-
TV is unnecessary... Video games are unnecessary... YouTube, Facebook, cellphones, restaurants, movie theaters, and shopping malls are unnecessary... Does that mean that people shouldn't be allowed to have and/or use them?
-
Edited by The Cellar Door: 5/13/2016 2:59:34 PMDo any of the things you've listed have the ability to be used to kill innocent people?
-
Edited by TheNobleWolf: 5/13/2016 3:03:42 PMYes, yes they do. PS: Believe it or not, I'm actually a good person... The only time I will ever intentionally hurt anyone is if they are threatening myself, my family, or my property... If you feel that you can't be trusted to own a MSR because you might be tempted to go out and shoot up a bunch of people then that's your problem.
-
Edited by The Cellar Door: 5/13/2016 3:16:09 PMlol, do they now? I can sort of see where you're going with that though, and before you do, we should establish a few things: A) You have to make a [i]very[/i] special case for each of those things to be used to kill someone. B) Harming others is not the intention of any of those things. C) None of those things kill people regularly. D) All of those things exist in countries where AR isn't normally allowed and there are significantly less deaths in those countries due to an AR. E) Any of the cases you can make for any of those things will almost certainly require the "victim" to have willingly participated with an assumption of risk, and if multiple deaths were to occur over many years due to those things, we would have put a stop to the things causing these deaths. If a restaurant repeatedly killed many people due to unhealthy food or workplace dangers, this restaurant would be shut down, not kept open as a display of the right to own a restaurant. F) In the case of this restaurant serving unhealthy food and killing people, the intention was not to use the restaurant to kill people, but rather to use the unhealthy food to save money.
-
I see you failed to address my Post Script... Nice👍
-
While your anecdotal is nice, and I agree with what you're saying there, your post script is entirely irrelevant and fails to address the point I'm making.... Nice👍
-
Edited by TheNobleWolf: 5/13/2016 5:02:20 PM"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." -George Washington "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." -Thomas Jefferson Some people abuse power (or in this case, the laws of human decency, with weapons)... So what? You think that my right to live my life the way I see fit should be infringed upon because someone somewhere might do something bad? I never really understood that mentality. PS: The 2nd amendment is there to protect us from a tyrannical government... If the SS comes breaking down my door, I want to be armed with the best possible form of protection. "When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensible of duties." -Marquis de Lafayette
-
I never said you can't have weapons of defense, that's not even an argument I personally agree with. I'm saying its unnecessary for you to have a killing machine.
-
Let me ask you something different... Would you be okay with me owning this?
-
[spoiler]nope. you should do major upgrades to that 10/22 for max accuracy and reliability. bone stock? [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcArnepkhv0]bad idea[/url].[/spoiler]
-
I'm actually not a big 10/22 fan myself... I was just trying to make a point.
-
[spoiler]that was a joke. see the enclosed link[/spoiler]
-
My bad... PS: [spoiler]You sure do like Spoilers don't you.[/spoiler]
-
I don't care what you do with your money. I'll reiterate that the point I've made is that it is unnecessary to own an assault rifle.
-
Do you even know what the definition of "Assault Rifle" is? Probably not, so I'll provide the definition for you... [url=http://www.dictionary.com/browse/assault-rifle]"Assault Rifle"[/url].[spoiler]This is from Dictionary.com btw.[/spoiler] My AR is what is known (amongst people who actually know what they are talking about) as a "MSR" aka "Modern Sporting Rifle"... It's not an "Assault Rifle".
-
Semantics doesn't change the point I'm making...
-
It's not semantics... The definition is everything! My MSR is fundamentally no different then the hundreds of different semi automatic deer rifles on the market right now... The only difference is that ignorant people like you think you know more about them then people who have been around them their entire life.
-
Okay, let me reiterate my point for the third time, I said it was unnecessary to own an assault rifle. What you have said has done absolutely nothing to prove that wrong. You defend yourself owning this weapon by regarding it as a defensive item. You don't need anything more than a basic pistol to defend yourself in any event where you logically could defend yourself. This is the 21st century, we don't need to hunt anymore. Since you have replied repeatedly thinking that I'm making an argument for taking away your guns, which I haven't as that is an argument I disagree with, I will touch on the topic now: They can be used for sport, and I'm not going to take that away from you, but what's wrong with saying to own a gun like this you need to have certain requirements, like having a clean record, being old enough to make mature decisions, and having a hunting license? Everyone knows hunters aren't the people shooting up the malls or killing in the street, and they're realistically the only people that have to have a weapon of this sort to do what they want to do. Whats wrong with that restriction? Is that "obstruction of your liberty" going to save lives? Absolutely. Is that "obstruction of your liberty" going to stop someone who is going to use the gun responsibly from getting one? No.
-
Edited by DELIVER ME MEMES: 5/13/2016 8:31:10 PM[spoiler]except he doesn't own an assault rifle, so your entire argument is invalid. an assault rifle by definition must be a shoulderable infantry rifle capable of select fire, ie capable of having more than safe and one firing mode, and must have a carbine caliber that is below 7.62x51mm(.308 Winchester, a very common hunting round), which is a Battle Rifle(7.62x51mm or above). the only "assault rifles" people can own in the US are the heavily regulated and very expensive title II machineguns made before may 6th, 1986 when an ownership and registration ban was enacted for all newer models(even though technically, the vote for that law failed it was falsely registered as passed and thus is enforced). typically around 15-25 thousand dollars for an M16 lower or registered auto pack plus all the year+ long waiting and paperwork hassle, $200 license, and etc. and in a home defense situation, an AR in the proper short config and right ammo load is better than is pistol because it is more ergonomic, easier to aim, has more contact points so more control/less chance to be taken from you, and less over penetration. [/spoiler]
-
Everything is wrong with forcing people to get a license. That means the government can say who can have them and who can't, and that basically makes the 2nd amendment useless... My point is that I own an AR15 because I can... If you don't like that then oh well, get over it... They are legal in the US for a reason. PS: Speak for yourself regarding hunting... I go hunting on a seasonal basis. I'd rather kill my food then have someone kill it for me. Maybe that's just how I was raised though.
-
Does the government have killing machines?
-
Maybe we shouldn't be funding them 600 billion a year then... But that's besides the point, and also not to mention the argument you make speaks on a situation that would never happen, A) If the Government were to wage war on us, all of the firepower civilians can buy now would not be enough to even put a dent in the military. B) The U.S. isn't the only government in the world. A legitimate internal conflict in the U.S. would very quickly escalate into a world war. That's what kind of happens when you're the economic center of the world. C) Lack of gun restrictions now still doesn't stop government corruption and government officials from killing innocent civilians. I think you'd have to live under a rock for the past decade to not have realized this, but that's not a very unrealistic accusation seeing that you're using quotes from the 18th century to speak on affairs in the 21st century.
-
[quote]Maybe we shouldn't be funding them 600 billion a year then... But that's besides the point, and also not to mention the argument you make speaks on a situation that would never happen, A) If the Government were to wage war on us, all of the firepower civilians can buy now would not be enough to even put a dent in the military. B) The U.S. isn't the only government in the world. A legitimate internal conflict in the U.S. would very quickly escalate into a world war. That's what kind of happens when you're the economic center of the world. C) Lack of gun restrictions now still doesn't stop government corruption and government officials from killing innocent civilians. I think you'd have to live under a rock for the past decade to not have realized this, but that's not a very unrealistic accusation seeing that you're using quotes from the 18th century to speak on affairs in the 21st century.[/quote] I agree with almost everything you just said... That doesn't change the fact that Liberty is a Natural Right. And what does it matter whether they are quotes from 200+ years ago? They could be from 20,000 years ago and they would still be true. Ultimately this comes down to the fact that "I'd rather die on my feet, then live on my knees"... If you want to live as a slave because you think that freedom is too dangerous then go right ahead. However, I refuse to let you take away my Liberty because of your cowardice.
-
Everyone is a killing machine. My hands are registered lethal weapons because I'm an MMA fighter. When an inanimate object can get up, under its own power, and murder anything. I will call it a killing machine. Until otherwise proven, his AR is not a killing machine. Rather a tool for self defense, and recreational purposes. Thanks for your opinion, you're welcome to argue. I have nothing else to say. P.S. I got your back wolf, and your new pod looks excellent. Hope you find joy in use with it like I have.
-
Thanks:)