View Poll Results: Should U.S Citizens give up their "right"?

Voters
69. This poll is closed
  • Yes (U.S citizen)

    10 14.49%
  • No (U.S citizen)

    25 36.23%
  • Yes (Non U.S citizen)

    23 33.33%
  • No (Non U.S citizen)

    11 15.94%
Results 1 to 30 of 271

Thread: U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Re: U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit View Post

    That's one of the most ridiculous gun-related proposals I've read. Even outright bans are straightforward.

    This undermines the whole concept of having a right and freedom. It'd be a huge bureaucratic snarl. Have you ever used a gun?

    CR
    With these rights, you need to be responsible for them. A baby is a human being, why don't we allow it to have a gun? It has the right to have one as a human. Because it is not developed enough to handle the responsibility of owning and handling a gun.
    To argue that any and all restrictions on guns are stupid is to advocate an extreme that is as ridiculous as banning guns completely. I am open to suggestions, what do you want? Just one safety test and accuracy test every year no matter how many guns? Alright, present it to me. Don't whine about how nobody understands because they don't own guns and call them ridiculous for their suggestions. At least those proposing a ban on guns are mostly attempting to convince me with examples of other countries. Work with me man.


    Quote Originally Posted by scooter_the_shooter View Post
    Two things

    I am opposed to any waiting periods at all, Even if I wasn't it makes no sense to give somebody a waiting period for their next purchase if they already have a gun.


    Also I've got over twenty different guns, that means I'd be taking over 60 test a year Which isn't going to happen.

    Another thing, the four basic saftey rules are the same wether it's
    a long gun or a hand gun. So why would you need to test for each gun?


    The gun debate in this country is a joke, we've got people who know nothing guns; trying to set rules about them for people who do, its makes no sense.
    Alright, bad idea about the each gun part. I forgot that some people do have guns upwards of 10+. My mistake. Like I said above, A yearly safety and accuracy test is more suitable and less absurd?

    I am getting sick of gun owners turning me off from their side when they accuse me of ignorance because I'm not a gun owner. I know I am ignorant about guns, thats why I am trying to reach a middle, because even though I know nothing about them, I still think that people should have guns. but use them responsibly. To me responsible isn't buy as many guns with no restrictions and no accountability for whether or not it is being handled properly or not.


  2. #2
    Arena Senior Member Crazed Rabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Between the Mountain and the Sound
    Posts
    11,074
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    With these rights, you need to be responsible for them. A baby is a human being, why don't we allow it to have a gun? It has the right to have one as a human. Because it is not developed enough to handle the responsibility of owning and handling a gun.
    To argue that any and all restrictions on guns are stupid is to advocate an extreme that is as ridiculous as banning guns completely. I am open to suggestions, what do you want? Just one safety test and accuracy test every year no matter how many guns? Alright, present it to me. Don't whine about how nobody understands because they don't own guns and call them ridiculous for their suggestions. At least those proposing a ban on guns are mostly attempting to convince me with examples of other countries. Work with me man.
    No tests. You don't test for rights. If someone misuses a gun, then and only then do you punish them.

    Upon reaching the age of majority (18 in this country) you can buy any gun you want, with an instant background check.

    CR
    Ja Mata, Tosa.

    The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder

  3. #3

    Default Re: U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit View Post
    No tests. You don't test for rights. If someone misuses a gun, then and only then do you punish them.

    Upon reaching the age of majority (18 in this country) you can buy any gun you want, with an instant background check.

    CR
    I understand that the concept of testing means that it is not really a right but a "privilege" technically. But a part of me wants to see at least some sort of preventive action taken. I mean, you work your *** off to make sure you don't get a heart attack in the first place, you don't want to wait until you get a heart attack before you start acting. The first time might be enough to be fatal, same thing with guns. You understand where I am coming from?


  4. #4
    Banned ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Castle 2_5_2, Swissland.
    Posts
    0
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

    Asault rifles are needed for overthrowing governments CR. But WHY should people have them if they posed such a hazard to people. I understand you point but the same two points, defense and governament/constiual rights come up all the time. But people's lived should be put on the line because you want to have a AK-47 to "maybe" overthrowing the government.

  5. #5
    Old Town Road Senior Member Strike For The South's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Between Louis' sheets
    Posts
    10,369

    Default Re: U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

    Quote Originally Posted by |Sith|R|AntiWarmanCake88 View Post
    Asault rifles are needed for overthrowing governments CR. But WHY should people have them if they posed such a hazard to people. I understand you point but the same two points, defense and governament/constiual rights come up all the time. But people's lived should be put on the line because you want to have a AK-47 to "maybe" overthrowing the government.
    Why do you need the internet? You "might" look up pedophila
    There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford

    My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

    I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.

  6. #6
    Banned ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Castle 2_5_2, Swissland.
    Posts
    0
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    Why do you need the internet? You "might" look up pedophila

    That's not the point. Assault rifles are used to kill people. Give me a good reason that saids otherwise.

    I don't need one, I don't want one, and I will never get one. Only time I'll ever use one is if I join the Army.


    I'll stay with a USEFUL muti-purpose gun, my trusty decades old 16 gauge my 90 year old grandfather gave me ..

  7. #7
    Member Member Alexander the Pretty Good's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    4,979

    Default Re: U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

    Quote Originally Posted by |Sith|R|AntiWarmanCake88 View Post
    That's not the point. Assault rifles are used to kill people. Give me a good reason that saids otherwise.

    I don't need one, I don't want one, and I will never get one. Only time I'll ever use one is if I join the Army.


    I'll stay with a USEFUL muti-purpose gun, my trusty decades old 16 gauge my 90 year old grandfather gave me ..
    On average, trusty shotguns kill more people than military rifles. Which you shouldn't own because it was designed to kill people. Murderer.

  8. #8
    Arena Senior Member Crazed Rabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Between the Mountain and the Sound
    Posts
    11,074
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    I understand that the concept of testing means that it is not really a right but a "privilege" technically. But a part of me wants to see at least some sort of preventive action taken. I mean, you work your *** off to make sure you don't get a heart attack in the first place, you don't want to wait until you get a heart attack before you start acting. The first time might be enough to be fatal, same thing with guns. You understand where I am coming from?
    I understand - there might be some crazies, like that guy in Pittsburgh, who don't commit crimes that would bar them from gun ownership before they take their lawfully owned guns and attack people.

    But its rare, and still no excuse to take my freedom.
    Asault rifles are needed for overthrowing governments CR. But WHY should people have them if they posed such a hazard to people. I understand you point but the same two points, defense and governament/constiual rights come up all the time. But people's lived should be put on the line because you want to have a AK-47 to "maybe" overthrowing the government.
    Liberty has nothing to do with being safe, and everything to do with being free. You either decide you want to go with the danger of liberty or the security of being a peasant.

    And you already answered your question about why people should have them. Another reason is that people fancy them, and as long as those people who own them cause no harm, they should be allowed to do as they will.

    Frankly, I think you're overcome by the 'hunter' mentality that those "evil black rifles" shouldn't be owned, and that most of your reasoning is emotional (they kill people!), and not based on a logical assessment.

    Assault rifles are used to kill people.

    SO?


    More people have been killed by the .22, like in your rifle, than by assault rifles.

    CR
    Ja Mata, Tosa.

    The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO