Jump to content

Milord

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    405

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Milord

    Should Gun Ownership Be Mandatory?

    in General Debate

    Posted · Edited by Milord

    Page 12: "21 of the 45 incidents (46.7%) required law enforcement to engage the shooter."

     

    Fourteenth Amendment:

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Article 6 Clause 2 of the Constitution:

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    Legitimately my birthright.

     

    I could've sworn you said in another thread that you lived in Turkey.

     

     

    NATO is the name of the caliber, not referencing the actual alliance. It was designed for NATO use, which is where it gets its name from, but nowhere in there did I say that NATO allows x.

     

    Thank you.

     

    There is already a law against murder. That doesn’t seem to be stopping the killing. What makes you think a law against guns will make all 320,000,000+ guns disappear?

     

    Ok.

     

    Yes, but is that necessarily a bad thing if they are oppressed? Shouldn't the people be able overthrow their government if they are being oppressed? As Goebbels said after the Jewish Warsaw revolt in World War II: “This just shows what you can expect from Jews if they lay hands on weapons."

    Really, well-armed citizenry is deterrent enough in itself. Check out what happened at the Bundy ranch (whether or not you think they were on the right side of the law, the point still holds). The government will think twice before engaging in tyrannical acts if its opponents are well armed, not wishing to further provoke a bloody mass uprising. The threat of rebellion is itself a deterrent. Our guns are quashing tyranny even as they lie unused.

     

    Does ours? I must've missed that part.

     

    That's what Amendments are for. When an Amendment is ratified, it becomes part of the Constitution. So the absolute original Constitution did allow that, but now it doesn't. Now every American citizen is allowed to vote according to our updated Constitution.

     

    MQBvV5k.jpg

     

    Does that apply to the 1st Amendment too? Do you still write with a quill pen? Obviously not if you are posting here.

    [/quote/]

    English is not my first language so I am trying my hardest to understand you, don't be a prick about it pls.

    Anyway I don't know why I am fighting you its not even my country,(IF U WANT TO DISCUSS THIS GLOBALLY CALL ME) if u want everyone with a gun well be advised that nothing goes as plan especially with humanity.

    When US is full of gun I will watch carefully to see what happens and then we will know who is right.

    Goodbye have fun.... with guns or whatever....

    Should Gun Ownership Be Mandatory?

    in General Debate

    Posted

    They robbed a guy of almost everything he had, including guns, but they weren't an actual part of the bombing.  The part where you assumed that police stopped the remaining % of shootings.  Ok.  Well, the Department of Homeland Security disagrees with you. The Department has a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm. It's what you would call an “assault weapon†because it’s, and I quote, “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.†The only differences are that they call it a “personal defense weapon†instead of the made-up term “assault weapon,†and their version gets to shoot multiple shots per trigger pull, unlike anything available to U.S citizens. Also, there are other weapons than rifles. http://www.gunbroker.com/item/581183210http://www.gunbroker.com/item/579932899Back when she was alive, my grandma carried this. http://www.ruger.com/products/lcp/models.html I doubt she would let a kid have her gun. It really depends on the child, though. I walked around my grandma's land with a shotgun for snakes at 8 years old. If she doesn't trust the kids with her gun, she will probably: -hide it -keep it with her -use a cable lock -use a safe -use one of these (really cool idea)  When did I ever say that you could? Terrorists will always find a way. However, you can stop a guy with a gun if you have a gun. Just Google and you’ll find them. Here’s one recent one: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/doctor-2-shot-pennsylvania-hospital-article-1.1879032You are forgetting a terribly important aspect of concealed carry: deterrence. There are countless times when a would-be attacker was fended off simply when the victim drew--not fired--the weapon. A gun doesn’t need to be fired in order to be a successful used for self-defense. This has to be one of the most stupid things I've read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_ActUnless majority of the country is overthrowing the government, it's not happening. However, if majority of the people were on the same page, we would be justified in doing so according to our Founding Fathers. (Spoiler tags for mobile users. Large image.)

    Lu3dzK9.jpg

     Owning a firearm is my birthright as an American. It, along with other rights articulated in the Constitution, is what makes me an American. Feel free to stay in Turkey. By the way, how was your attempted coup? I've been meaning to ask you that for a while.

    We all know that NATO is controlled by the US ,so NATO allowing it its basically US talking to a mirror.

    Some of your points are correct, (relatively cuz situations change, the safety for kids looks reasonably, but what happens if the kid goes mad,or wants revenge ,and starts killing other kids with his "american birthright" , and kids with there "american birthright" defend themselves, so a firefight starts and its a "american deathright".

    I wasn't talking about the US in specific, I was talking about The world , I ignored the D.T op because it looked a bate for a presidential debate, and krystof talking about Australia, I thought this was a global thing.

    Anyway a rise up could still happen,if we are talking global.

    And as I said a constitution from 1700 needs to be updated,if some countries still had the constitution from 1700 they would probably kill Jews, as its there" birthright"( no religious freedom).And according to your Constitution you can also own people,And in the 1700 the guns were basically muskets and crap compared to Automatic Guns that exist today.

    Should Gun Ownership Be Mandatory?

    in General Debate

    Posted

    I suppose you’re right, when a 65-year-old grandma is accosted getting off a bus somewhere at night in a poor neighborhood in the dark by a towering 230-pound man, who is out for her money or intending on more nefarious goals, she’ll be able to easily fend him off with her fists and knitting needles. (From earlier ITT) Arms are absolutely integral to self preservation - it was a cornerstone of our countries belief in human rights. It means that a 95 pound woman has the ability to fight off a 210 pound assailant, that a 13 year old girl can keep her 7 year old brother safe from two robbers, it keeps the LGBT community from being bashed, and it maintains the ability for everyone to vote. The Second Amendment is there for all of us. It does not care about color, creed, sexuality, religion (or the lack thereof), your wealth, health, class, or home. It doesn't choose sides. Why would you want to take that freedom away?

     

    When did body shaming become an acceptable practice? 

     

    I’m open to listening, but honestly, every time I hear the phrase “restrictions,†it turns out to be anything BUT helpful restrictions.

    Examples: prohibiting cosmetic features on weapons deemed "assault rifles†even though they don't have select fire. They’re just semi-automatic rifles. They’re not “assault rifles†because they have a military look. Changing their looks is not going to make them less deadly. Banning high-capacity magazines with the Sandy Hook kids standing behind you, acting like it's an anti-mass shooting bill, when it's just as practical for a crazy person to perform a mass shooting with a handgun and a backpack full of magazines, as happened Virginia Tech. Banning a specific type of handgun used in the Columbine shootings, when any number of other handguns could be used to wreak the same havok. By “restrictions†politicians mean totally stupid and utterly meaningless efforts.

     

    First I said the first part was a joke .

    Second If u think a grandma with an AK 47 can defend herself from a group of robber u are wrong.

    What if it was a kid in grannie's place , will kid have a gun or not?If so what if shots himself by accident.

    Third how can a gun stop a terrorist or other tipes of bombings ,its literary almost impossible. How can a gun stop a Van from mowing a crowd even if u shoot the driver the van still carries on murdering people until it has no speed left,that would take some time.

     

    Forth how do know that if everyone owns a gun as you would like it to be, they won't simply reign in anarchy cuz they know they simply can't be stoped by the police,they can do what they want, they would join a pack and rule in anarchy.How do you they won't start a coup with snipers and Kalashnikovs.Let me tell you what would likely happen if you give everyone guns:

    White Racist(Black racist)man shoots black man.

    The news talk all about it.

    Black man shoots white man avenging the black man that died.

    A group of white men grow tired of the situation and arm up in the hope of mass shooting a group of black men, and they do.

    A group of Black men also grow tired of the situation and also arm up in hope to confront the group of white men, with their newly bought guns.

    Congrats you just started a civil war.

    Should Gun Ownership Be Mandatory?

    in General Debate

    Posted · Edited by Milord

    I'll probbaly get warned for this, but seriously, you're dumb as hell.

    Ohh my feelings are hurt , I guess I have to go cry in the corner now, Half-man(I wanted to say another word but I am sure I would getban) please ,I don't know why you posted that without a coherent justification.

    PS:I don't give a damm about what u think.

    Should Gun Ownership Be Mandatory?

    in General Debate

    Posted

    Doesn't work like that. 

     

    -You used my method to determine efficiency. 

    -You missed a vital part in your stats, making them flawed. 

     

    At this point, you have two options. 

     

    1) Admit that your post is stupid and post the actual numbers. 

    2) Admit defeat. 

     

    Take your pick.  :rolleyes:

     

     

    All of these threads tend to have a reoccurring theme. As posted earlier ITT, a psycho doesn’t really need guns to kill people in large numbers. The Oklahoma City bomber used a homemade fertilizer bomb. The 9-11 killers used boxcutters and jets. The Happy Land murder only used gasoline and a lighter to take out 87 people. The 2015 Las Vegas car murderer used a car to drive up onto the sidewalk on the Strip, mowing people down. It’s unhelpful and dangerous to focus too narrowly just on the tool used (gun, bomb, gas) and overlook or downplay the primary problem in these situation, which is the murderer. 

     

    Just what has changed so much from then to now to make you think it’s no longer relevant? Do people no longer try to control other people? Are there no more wars? Do we no longer have the right to defend ourselves?

     

    First of all u can defend yourself with your fists and body like a real MAN (a little bit of humour doesn't hurt), also I didn't say it was gonna make people sane,just put some hard restrictions in it at least it won't solve all your problems but it will certainly help.

    Should Gun Ownership Be Mandatory?

    in General Debate

    Posted · Edited by Milord

    I posted an explosion because it was the most deadly school massacre in American history. It didn't involve a gun, did it? A psycho doesn’t really need guns to kill people in large numbers. The Oklahoma City bomber used a homemade fertilizer bomb. The 9-11 killers used boxcutters and jets. The Happy Land murder only used gasoline and a lighter to take out 87 people. The 2015 Las Vegas car murderer used a car to drive up onto the sidewalk on the Strip, mowing people down. It’s unhelpful and dangerous to focus too narrowly just on the tool used (gun, bomb, gas) and overlook or downplay the primary problem in these situation, which is the murderer.

     

    Of all of the things that could possibly contribute to people going crazy and shooting up schools-the society we live in and lack of compassion and morality, the violence demonstrated in video games and in movies, rap songs, the pharmaceuticals a lot of these kids are on, the lack of respect for human life, and so much more. Of all the things you want to leap to in order to solve the problem, you choose to pick a fundamental Constitutional right? Can’t we talk about all the other low-hanging fruit before we start an attack on an essential civil liberty? Could you have picked anything more controversial?

     

     

    et tu. Re-read my post.

     

    Here we don't let crazy people own guns ,and we don't kill kids who are in school(there are no school shootings), are you saying its an American thing and shouldn't be stopped, we have rap , violent video games.

    Just because its in a constitution ,doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.Especially one that was made in 1700…

    Should Gun Ownership Be Mandatory?

    in General Debate

    Posted

    Disclaimer: I don't agree with OP. 

     

     

    Something needs to be done to help prevent school shootings, but restricting guns isn’t it. Did you know that the worse school mass killing in U.S. history, the Bath school massacre, wasn’t done with guns at all, but with a pickup truck full of explosives? 38 kids and 6 adults were murdered. Let’s not fool ourselves, and let’s not lose focus, the guns are not the primary root cause here. It’s sick, twisted, evil people who are hell-bent on doing harm.

     

     

    Not this again. I need to find a way to make this fit in my signature. 

     sJhAhC3.jpg

     

     

    While OP is stupid, most states require a certain amount of training before you can get your concealed carry permit. Let's play with some numbers now. 

     http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/10/report-number-of-concealed-carry-permits-surges-as-violent-crime-rate-drops/

    11.1 million CC permit holders

     

    (Warning: Below link is a PDF.)

    FBI Active Shooter Study 2000-2013https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi7hdib8vHOAhXBKyYKHUwoCzIQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Ffile-repository%2Factive-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGeZ-z-W1DIBCrFizVuoxH0LRnu9g&sig2=kv30c655Z2n-T-EE5X8kMw

     

    • In 21 incidents (13.1%), the situation ended after unarmed citizens safely and successfully restrained the shooter. In 2 of those incidents,24 3 off-duty law enforcement officers were present and assisted.
    • In 5 incidents (3.1%), the shooting ended after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters. In these incidents, 3 shooters were killed, 1 was wounded, and 1 committed suicide.
    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=US

    321,000,000 million people in the US. 

     

    I had a hard time finding numbers, but most sources tend to place the number of police at 1,000,000 in the US. 

     

    So, 11,000,000 (rounded down for easy math) million people in the US stopped 3.1% of all shootings, while 309,000,000 stopped 13.1% of all shootings. 

     

    Forgive me if my math is wrong. I worked late today. 

    3.5% of the population stopped 3.1% of all shootings. 

    96.3% of the population stopped 13.1% of all shootings. 

     

    Which looks more effective?

    Then tell me why in countries with restricted gun ownership don't have school shootings, and the example you presented wasn't a shooting at all it was a explosion detonation in a school
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.

  I accept