Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Gun Debate (Lukie wants the kingest of nats to chime in)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 75 of 106
  1. #1

    Default Gun Debate (Lukie wants the kingest of nats to chime in)

    I don't overly understand the love for guns. This could be a canadian thing, never overly interested me. I'd personally rather be somewhere where nobody had guns, than everyone having them and collecting them.

    But nonetheless, I don't really see why they are going up in value so much? If they are so easy to get, then I'd imagine they would be depreciating?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay-Z
    I'm a couple hands down and I'm tryin' to get back
    I gave the other grip, I lost a flip for five stacks
  2. #2
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    If you're around responsible gun owners, the only difference between a place where there are guns and a place where there aren't is that sometimes you'll see the fellas going out to the shooting range. Also, bears pose less of a mortal threat.

    Guns go up in value because some people are shooting 100 years old guns just like new. They can be maintained to a high quality for a long time. And wondering why they increase in value is like wondering why art does as well.

    edit also, not all gun models appreciate in value regardless of maintenance. Market forces and what not.
    Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 01-21-2011 at 10:21 AM.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Guns go up in value because some people are shooting 100 years old guns just like new. They can be maintained to a high quality for a long time. And wondering why they increase in value is like wondering why art does as well.
    I'm viewing it more along the lines of, wondering why guns go up in value when cars don't go up in value. The instance you use a car it depreciates some massive %, whereas the instant you use a gun, it doesn't.

    I suppose in this case, its due to the high quality maintenance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay-Z
    I'm a couple hands down and I'm tryin' to get back
    I gave the other grip, I lost a flip for five stacks
  4. #4
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    It's a really good question that I would like answered as well. I'm just wondering where I can go to find this answer best.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  5. #5
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    My father has worked 31 years for a company called Union Switch & Signal. During the last World War, his company was turned from Trains and such to Pistols and such and they made these 1911 pistols: http://www.coolgunsite.com/images/19...%20M1911A1.htm

    He has been trying to buy one for a long time. It's appreciates based on sentimental value and rarity. That the last guy to buy one could always sell to my father because he wants one.

    He thinks, and I agree, that this holds for a lot of guns, that when you buy it and keep it in peak working condition, you can always find someone to buy it from you down the way.

    But I'm still not sure why cars plummet in value while guns dip down or rise up.
    Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 01-21-2011 at 10:51 AM.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  6. #6
    As you drive a car, you tear up the drivetrain, interior, pant and body, ect. You have high maintenance costs. Every single year, a newer model of your car comes out to further depreciate the value.

    When you buy say a glock 22 new, it doesn't break, they don't make a newer model to lessen its value, and mantainence cost is next to none. They ususally only make a certain amount per year as well to keep the demand and value up. When/if you go to buy it used, it is almost exactly the same as buying one new if the owner took care of it. Cant say the about a 10 year old used car.


    I use these things maybe 3-4 times a year just to blow off steam every once in a while. I don't every carry one, don't use them for home defense, and they stay locked up in gun safes 360 days a year. Really they are just fun investments, and living in texas we have these gun shows 2-3 times a month.
  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    There's something like 300 million firearms owned by US citizenry. The NRA is one of the most powerful non-governmental organizations on the planet. We love guns as much as we love beer and football. This is probably the easiest place in the world to find hand-held artillery
    And from the tone of Wuf's reply, sounds like Wuf is very much against this.
  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Monty3038 View Post
    And from the tone of Wuf's reply, sounds like Wuf is very much against this.
    Shoot him! Shoot him in the face!
  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Trikflow77 View Post
    As you drive a car, you tear up the drivetrain, interior, pant and body, ect. You have high maintenance costs. Every single year, a newer model of your car comes out to further depreciate the value.

    When you buy say a glock 22 new, it doesn't break, they don't make a newer model to lessen its value, and mantainence cost is next to none. They ususally only make a certain amount per year as well to keep the demand and value up. When/if you go to buy it used, it is almost exactly the same as buying one new if the owner took care of it. Cant say the about a 10 year old used car.


    I use these things maybe 3-4 times a year just to blow off steam every once in a while. I don't every carry one, don't use them for home defense, and they stay locked up in gun safes 360 days a year. Really they are just fun investments, and living in texas we have these gun shows 2-3 times a month.

    I think thats really cool that you dont carry them or even use them for home defense. Esp in a state where it would be very easy to do so. I think if I were to own guns I'd be the same, just have them to take the range and to fuel my post apocalyptic survival fantasies.
  10. #10
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    Owning one and carrying one are a million miles apart. I can totally see how it would be fun to play with, but the thought of walking around doing my day to day thing with a gun on me just seems odd and a little scary. I really don't want to shoot anyone, ever, unless I absolutely have to, or be shot for that matter, and carrying one makes the liklihood of both of those things much higher.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Monty3038 View Post
    And from the tone of Wuf's reply, sounds like Wuf is very much against this.
    My reply was just a comment on availability

    As to what you're referring to, I really like guns. I was raised around them, shoot them, think they're awesome, etc. But the US has a pathology about them. Gun enthusiasts have so much power and such little empathy that some of our gun laws are so incredibly stupid that US distribution is responsible for many more firearms getting in the hands of criminals and the unstable than any other place on the planet, and it's not even close

    Mexico isn't a gangland because it's hot
  12. #12
    Ravageur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,283
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Geez, this thread is fascinating. I have no intention of starting a political flamewar as obviously millions of people disagree with me, but I have to say I'm with griffey on this one. I don't really understand the interest with guns. If this were stamps or coins or something, then to each his own, but stamps don't kill stuff. I guess i'm just a pussy and I wouldn't want to live somewhere where people at the grocery store can have a gun in their purse (not that it's impossible in Canada but far less likely). I can relate with people having hunting rifles locked up that they intend to use, but I can't conceive of why you would want an AK-47 which can only be useful to frighten and kill people. Even if you think it looks cool and have no intention of carrying it with you or using it, I would suspect one wouldn't want to support an industry that thrives on fear and violence. Just play Call of Duty. This thread is also made crazier after the shit that's going down in the States in recent weeks.

    /rant

    Carry on (don't mind us canucks, you guys just scare the shit out of us...except M2M)
    Family Cruise IMO
  13. #13
    I want the 8 gauge from Appoloosa so bad

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Ravageur View Post
    Geez, this thread is fascinating. I have no intention of starting a political flamewar as obviously millions of people disagree with me, but I have to say I'm with griffey on this one. I don't really understand the interest with guns. If this were stamps or coins or something, then to each his own, but stamps don't kill stuff. I guess i'm just a pussy and I wouldn't want to live somewhere where people at the grocery store can have a gun in their purse (not that it's impossible in Canada but far less likely). I can relate with people having hunting rifles locked up that they intend to use, but I can't conceive of why you would want an AK-47 which can only be useful to frighten and kill people. Even if you think it looks cool and have no intention of carrying it with you or using it, I would suspect one wouldn't want to support an industry that thrives on fear and violence. Just play Call of Duty. This thread is also made crazier after the shit that's going down in the States in recent weeks.

    /rant

    Carry on (don't mind us canucks, you guys just scare the shit out of us...except M2M)
    Dont mind debating this in the least bit, would just prefer not to do it in this thread, lets split it. Guns are always locked up, and I don't have any ammo at my house at all. If I or someone is going to hurt/kill with my weapons, they have to bring their own. All my ammo is at my farm, we shoot clay targets and blow up pumkins and stuff. I will post some vids of it sometime.......


    split this plz modzzzz
  15. #15
    I think I'm inb4 split. Agree pretty much entirely with danarong, and with how trik rolls, can certainly see the appeal in taking an AK-47 (or whatever else) out to a range and shooting shit (and obv have no problem with hunting weapons), but people rocking around with concealed pistols in their day-to-day life strikes me as absurd, for reasons ranging from safety to just buy a penis pump.
  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    what is this Appoloosa you speak of? Looks interesting.
    Decent western. Most people will only think it's good if they have a hard on for westerns like me
  17. #17
    Lukie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    10,758
    Location
    Never read any stickies or announcements
    Quote Originally Posted by kiwiMark View Post
    I think I'm inb4 split. Agree pretty much entirely with danarong, and with how trik rolls, can certainly see the appeal in taking an AK-47 (or whatever else) out to a range and shooting shit (and obv have no problem with hunting weapons), but people rocking around with concealed pistols in their day-to-day life strikes me as absurd, for reasons ranging from safety to just buy a penis pump.
    So elderly people or small females who live in bad neighborhoods shouldn't be able to defend themselves?

    Also please cite your safety concerns. From the research that I have done, crime is significantly lower for those with ccw permits relative to general society.

    Trik is right, split this thread.
  18. #18
    lolzzz_321's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,476
    Location
    My ice is polarized
    {split by lolzzz_321}
  19. #19
    Lukie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    10,758
    Location
    Never read any stickies or announcements
    I generally support ccw and the like but I'm not particularly militant about it. However the reasons that people give for being against it are almost always laughable and generally revolve around some feeling of uneasiness or assumption that people only carry because they have a small penis.

    Make some decent arguments and I might just agree with you.
  20. #20
    Lukie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    10,758
    Location
    Never read any stickies or announcements
    also, thread title makes no sense to me. I see my name popping up all over the place and don't really understand it. Ah well
  21. #21
    It is a mistake to claim that firearm ownership or carry contributes to crime reductions. It is possible that they can on some level at the micro individual level, but that's still shaky. I would probably support firearm ownership of everything below full auto if certification and distribution wasn't so crummy and corrupt. As the US is now, we'd be substantially safer with a full gun ban than where we're at now. That's stupid, however, but no more stupid than current policy that shovels firearms into the wrong hands

    I really do hate that retarded Second Amendment though. It was revolutionary at the time, but if Jefferson were alive today, he wouldn't have written it in
  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    My reply was just a comment on availability

    As to what you're referring to, I really like guns. I was raised around them, shoot them, think they're awesome, etc. But the US has a pathology about them. Gun enthusiasts have so much power and such little empathy that some of our gun laws are so incredibly stupid that US distribution is responsible for many more firearms getting in the hands of criminals and the unstable than any other place on the planet, and it's not even close

    Mexico isn't a gangland because it's hot
    I'd think the argument for Mexico being a gangland was more due to economic factors...

    I agree some of our laws are stupid, but the problem in the US is guns are what helped free our country, making us nostalgic for the past and unwilling to give them up for fear of falling back into tyranny... even though this is pretty stupid at this point...

    Regardless, it is a huge topic and argument... but I was never raised around guns, don't own a functional one (own one I have disabled, it was a collector item from my family's history). I've fired a few... over different periods in my life.. and I'm for the ability and right to own them. On concealed carry I'm a little torn...
  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It is a mistake to claim that firearm ownership or carry contributes to crime reductions. It is possible that they can on some level at the micro individual level, but that's still shaky. I would probably support firearm ownership of everything below full auto if certification and distribution wasn't so crummy and corrupt. As the US is now, we'd be substantially safer with a full gun ban than where we're at now. That's stupid, however, but no more stupid than current policy that shovels firearms into the wrong hands

    I really do hate that retarded Second Amendment though. It was revolutionary at the time, but if Jefferson were alive today, he wouldn't have written it in
    The problem with this:

    They can easily get them anyway.
    Government loses a lot of revenue.
  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Trikflow77 View Post
    The problem with this:

    They can easily get them anyway.
    Government loses a lot of revenue.
    Criminals get guns due to lax laws, and there is no governmental revenue that way either
  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Monty3038 View Post
    I'd think the argument for Mexico being a gangland was more due to economic factors... .
    Economic factors exclusively on the shoulders of US gun and drug policy. The drug lords rely on illegal drugs and a poorly regulated firearm market in the US. This has bred a gangland that suppresses economic investment in Mexico, increases crime in both US and Mexico, and feeds illegal immigration
  26. #26
    flomo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    5,603
    Location
    mashing potatoes
    Quote Originally Posted by griffey24 View Post
    I'm viewing it more along the lines of, wondering why guns go up in value when cars don't go up in value. The instance you use a car it depreciates some massive %, whereas the instant you use a gun, it doesn't.

    I suppose in this case, its due to the high quality maintenance.
    cars suck
  27. #27
    Yeahh, so inb4 everyone calls me overly sheltered or 'omg you must be blind' etc etc, but in 27 years living in this country, I've never seen a firearm in the hands of someone who shouldn't have one. I've never heard a pistol go off any of the countless times I've walked the streets of my city in the wee hours of the morning, even in the shadier parts of town. I've never had a gun pulled on me, or heard of this happening to anyone I know. I don't even hear of drive-bys or excessive gang violence or even shootings of any kind with any sort of regularity. And I live in a city of 3.5 million.

    Some dude in the other thread wrote about having a 'daily carry'. This sickens me. I wouldn't want to live anywhere where I was required to carry a weapon for my own safety. I think this to be the height of insanity.

    Tell me that the novelty of being able to collect firearms and go to the firing range a few times a year is worth the inevitable cost to society that comes with the legalization of carrying concealed weapons. I suppose the type of society I've outlined above just ain't worth this supposed 'freedom' you'd be giving up, huh.

    And before anyone calls me a pacifist, I should probably point out that in my teenage years, I spent a great deal of time honing my skills as part of the shooting team in my army cadet unit. I even earned the first-class shot distinction. Generally we used old Lee Enfield rifles, which were heavy as shit esp. considering they were pretty oversized in the hands of a 14-year-old. These last saw service in WW2. I'd probably really be able to fuck shit up with a more modern weapon.
  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Penneywize View Post
    Tell me that the novelty of being able to collect firearms and go to the firing range a few times a year is worth the inevitable cost to society that comes with the legalization of carrying concealed weapons. I suppose the type of society I've outlined above just ain't worth this supposed 'freedom' you'd be giving up, huh.
    It's a popular false dichotomy. Things like firearm ownership and conceal carry are not a problem. The problems are the legality of unqualified and undocumented sale, purchase, and possession of firearms

    The gun debate is never about the real issue.
  29. #29
    DropTheBanana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    763
    Location
    Humping the American Dream
    I don't carry to be flashy or try to flex my nuts like I'm Dirty Harry. I'd carry something bigger than a .25 if I wanted to do that. In fact, most people I interact with during the course of a day have no idea I'm carrying. I keep them on a need to know basis.

    I never owned or realistically considered buying a gun until I was robbed at gunpoint in my own house. I obv hope the day never comes where I have to point one at a human, but I wouldn't hesitate if my family, household, or my person are ever threatened in that manner again.

    I'm not asking anyone to agree with me since I figure debating things like gun issues is like fighting a brick wall (for either side you're debating) and I don't think people who are against it are pussies or any less of a person in my eyes, just someone with a different opinion and view.

    All my guns are bought from dealers and all are registered with the Sheriff's Dept. I will agree that private sales of guns is pretty ridiculous and slack. I haven't looked at the statistics but I'll go out on a limb and say that a huge chunk of guns used for criminal activities are bought through a private seller. That's where the biggest issue is imo.
  30. #30
    Galapogos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    6,876
    Location
    The Loser's Lounge
    What I don't understand is why do Americans actually like guns so much though? I don't mean that in a negative way.

    If it's to shoot stuff, I'm just as happy using a toy like a pellet gun since the whole point for me is the challenge of hitting the target, it doesn't matter how powerful the system I'm using is. I have shot actual guns at ranges before and always thought the whole experience was pretty meh.

    What I mean is, in Canada you can still get guns illegally or legally if you really wanted one that bad. But the vast majority don't have this fascination with guns like it seems is pretty common with a lot of Americans. Where does that come from?


    Quote Originally Posted by sauce123
    I don't get why you insist on stacking off with like jack high all the time.
  31. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by DropTheBanana View Post
    I don't carry to be flashy or try to flex my nuts like I'm Dirty Harry. I'd carry something bigger than a .25 if I wanted to do that. In fact, most people I interact with during the course of a day have no idea I'm carrying. I keep them on a need to know basis.

    I never owned or realistically considered buying a gun until I was robbed at gunpoint in my own house. I obv hope the day never comes where I have to point one at a human, but I wouldn't hesitate if my family, household, or my person are ever threatened in that manner again.

    I'm not asking anyone to agree with me since I figure debating things like gun issues is like fighting a brick wall (for either side you're debating) and I don't think people who are against it are pussies or any less of a person in my eyes, just someone with a different opinion and view.

    All my guns are bought from dealers and all are registered with the Sheriff's Dept. I will agree that private sales of guns is pretty ridiculous and slack. I haven't looked at the statistics but I'll go out on a limb and say that a huge chunk of guns used for criminal activities are bought through a private seller. That's where the biggest issue is imo.
    What I always worry about with the home defense line of thinking is that someone will end up dead. And that someone could just as likely be you if both parties are armed. It seems if you get robbed at gun point the assailant is typically not looking to shoot you, just to scare you into handing your shit over. But if you are armed it escalates the situation. Also it creates the scenario where the intruder successfully gains entry and catches you trying to get to the gun. If you did not have the gun, you would just be passive and all you lose is a bit of ego and some material goods. But I know that if I had a gun and was in that situation, someone is getting fucking shot... I'm not gonna tell the guy to "FREEZE!", I'm fucking shooting him. And I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that

    p.s. For home defense I'd want a larger caliber.. hell for a ccw I'd want a large caliber. If I get into a situation where I feel the use of a gun is warranted, I do not want the other guy to be hurt, I want him dead.
  32. #32
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Galapogos View Post
    What I don't understand is why do Americans actually like guns so much though? I don't mean that in a negative way.

    If it's to shoot stuff, I'm just as happy using a toy like a pellet gun since the whole point for me is the challenge of hitting the target, it doesn't matter how powerful the system I'm using is. I have shot actual guns at ranges before and always thought the whole experience was pretty meh.

    What I mean is, in Canada you can still get guns illegally or legally if you really wanted one that bad. But the vast majority don't have this fascination with guns like it seems is pretty common with a lot of Americans. Where does that come from?
    Yeah, but your points and question are really a nothing with respect to the discussion. It's just one of the many differences between America and Canada; no different than me wondering how it is you like hockey so much when there's perfectly good Football to be played.

    We might be very similar people when it comes down to it but this is just one of those things. The reason why I like guns is because my family has always liked and respected guns and I share that with them.

    America in general is a country which celebrates it's origins (rebellion against the gov't), the 2nd ammendment, and the iconic wild west. It's history has woven gun-loving into the DNA of the country.

    edit And that is not to say that gun-loving is ubiquitous in the states. There are people who do not like guns and are American citizens.
    Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 01-22-2011 at 02:05 PM.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  33. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Galapogos View Post
    What I don't understand is why do Americans actually like guns so much though? I don't mean that in a negative way.

    If it's to shoot stuff, I'm just as happy using a toy like a pellet gun since the whole point for me is the challenge of hitting the target, it doesn't matter how powerful the system I'm using is. I have shot actual guns at ranges before and always thought the whole experience was pretty meh.

    What I mean is, in Canada you can still get guns illegally or legally if you really wanted one that bad. But the vast majority don't have this fascination with guns like it seems is pretty common with a lot of Americans. Where does that come from?
    "this america, man.."
  34. #34
    DropTheBanana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    763
    Location
    Humping the American Dream
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    p.s. For home defense I'd want a larger caliber.. hell for a ccw I'd want a large caliber. If I get into a situation where I feel the use of a gun is warranted, I do not want the other guy to be hurt, I want him dead.
    I can shoot the .25 with ~1-2" spread at 25 yds and the .357 is roughly triple the spread size for me. That's in optimal conditions.

    Like I said, I really hope it never comes down to it, but if need be I'd take accuracy over the ability to put a carrot sized hole in someone.

    Bigger guns are fun to shoot, but hell even a .22 will more than likely stop someone from pursuing their original intentions.
  35. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It's a popular false dichotomy. Things like firearm ownership and conceal carry are not a problem. The problems are the legality of unqualified and undocumented sale, purchase, and possession of firearms

    The gun debate is never about the real issue.
    Uh ok there wuf. I guess there's no correlation between lax gun ownership + concealed weapon laws and firearm-related murder rates.

    I really have no idea what you're getting at, to be honest. Are you trying to say that if there weren't "unqualified and undocumented sale, purchase, and possession of firearms" that your country's murder rates would be on par with other 1st world nations? Seeing as how every other country has this problem as well, I don't see the logic in what you're saying. The one thing that separates the united states from other countries in this regard (ignoring cultural aspects, etc) is legislation on concealed weapons and ownership.

    DTB - I have to admit, I may be whistling a different tune if I'd been robbed at gunpoint in my own home. I really don't know how I'd react to something like that.

    'rilla - I hate the fucking 'its because of our history' argument. I know we've all seen bowling for columbine, and I personally think Michael Moore is a tard, but it's fairly obvious that this whole concept doesn't make a great deal of sense. Germany has a far bloodier history than the US, yet still no ridiculous amts of firearms or firearm-related deaths. Canada fought in 1812, WWI, WWII, korea etc etc. and our rates are only a fraction of what yours are.
  36. #36
    America is a gun nut because of the legal foundation in the Second Amendment and the political leverage of vilification and paranoia.

    Firearms for home invasion are successful much more in the threat aspect than the actual use. Getting a big dog or a sign that says "A big gun lives here" or something will do more than the actual process of shooting an intruder. I still like firearms for defense though, but if you're not using a shotgun, you're doing it wrong. You're not looking to shoot, but to scare.

    I'm not sure if it's worth discussing the times that Hollywood comes a-calling and it's some elaborate kidnapping scene where you not only have the chance to use the gun, but you want to.

    You gotta think like the criminals. 99% of them will not mess with a place that houses a dog called Rex, and 99.99% will not mess with a place that looks like Jimbo and Sally Sue shoot clay pigeons on the weekend
  37. #37
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Penneywize View Post
    'rilla - I hate the fucking 'its because of our history' argument. I know we've all seen bowling for columbine, and I personally think Michael Moore is a tard, but it's fairly obvious that this whole concept doesn't make a great deal of sense. Germany has a far bloodier history than the US, yet still no ridiculous amts of firearms or firearm-related deaths. Canada fought in 1812, WWI, WWII, korea etc etc. and our rates are only a fraction of what yours are.
    I didn't say it was because of Canadian history or German history, I said it was because of American history. You can not like it as much as you want, but that doesn't sway how things are.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  38. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Penneywize View Post
    I really have no idea what you're getting at, to be honest. Are you trying to say that if there weren't "unqualified and undocumented sale, purchase, and possession of firearms" that your country's murder rates would be on par with other 1st world nations? Seeing as how every other country has this problem as well, I don't see the logic in what you're saying. The one thing that separates the united states from other countries in this regard (ignoring cultural aspects, etc) is legislation on concealed weapons and ownership.
    Other first world nations don't have nearly the problem of undocumented sale of large caliber firearms as US. Criminals don't have much along the way of concealed weapons permits. Criminals and the gangs get most of their firepower from legal yet undocumented distribution that other countries don't have and from normally honest retail sources that think the government has tied up their Republican Congressperson and is trying to smash their door down going under the table
  39. #39
    Ya, fighting in foreign wars is completely different than overthrowing an oppressive foreign proxy ruler and declaring independence. Also the very point in time in which our rebellion took place was a brief window in history where an armed populace could actually be formed into a professional army. And so at that time when the amendment was written, it was seen as a safe guard against tyrannical rule. Is it still an effective safeguard? Probably not.. but it certainly is a fairly unique piece of U.S. history.


    DTB, no shit your spread is way better with the .25 vs the .357 But I bet you wouldn't see nearly as much of a difference if you replaced the .357 with a glock which is not a big chunk of elephant downing metal.
  40. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Ya, fighting in foreign wars is completely different than overthrowing an oppressive foreign proxy ruler and declaring independence. Also the very point in time in which our rebellion took place was a brief window in history where an armed populace could actually be formed into a professional army. And so at that time when the amendment was written, it was seen as a safe guard against tyrannical rule. Is it still an effective safeguard? Definitely, definitely, definitely not.. but it certainly is a fairly unique piece of U.S. history.


    DTB, no shit your spread is way better with the .25 vs the .357 But I bet you wouldn't see nearly as much of a difference if you replaced the .357 with a glock which is not a big chunk of elephant downing metal.
    FYP

    Which is why I hate the Second Amendment so much. It's an incredibly powerful regressive political tool, yet it serves zero purpose in modern society

    Actually, that's not true. What I really hate about the Second is that it's misinterpreted. I want a fucking citizen militia with helicopters and tanks. Not the Republican propaganda that handguns and rifles are the only things standing between you and aircraft carriers.
  41. #41
    This thread has passed me by as I didn't keep up, I'll try to catch up with all the posts and type up something relevant.

    In the meantime to lukie, my standard small-penis thing was pretty poor since there's a lot of room for decent discussion on this issue, it was mostly just in response to dropthebanana's reply to danarong, which I see didn't make it to the Healthy Debate thread. Consider it withdrawn!
  42. #42
    DropTheBanana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    763
    Location
    Humping the American Dream
    Yeah, that was just me trolling Dan a little bit.
  43. #43
    Relevant Drawn Together Episode

    NRA-y-ray

    I agree that "It's our history" is a pretty dumb argument. I am German but I can't be anti-Semitic right?
  44. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by dneureiter View Post
    Relevant Drawn Together Episode

    NRA-y-ray

    I agree that "It's our history" is a pretty dumb argument. I am German but I can't be anti-Semitic right?

    If the gerries had won the war you certainly could.
  45. #45
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by dneureiter View Post
    Relevant Drawn Together Episode

    NRA-y-ray

    I agree that "It's our history" is a pretty dumb argument. I am German but I can't be anti-Semitic right?
    That's like you asking why birds fly and claiming that "flying by flapping their wings" is a dumb argument because you know ostriches and no amount of flapping in the world'll get them airborne.

    You can not like it until you're red in the face, but when you ask "why do Americans love guns so much?" you can't just spit at the answer because "Germans have history too!"

    The circumstances of the American revolution lead to the 2nd Amendment, which influenced the rest of American history, which influences Americans today, which was the subject of the original question.
    Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 01-23-2011 at 10:52 AM.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  46. #46
    This is a very interesting thread to say the least. I have a pretty good perspective on the topic myself. I am a retired Police Officer who has served in just about every position in the field from Reserve Officer, Patrol Officer, Detective and Police Chief. I was also a Range Master at the police academy for many years and not only received several hundred hours of training but performed several thousand hours of instruction. I was going to try and address a lot of the different pros and cons throughout the thread but then thought better of it. Instead I will just state a few of my opinions.

    First off in a perfect world there would be no need to guns but guess what it's do damn late for that now isn't it. They are here and there is nothing that can be done about it at this point. One of the reasons Americans are so passionate about guns and the right to own them is because they played a huge part in our history and our Independence. If you look at country's such as Australia and Canada who outlawed gun ownership you will see that only the good people don't have guns. The bad guys never came forward and turned in their guns. Those country's still have violent crime involving guns but what they don't have are violent crimes being thwarted by armed citizens because their citizens don't have the right to defend themselves. Somebody said that they legally carried a weapon now because they had been the victim of a home invasion robbery. Then somebody else said most criminal who commits such crimes don't intend to kill their victims. I beg to differ with you on this. Many times they do and do you really want to take the chance to find out if this is one of those times? I don't! I will not be a victim period.

    Does this mean that I am going to shoot anybody who tries to steel from me or my family because I would not. My worldly possessions are not worth anybody's life and certainly not worth me having to spend the rest of my life with the guilt of taking a life. But on the other hand should the need arise for me to have to defend the life of myself, a loved one or any innocent person I certainly want to be able to do so. As terrible as it would be for me to have to live my life out knowing I had taken somebody's life I'm sure it would pail in comparison to the agony of living my life know I did not prevent the death of say my child, your wife, somebody's grandfather or just an innocent stranger. No I couldn't not live with that!

    For those of you who have never seen crime or been a victim you owe thanks to weapons for the luxury of your naivete to guns and those who are brave enough to carry them.
    Last edited by HarleyGuy13; 01-23-2011 at 03:56 PM.
    "You start the game with a full pot o’ luck and an empty pot o’ experience...
    The object is to fill the pot of experience before you empty the pot of luck."

    Quote Originally Posted by XxStacksxX View Post
    Do you have testicles? If so, learn to bet like it
  47. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by HarleyGuy13 View Post
    One of the reasons Americans are so passionate about guns and the right to own them is because they played a huge part in our history and our Independence. If you look at country's such as Australia and Canada who outlawed gun ownership you will see that only the good people don't have guns. The bad guys never came forward and turned in their guns. Those country's still have violent crime involving guns but what they don't have are violent crimes being thwarted by armed citizens because their citizens don't have the right to defend themselves.
    Wouldn't that suggest that Canada and Australia should have greater instances of violent crimes involving guns than the US?
  48. #48
    It just never gets to violence. After "You call that a gun? THIS is a gun" the miscreant flees.
    Last edited by kiwiMark; 01-24-2011 at 04:29 AM.
  49. #49
    *chime*
    So you click their picture and then you get their money?
  50. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    FYP

    Which is why I hate the Second Amendment so much. It's an incredibly powerful regressive political tool, yet it serves zero purpose in modern society

    Actually, that's not true. What I really hate about the Second is that it's misinterpreted. I want a fucking citizen militia with helicopters and tanks. Not the Republican propaganda that handguns and rifles are the only things standing between you and aircraft carriers.
    let's start from here, because I'm willing to be swayed from my opinion: in theory, if every able bodied citizen had a gun, the government could not implement highly unpopular practices like slavery or 100% taxation because all demographics of society would have considerable power to prevent it. Even if it came to bloodshed the 'cost' to the majority to oppress the minority would be so great as to discourage rational minds from attempting it. so in a sense the second amendment does guarantee protection against tyranny. guns are so powerful that they have the potential to be an equalizer, so long as the government isn't the only one with fully automatic assault rifles.

    the main caveats to this theory being 1. not everyone owns a gun or will, and so for example asian-americans or middle class Oregonian's lol are grossly underrprotected demographics and 2. "rational minds" never describes collective movements

    not to say I don't think the citizen militia idea is appealing, but I think it would be nearly as complicated and vulnerable to corruption as the governments military. I just read a book about Pat Tillman, a soldier who died in Afghanistan. I am officially disillusioned with the military
    Quote Originally Posted by Carroters
    Ambition is fucking great, but you're trying to dig up gold with a rocket launcher and are going to blow the whole lot to shit unless you refine your tools
  51. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    358
    Location
    getting reemed by fee hikes, ca
    Quote Originally Posted by Vi-Zer0Skill View Post
    but I think it would be nearly as vulnerable to corruption as the governments military.
    like exponentially more vulnerable
    Last edited by thelorax; 01-25-2011 at 04:02 AM.
  52. #52
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Since I'm typically a massive troll, I'll be serious for a moment and mention that I grew up around guns and all that shit. I went to two elementary schools, and the Wikipedia entry for one of those is the following:

    Most children in the area attend Forbush Elementary School, a kindergarten through eighth-grade community school at Bloomtown Road and Old U.S. 421. The school, which first opened in 1935, is a source of pride in the community. The school's hunter's safety team has won the National Junior Youth Hunter Education Challenge, a National Rifle Association sponsored event, six times: 1989, 1990, 2005, 2006, 2007,2008 and 2009.[18] The 2007 team compiled a score of 7,580, 792 points over the second-place team from Utah, and took honors in all events.
    The event's only been held since like 1985 or something, so 6 out of 25 isn't so bad for winning nationals. The other elementary school I went to was Fall Creek, and there's this big thing each year between Forbush Elementary and Fall Creek Elementary because both of the shooting teams are so damn good, but one of them has to get beat out by the other at the state tournament, so both don't get to go to nationals.

    My high school was Forbush High School, and they've won nationals for the high school competition a lot, too. I decided to look it up for every year since when I graduated high school just for the lols.

    2003 - Forbush Elementary wins second at nationals. Forbush High School also wins second.

    2004 - Two of the top 3 elementary school individuals live on the same road as my parents, each less than two miles away in each direction. Forbush High School wins third in nationals, Fall Creek Elementary wins second.

    2005 - Forbush Elementary and Forbush High School both win nationals.

    2006 - Forbush Elementary and Forbush High School both win nationals. Again.

    2007 - Forbush Elementary wins again, Forbush High School places second. Top three individual scores for the elementary school competition are within 5 miles of me.

    2008 - Forbush Elementary wins again, Forbush High School doesn't place. Top three individual scores for the elementary school competition are within 5 miles of me. Again.

    2009 - Forbush Elementary wins nationals for the fifth year in a row. Forbush High School wins nationals for the third time in five years. Only two of the top three individuals for the elementary school competition are within 5 miles of me. Maybe they're slipping?

    2010 - Forbush Elementary was beat in the state finals by another NC team which later won nationals. Forbush High School won third place. Two of the top three individuals in both the elementary school and high school divisions were from North Carolina.

    Since someone always asks, I'll go ahead and say that there is no low-end age restriction for the elementary school competition. You just have to be 14 years old or younger at the time of the competition (it's held in the summer at the end of the school year). With that having been said, you have to be at least 11 to be on any of the elementary school shooting teams around here, and 12 to be allowed to compete with the team.

    In b4 rednecks that can shoot straight while fucking their sister.

    Also, I've only been shot at once in my life. I was in some woods I didn't know too well and got really close to a guy's still (that I didn't know was there) and he happened to be there and didn't appreciate it very much.
  53. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Vi-Zer0Skill View Post
    let's start from here, because I'm willing to be swayed from my opinion: in theory, if every able bodied citizen had a gun, the government could not implement highly unpopular practices like slavery or 100% taxation because all demographics of society would have considerable power to prevent it. Even if it came to bloodshed the 'cost' to the majority to oppress the minority would be so great as to discourage rational minds from attempting it. so in a sense the second amendment does guarantee protection against tyranny. guns are so powerful that they have the potential to be an equalizer, so long as the government isn't the only one with fully automatic assault rifles.

    the main caveats to this theory being 1. not everyone owns a gun or will, and so for example asian-americans or middle class Oregonian's lol are grossly underrprotected demographics and 2. "rational minds" never describes collective movements

    not to say I don't think the citizen militia idea is appealing, but I think it would be nearly as complicated and vulnerable to corruption as the governments military. I just read a book about Pat Tillman, a soldier who died in Afghanistan. I am officially disillusioned with the military
    The Second Amendment is about legalizing formation and utility of a citizen controlled army. Ownership of firearms is a means to that end. Back when the amendment was drafted, rifle ownership and the legality of congregation were really the only requisites for that. But it's different now. Not only will all the firearms in the world do nothing to stop modern militaries, but tyranny and freedom itself takes on a much different model.

    I'm not even sure a citizen militia is even relevant today. Keep in mind that this stuff was drafted looooong before things like Federal Reserve. I don't have an answer because I just don't know what a citizen militia would look like in today's society. I do, however, think that the Second was a bad amendment to begin with. What exactly has it done for us? Get a shitload of people killed because rich people wanted to keep their slaves? And it's done absolutely nothing to deter things like martial law

    I don't even think the Second should have been made, and they should have spent more time on other rights like labor and housing. Keep in mind that the framers drafted a constitution wherein slavery was still legal. This wasn't some from down on high shit. They got a bunch wrong. And even what they did get right, some of those rights have been taken from us, yet where are all the gun nuts taking them back?

    The Civil War was the Second in action. Remember that
  54. #54
    Well put, wufology.
  55. #55
    Something I'd like to add is that I believe it is probable that the effects of having a Second Amendment are the opposite of intentions on a psychological level. The Revolutionary War was about the populace creating their own "illegal" Second Amendment, it was a good war. The Civil War was about what I would called an "entitled" populace using the silver spoon they'd been given to go to war for bad reasons. They didn't view war as their last option, but as an option they were entitled to. Without the Second, they would have been simply more reasonable about what they're willing to murder for

    The ability for a populace to rise up and fight tyranny may actually be better without something like a Second Amendment. When you teach people that the only thing that stands between their freedoms and tyranny is their firepower then they're gonna start believing it and will make awful decisions because of it.
  56. #56
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Something I'd like to add is that I believe it is probable that the effects of having a Second Amendment are the opposite of intentions on a psychological level. The Revolutionary War was about the populace creating their own "illegal" Second Amendment, it was a good war. The Civil War was about what I would called an "entitled" populace using the silver spoon they'd been given to go to war for bad reasons. They didn't view war as their last option, but as an option they were entitled to. Without the Second, they would have been simply more reasonable about what they're willing to murder for

    The ability for a populace to rise up and fight tyranny may actually be better without something like a Second Amendment. When you teach people that the only thing that stands between their freedoms and tyranny is their firepower then they're gonna start believing it and will make awful decisions because of it.
    I agree with VI and I think that the fact that crazy silver spoon-enema'ed people actually started the Civil war is a testament to the success of the 2nd amendment and a weakness of democracy as a whole. Though, as a disclaimer, I know next to nothing about the Civil War with any authority, so this is based on the assumption that the above premise is accurate.

    The 2nd amendment is a check on the authority of the gov't - that if they ever do something so unpopular that enough people take arms against it, the gov't should be forced to re-consider. And that's a symptom of weakness of democracy (that the majority should wield the power) and not the weakness of the amendment.

    For me to be willing to drop the 2nd amendment, it would need to be replaced with some new check by the people on the gov't.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  57. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    I agree with VI and I think that the fact that crazy silver spoon-enema'ed people actually started the Civil war is a testament to the success of the 2nd amendment and a weakness of democracy as a whole.
    I believe you missed my point. The hypothesis I've put forward is that the Civil War was a symptom of a bad law. And I don't just mean the ability to take up arms, but the psychology of believing that's not the last option. The Civil War was arguably very avoidable, but it wasn't avoided because our legal culture made a "war for less" kind of thing.

    Let's be frank about the actual results. The 2nd hasn't actually done ANYTHING beneficial yet has arguably done a ton of bad. Besides, what part of that law isn't retarded on a purely logical level? It's not illegal for me to own a gun in order to protect against tyranny, but it is illegal for me to take literal action against tyranny? What?

    The 2nd being legally silly and realistically deleterious is fact. My hypothesis has to do with explaining why that may be. It is the "if the only tool you have is a hammer then every problem is a nail" kind of thing. It is not coincidence that a war culture thinks that war is the answer. It is not coincidence that the 2nd Amendment is largely believed to be an entitlement and the only thing keeping us from tyranny, and the facts of our culture of violence, paranoia, poor political decisions, etc. Maybe if people weren't so focused on guns stopping the phantom tyranny they would actually spend a little time learning how to stop real tyranny.

    I also don't think it's coincidence that US lags far behind other modern constitution countries. The main difference IMO is that we have a 2nd while they don't. The results of modern societies does not vindicate the 2nd. In fact, the results make the 2nd look like it is actually a bad law
  58. #58
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Nope, I think I fully understood your point and I would contend that the Civil War was a bad symptome of a good law adhereing to the ideals of democracy. And I don't dispute your frank and actual results. But you don't seem to understand why it is that I will stand by the 2nd amendment until a reasonable alternative is presented.

    The second amendment was and is a check on the gov't. For me to let go of a check on the gov't without gaining one back isn't an option to me especially considering how obvious it is that the 2nd amendment will not be repealed in our lifetime. If you want to realize your goal of dropping a bad law, then to acquire my support, you would need to supplant it with a new check on the gov't by the people.

    edit I feel a bit religious on this point as I don't care for the force of your arguments or the wealth of your data, how I value the 2nd amendment says that it isn't silly or deleterious enough to see it removed for the sake of removing it.
    Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 01-25-2011 at 04:53 PM.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  59. #59
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    I find the notion of "government" being some sentient independent entity hell bent on suppressing its citizens funny. How about instead of getting a bunch of guns and start shooting each other in the foot you just voted them out if they start doing something you don't like.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  60. #60
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    I find the notion of "government" being some sentient independent entity hell bent on suppressing its citizens funny. How about instead of getting a bunch of guns and start shooting each other in the foot you just voted them out if they start doing something you don't like.
    Yup. But then we also have this in our back pocket.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  61. #61
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    I find the notion of "government" being some sentient independent entity hell bent on suppressing its citizens funny. How about instead of getting a bunch of guns and start shooting each other in the foot you just voted them out if they start doing something you don't like.
    Also, we should be clear, it's an American perspective - for us the gov't is always the enemy. You might think it's silly and that's great, because you have your own views about gov't. All it is is an indication of the diversity of governing forms and cultures. Good on us all, I say, for many of these gov't will fail eventually and all I care for is that we leave open future possibilities.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  62. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    The second amendment was and is a check on the gov't.
    Says who? Says a theory that has not withstood the test of time. Could not the absence of this "check on gov't" actually be a stronger check? If we're examining results, we'll see that the absence of a 2nd is a better "checks and balances" than the existence of one.

    Not only do the results show that the 2nd doesn't check shit, but that it is partially responsible for making things worse. Only in a way is it counterintuitive, but the smart money is on a simple absence of a 2nd improving the whole checks and balances dynamic
  63. #63
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Says who? Says a theory that has not withstood the test of time. Could not the absence of this "check on gov't" actually be a stronger check? If we're examining results, we'll see that the absence of a 2nd is a better "checks and balances" than the existence of one.

    Not only do the results show that the 2nd doesn't check shit, but that it is partially responsible for making things worse. Only in a way is it counterintuitive, but the smart money is on a simple absence of a 2nd improving the whole checks and balances dynamic
    Well, now the force of your facts fails you. The second amendment was a check on the United State government in its design and I still believe it to be today. You can disagree, but I'm willing to bet it would be useful in the right scenarios (but again this is predicting the future, which I am incredibly bad at). And it doesn't matter who says it just as it doesn't matter who says evolution is real.

    But I'll still give you the win for this exchange, as I also feel that even though I stand in a lesser intellectual position, I wield the force of dumber men - that is the weakness of democracy. The second amendment won't budge any time soon.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  64. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Well, now the force of your facts fails you. The second amendment was a check on the United State government in its design and I still believe it to be today. You can disagree, but I'm willing to bet it would be useful in the right scenarios (but again this is predicting the future, which I am incredibly bad at). And it doesn't matter who says it just as it doesn't matter who says evolution is real.
    That's the theory. Which has been shown to be much more likely wrong than right.

    But I'll still give you the win for this exchange, as I also feel that even though I stand in a lesser intellectual position, I wield the force of dumber men - that is the weakness of democracy. The second amendment won't budge any time soon.
    What weakness of democracy, and how is it that the democratic process required to put the 2nd remedies into action doesn't apply to this weakness?


    People can scream until they're blue in the face about how their guns are protecting them from the state or the corporations, but until there's evidence to actually back that up.... The evidence has been gathered for a very long time, and it doesn't support their position
  65. #65
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    That's the theory. Which has been shown to be much more likely wrong than right.



    What weakness of democracy, and how is it that the democratic process required to put the 2nd remedies into action doesn't apply to this weakness?


    People can scream until they're blue in the face about how their guns are protecting them from the state or the corporations, but until there's evidence to actually back that up.... The evidence has been gathered for a very long time, and it doesn't support their position
    Neither of us are Ph.Ds in any of this, so I'm going to call your bluff. Please share with me the full weight of your "theory" which states the removal of the 2nd amendment would provide a greater check on the gov't. Also, it'd be cool to hear why the 2nd amendment was not a check on the gov't.

    And people can scream until they're blue in the face because I'm not. I respect guns, I own guns, and I respect the 2nd amendment for what it was and is. You seem to think that you have all the facts which show a better world on the other side of 2nd amendment repeal and I have to say I'm confident that you can't back it up. I am willing to devote a lot of time to any resources you present to me on this subject because going in to this exchange I was very willing to be exorcised of these beliefs but I just don't think you can back up your arguments. And when I change my mind, I want it to be on firm ground.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  66. #66
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    And on the weakness of democracy, I don't see what was difficult to understand.

    The 2nd amendment was designed in the spirit of democracy, that the people wield the power. Its design was good, its execution may have been less so.

    I think it is a pretty straightforward comment that the majority in a democracy can support the wrong initiative because the stupid people are stupid. And that may very well be the case with the 2nd.
    Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 01-25-2011 at 05:51 PM.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  67. #67
    The US has the strongest pro-gun laws of all other modern democracies, yet is among the least progressed. The same applies to war correlations. As well as things like reform against tyranny by way of protests and policy and such.

    The US is among the worst in these and other categories. I'm not trying to imply causation for the correlations, but that they do lend themselves to likelyhood. There are many other factors as to why US lags in progression even though the 2nd is a strong one.

    The 2nd protecting from tyranny is fairy tale land. What has it actually done? Assloads of unnecessary deaths and doing absolutely nothing to combat the actual tyranny upon us? It is a theory with virtually no evidential backing
  68. #68
    Lukie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    10,758
    Location
    Never read any stickies or announcements
    Legitimite reasons to own a gun or guns, IMO:

    home defense
    self defense
    sporting

    I'm not inclined to believe that citizens toting small arms puts any meaningful deterrent or checks on governments in 2010.
  69. #69
    Lukie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    10,758
    Location
    Never read any stickies or announcements
    holy crap, 2011
  70. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Also, we should be clear, it's an American perspective - for us the gov't is always the enemy. You might think it's silly and that's great, because you have your own views about gov't. All it is is an indication of the diversity of governing forms and cultures. Good on us all, I say, for many of these gov't will fail eventually and all I care for is that we leave open future possibilities.

    It is not a American perspective, it is an anti-federalist perspective. Arguably it is an anti-American sentiment, in that this country, as you have implied, is built on a system of checks and balances. A weak federal body cannot effectively check a powerful local/regional government. You could say that framing a tyrannical government as the enemy is an American perspective, albeit not an uniquely American perspective. However the government is not the enemy, and is only thought to be due to fear mongering propaganda.

    As for the second being an effective check on a potentially tyrannical government, I believe wuf clearly showed this to be nonsense. It is our right to arm our selves to deter the rise of a tyrannical government, yet it is illegal for us to act out against a perceived tyrannical government. Its doublespeak. You are a reasonable person, and I feel a bit let down that you have chosen to stick to your religiously held belief in the second amendment instead of exploring its clear faults and short comings. Furthermore, your argument that to remove it, it should be replaced is absurd. We have established it does not work; if our TV broke, we would throw it out, we wouldn't hold onto it until we got a replacement. Something that is ineffective need only be removed, not replaced.
  71. #71
    The second amendment could actually be seen as a pacifier. I think wuf has also touched on this, but I'm not sure the point has really gotten enough attention. It inspires a black and white, either quietly accepting the perceived tyranny or participating in a full on violent revolt kind of resolve amongst the populace. It allows for a slow erosion of our rights and liberties; when they are slowly chipped away at, their deletion will not illicit a reaction, but instead the small absences will be normalized as we slip into an Orwellian fog.

    At points the populace may look back and say, "Whoa, where did all my rights go!? If they pull this shit just one more time, we'll rise up and overthrow them!" But will they ever really do that? When the status quo is eroded ever so slowly, what will be the tipping point? What small imposition on our rights will inspire us to put our lives, our families lives, and the stability of our nation on the line? I'd wager that by the time that sentiment is wide spread, its far too late. Without the second, people would be much more inspired to participate int the system instead of excluding themselves from it in wait for the tipping point.
    Last edited by boost; 01-25-2011 at 11:40 PM.
  72. #72
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Also, we should be clear, it's an American perspective - for us the gov't is always the enemy. You might think it's silly and that's great, because you have your own views about gov't. All it is is an indication of the diversity of governing forms and cultures. Good on us all, I say, for many of these gov't will fail eventually and all I care for is that we leave open future possibilities.
    In principle I don't necessarily see anything wrong with assuming any government may turn hostile, nor do I think any government is perfect or even anywhere on the same ballpark as that. All possibilities, however, are not created equal and some concept of rationality should be involved. I agree that arming citizens to fight possible oppression by the ruling elite may have been a viable solution some hundreds of years ago, or even today at some places like Rwanda and Liberia, but I see very little relevance or practical benefit in the 2nd amendment today in a modern (despite all the evidence to the contrary) America.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  73. #73
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    The second amendment could actually be seen as a pacifier. I think wuf has also touched on this, but I'm not sure the point has really gotten enough attention. It inspires a black and white, either quietly accepting the perceived tyranny or participating in a full on violent revolt kind of resolve amongst the populace. It allows for a slow erosion of our rights and liberties; when they are slowly chipped away at, their deletion will not illicit a reaction, but instead the small absences will be normalized as we slip into an Orwellian fog.

    At points the populace may look back and say, "Whoa, where did all my rights go!? If they pull this shit just one more time, we'll rise up and overthrow them!" But will they ever really do that? When the status quo is eroded ever so slowly, what will be the tipping point? What small imposition on our rights will inspire us to put our lives, our families lives, and the stability of our nation on the line? I'd wager that by the time that sentiment is wide spread, its far too late. Without the second, people would be much more inspired to participate int the system instead of excluding themselves from it in wait for the tipping point.
    I think this is a very good point and I'm going to take it with me. Maybe the reason why we don't parade into the streets in protest like European countries and now North African countries do is because they can jump to protest much faster than we can jump to armed conflict, and with armed conflict in the back pocket, why get up for just a little protest?

    As for my feelings on the 2nd, I don't really care one way or the other. The 2nd amendment plays no part in my voting decisions. If congress and the president wish to legislate against the 2nd, I won't much care. I like my guns and as long as the 2nd is around, I will be a responsible gun owner. But the 2nd isn't going to go anywhere any time soon and I've always held the belief that at some level it was a check on the gov't, I had simply never attempted to defend it so I gave it a go.

    The 2nd definitely was designed as a check and has evolved into maybe an overly powerful protector of sportsmen but repealing the 2nd would also be a level of bad law. Again, I've never defended this aspect I hear from supporters of the 2nd but I believe it runs something like - removing 300 million guns from America is a task in of itself and only the lawful will 100% relinquish their guns, leaving plenty of guns floating around unsavory back-channels and likely creating an enormous black market.

    So the 2nd isn't moving, I might as well find the reasons why I like it. But I think the above post is a point strong enough to at least abandon the thought that the 2nd is today about checking the gov't and its army. Doesn't mean I will though, my mind changes slowly on this issue since I haven't really spent much time thinking about it, I've just always accepted it.
    Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 01-26-2011 at 07:57 AM.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  74. #74
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I want the 8 gauge from Appoloosa so bad

    This was a good flick. I especially liked the ending.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  75. #75
    K, gonna add apololososopolus to my netflix.

    And Rilla, I think you are confused about the ramifications of repealing the second amendment. Without it guns do not suddenly become illegal. What it does is opens the door for all sorts of gun regulation. We can have anti-handgun laws put back on the books in LA, Chicago, New York, etc. Many States/counties/cities/etc may erect laws that completely outlaw gun ownership, but its more likely that where there are bans on guns there will be exceptions carved out for sport and hunting weapons. It would be highly unlikely that there would be a law introduced at the federal level banning guns, and it is more than likely that little would change immediately; Texas would still allow you to own fully auto ak-47's, gattling guns, and rocket propelled grenade launchers, and states that don't have such a second amendment loving climate would have laws more similar to that of Canada's.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •