc. or not. I would rather buy from a reputable source who does background checks then the black market. Not only does it not warrent suspicion from my fellow man, but it also carries with it a small amount of pride. Maybe if we respected the concept of honor more today then we do now, things would be different*sigh*

 

[DarkJake]

Yes, Ron Paul doesn't have a chance for the GOP nomination, I admit that. However you should not say it is "wasting" your vote to not vote for the frontrunner. It's my vote, and in a democratic society, I should be able to vote for whoever I damn well please, most likely someone I agree with. I vote because I want that person in office, not because I want to "waste" my vote.
Why not just take a poll and vote for whomever is #1? Don't throw away your vote on #2!

Pretty hot how democratic society includes free speech, doesn't it? Also, voting for the potential #2 is indeed wasting your vote, since you already have a set mindset that the person who you are voting for WILL lose. Congratulations.

 

[Articjedi]

Good, exept for the government enforced part. Governments aren't efficent.

Lack of gun control by the government. Let gun salesmen decide who to sell what gun to on their own terms. You could have some sort of law to force them to do background checks, I would not currently be against that.

..no, they are specifically engineered to shoot a bullet out of a barrel with great force and precision. I haven't seen a gun labled "Purpose: To kill humans, and to kill humans only".

So Moza, if you had a gun, what would you use it for? Because I wouldn't dare hunt deer with handgun (too inhumane if I miss), and I wouldn't hunt bears with anything less than bearshot.

Yah, maybe if gun sellers actually cared about who they sold to and enforced their own waiting periods, we'd be better off. But they don't, there's always some idiot out there who's thinking more about his wallet than whatever the guy who he sold the gun to is going to do with it. So who would you trust to regulate it if you can't trust the government or the sellers to do so?

 

[moza]

Pretty hot how democratic society includes free speech, doesn't it? Also, voting for the potential #2 is indeed wasting your vote, since you already have a set mindset that the person who you are voting for WILL lose. Congratulations.

That seemed to be your point before, but I could have mis-interpreted.

So Moza, if you had a gun, what would you use it for? Because I wouldn't dare hunt deer with handgun (too inhumane if I miss), and I wouldn't hunt bears with anything less than bearshot.

Yah, maybe if gun sellers actually cared about who they sold to and enforced their own waiting periods, we'd be better off. But they don't, there's always some idiot out there who's thinking more about his wallet than whatever the guy who he sold the gun to is going to do with it. So who would you trust to regulate it if you can't trust the government or the sellers to do so?

I would use a handgun for self-defense. A rifle for hunting, and a 17 round high powered fully automatic rifle to show off at shooting ranges.

I would trust a decent and honest citizen to do it, preferebly those would be the people selling the guns.

Why would I trust government in the first place?

 

[Articjedi]

So you'd use the handgun to shoot people (self defense counts)? What else is something like that made for? Opening beer cans ala Homer Simpson?

 

[PokePop]

Depends on if you want to buy from a "safe" gun shop with background checks etc. or not. I would rather buy from a reputable source who does background checks then the black market. Not only does it not warrent suspicion from my fellow man, but it also carries with it a small amount of pride. Maybe if we respected the concept of honor more today then we do now, things would be different*sigh*

But that's the point.
The people who should NOT have guns WILL buy from "unsafe" gun shops.
You don't put in regulations to regulate the "good" people.
The regulations are there to regulate the bad people.
But you dont' know which are which beforehand.

 

[moza]

Once someone initites force on me, I no longer think of them as a person, only flesh and blood, and I will retaliate in an equally strong manner. If someone threatens me with a gun, I see no reason why I should fall to the ground helpless. If someone shoots someone I know and I can prove it, they won't live long enough to regret it. It does sound cruel, I know, but after they have harmed my property or my loved ones, I care not for their feelings.
That doesn't mean I would hunt someone down to kill them after the event, I am not needing to defend myself. I would prosocute them to the fullest extent of the law and fight till my very last breath for him to pay for his crime.
I do not believe in initiating force, but I do fully support self defense and retaliation measures.

You can also have 2 pistols along with your rifle. You might find it difficult to run through dense forestation while carrying a rifle with a bear chasing you, so you have 1-2 handguns ready to defend yourself(albiet this won't happen very often)

@Pokepop;
After the crime has been commited, police are very often able to identify where the gun came from and what shop. If they made that public, people could boycott the gun store, and the store goes out of buissiness because it only has the "criminals" buying from it, who number very very few compared to the "honest" population of this country. As new people come into the buissiness of selling guns, they may decide that it is better to spend the time to do background checks to avoid the risk of going out of buissness.

It is kind of like insurance, in a way.

 

[PokePop]

@Pokepop;
After the crime has been commited, police are very often able to identify where the gun came from and what shop. If they made that public, people could boycott the gun store, and the store goes out of buissiness because it only has the "criminals" buying from it, who number very very few compared to the "honest" population of this country. As new people come into the buissiness of selling guns, they may decide that it is better to spend the time to do background checks to avoid the risk of going out of buissness.

It is kind of like insurance, in a way.

Can you give any examples of this happening?

 

[Articjedi]

And now that person you care for is dead, with or without retaliation, your loved one was hurt because the murderer was able to get a gun without the regulations. Yah, letting the crime happen and THEN punishing them is a great way to keep public order. You think criminals ever think about the punishment? They usually don't. And if you tried to retaliate, who's to say he wouldn't get a bunch of buddies to get you too?

 

[ZAKtheGeek]

I don't think the average person would go around shooting people if he/she were given the chance. Pardon me for thinking people are naturally nice to one another =(

And do you really think that the streets would be littered with bodies? Apperently the gun control laws in place now really don't do much to stop murdering from happening.
Are people really inherently that bad? Do you really think a lot of people would go kill freely if they could?

After the crime has been commited, police are very often able to identify where the gun came from and what shop. If they made that public, people could boycott the gun store, and the store goes out of buissiness because it only has the "criminals" buying from it, who number very very few compared to the "honest" population of this country. As new people come into the buissiness of selling guns, they may decide that it is better to spend the time to do background checks to avoid the risk of going out of buissness.

It is kind of like insurance, in a way.

That's right! People are honest, good and virtuous!

The 2nd gives you the right to bear arms. This is for the safety of the citizens from the government. An unarmed population is a population under tyranny.

I would trust a decent and honest citizen to do it, preferebly those would be the people selling the guns.

Why would I trust government in the first place?

...unless they're part of the government. Right. That makes sense.

No ridiculous black-and-white blanket statements from you. Nope.

Governments aren't efficent.

None whatsoever.

 

[moza]

And now that person you care for is dead, with or without retaliation, your loved one was hurt because the murderer was able to get a gun without the regulations. Yah, letting the crime happen and THEN punishing them is a great way to keep public order. You think criminals ever think about the punishment? They usually don't. And if you tried to retaliate, who's to say he wouldn't get a bunch of buddies to get you too?

You keep thinking that regulations actually stop criminals from getting guns. They don't. You could ban guns and all it would do would create an underground market. I would rather be able to retaliate then do nothing.


"That's right! People are honest, good and virtuous!"

Artic Jedi brought up the case of self defense. Why would I need to defend myself from some honest/good/virtuous?

...unless they're part of the government. Right. That makes sense.

No ridiculous black-and-white blanket statements from you. Nope.

I never specified a single human working for the government, I was talking about the government as a whole, and government agencies.

Could you please give an example of a large governming body being efficent? I would gladly like to find it.