Home Forums Gamescan Chat42 About
* Login   * Register * FAQ    * Search
It is currently Thu 03-28-2024 3:01AM

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 175 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 04-25-2007 7:14AM 
Offline
The Cap'n

Joined: Mon 10-07-2002 2:13PM
Posts: 327

Source: Off Campus
Agentzak wrote:
The main difference that I see between you and prophet is that he is arguing for how things ought to be while you are arguing for how things actually are.


If this is the case, then okay; But from what I have seen is Prophet saying things about it was "meant to be." I disagree with this. The Second Amendment was meant for the protection of the State from a federal standing army (it is a collective protection - not individual).

Many people have rendered decisions that agree with me. Many states (36) protect an individual's right to have guns. This is where the power to regulate guns should be. Not with the Federal government. We are a decentralized government, and I'd like to see it that way for a while.

If we want to debate about how things should be, then I would argue that people should be allowed to carry, but not concealed. I feel that concealed carry is cowardly, and "security through obscurity."

\"Agentzak wrote:
They already lost their best advantage of surprise so they have to constantly look over their shoulder because if a mass shooting were to break out they would be the first to go. Forcing people to openly carry when they could instead conceal it is a bad idea. Either way they are carrying a gun so what difference does it make if they choose to hide it and keep it out of sight and out of mind of those around them?


I don't like this. I want to know who has a gun. If people are so proud about being able to carry their guns, they should do so openly. I am in favor of transparency.

\"Agentzak wrote:
Gun control laws generally have an effect of allowing one class of people to possess guns while restricting another class or group of people. At no time in history have guns ever been outlawed for every person in the US.

This is not what Prophet implies or even states. He quite literally states that all men is what the founding fathers meant. This is not true.

\"Agentzak wrote:
I don't think anyone here really believes that the Patriot Act makes catching terrorists more effective. ... It's really all about chances and probabilities.

Have you talk to many Republicans lately? Many of them believe that it does - actually they gave congressional testimony to that effect. The Second Amendment was never meant to help the individual protect themselves from people other than the Federal Government (which is what this debate turned to).

If we want to move to "self-defense" then we can move there. There are other less-lethal avenues to pursue for protection from individuals.

Agentzak wrote:
Guns also don't kill people 100% of the time. ... It's their choice.


But the chances are much much higher. It's about chances, as you said. Yes, people's choice to effectively kill people. Awesome.

\"Agentzak wrote:
Warnings on handguns are stupid. Children should be watched by parents and/or educated properly. If they shoot themselves, it's their own damn fault.


Agreed.

\"Agentzak wrote:
Just because the government did it or made a law doesn't make it right. There has been limits on freedom of speech that I think are horribly wrong all in the name of protecting someone from "libel." Just because the freedom of speech was limited by the government doesn't make it right.

I agree. The government doesn't always do what I feel is "right." But one person's rights end where another begins. If you use your "rights" to endanger me, you don't have them.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 04-25-2007 7:40AM 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 11-17-2003 12:27AM
Posts: 3128
Location: The Bat Cave

Source: MST-WPA Wireless
The point behind Concealed Carry is that jackass will pick a fight with you if they see you are carrying, but if they don't know, then there is no problem. If you don't believe that, that is okay, but you are wrong. Ask any big guy. There are a shit ton of people who will fuck with them just because they think it makes them a bad ass or some bullshit...

I think it is cowardice that makes you scared that someone might have a handgun and you can't see it...

_________________
Carney Institute of Technology

Why not outlaw MURDER instead of trying to outlaw guns?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 04-25-2007 8:25AM 
Offline
The Cap'n

Joined: Mon 10-07-2002 2:13PM
Posts: 327

Source: Off Campus
jthxv wrote:
The point behind Concealed Carry is that jackass will pick a fight with you if they see you are carrying, but if they don't know, then there is no problem. If you don't believe that, that is okay, but you are wrong. Ask any big guy. There are a shit ton of people who will fuck with them just because they think it makes them a bad ass or some bullshit...

How very self-esteem boosting of you. If you want the right to bear arms, then you should bear them. Society will not change if we allow concealed carry, it will just make it more scared.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. You think I'm wrong, and I think you're wrong. Yay.

jthxv wrote:
I think it is cowardice that makes you scared that someone might have a handgun and you can't see it...


I'm not scared of them carrying concealed, I just believe it goes against some foundations of our Republic. We should have more transparency, not less. Let people see the guns, let them be educated. Let people see that should they choose to shoot up a place the amount of resistance they will meet.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 04-25-2007 9:06AM 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Tue 04-12-2005 9:19PM
Posts: 821
Location: GBH

Source: Off Campus
Sea wrote:
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. You think I'm wrong, and I think you're wrong. Yay.


Only difference is... you actually ARE wrong. Just thinking won't make the bad things go away. Your views insult the majority of humankind. You live in a complete and utter delusion about this country and ALL of the human race.

_________________
"You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic."


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 04-25-2007 9:15AM 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Tue 04-12-2005 9:19PM
Posts: 821
Location: GBH

Source: Off Campus
Before you come back, read these pages:

http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index. ... thing/P15/

start there, and go previous until you've read it all.^

http://guncite.com/

If you've got questions, go here.^

_________________
"You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic."


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 04-25-2007 9:24AM 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 11-17-2003 12:27AM
Posts: 3128
Location: The Bat Cave

Source: MST-WPA Wireless
Sea wrote:
jthxv wrote:
The point behind Concealed Carry is that jackass will pick a fight with you if they see you are carrying, but if they don't know, then there is no problem. If you don't believe that, that is okay, but you are wrong. Ask any big guy. There are a shit ton of people who will fuck with them just because they think it makes them a bad ass or some bullshit...

How very self-esteem boosting of you. If you want the right to bear arms, then you should bear them. Society will not change if we allow concealed carry, it will just make it more scared.



I am just fat, I wasn't speaking about me, I was speaking about my friends, and my observations. I would agree that open carry is great, but when someone picks a fight with someone who is openly carrying, if he shoots he will get crucified in the media/courts whether or not he is in the right. Also, with concealed carry, that criminal doesn't know whether he will get away with his crime or not, if you have ONLY open carry, it would be easy for him to just wait until the carriers aren't around.

*By big, I was meaning fairly large framed (not just a fatty like me) guys over 6'4" (I am only 5'9" on a good day...)

_________________
Carney Institute of Technology

Why not outlaw MURDER instead of trying to outlaw guns?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 04-25-2007 10:52AM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 07-26-2004 3:11PM
Posts: 1420

Source: Fulton Hall
Sea wrote:
If this is the case, then okay; But from what I have seen is Prophet saying things about it was "meant to be." I disagree with this. The Second Amendment was meant for the protection of the State from a federal standing army (it is a collective protection - not individual).
No it's not. The first amendment is not meant to protect the state from the federal government and neither is the second. How about the fourth amendment? Does the state need protection against unreasonable search and seizure? Of course not. When it comes to amendments such as 1st,4th,5th, etc. people claim that they are people's rights except when it comes to specifically the second. Funny, the second amendmend specifically has the word "people" in it, not "state." "State" is found no where in the amendment. Cite me a specific part in the constitution where the second amendment applys to the state.

sea wrote:
Many people have rendered decisions that agree with me. Many states (36) protect an individual's right to have guns. This is where the power to regulate guns should be. Not with the Federal government. We are a decentralized government, and I'd like to see it that way for a while.
Guns should not be regulated by any sort of government, federal, state, city, no one. The problem with that is that the gun laws are so confusing and differing. Just over in Illinois concealed carry is a big no no. The state allows cities to regulate guns and Morton Grove, IL banned handguns. Now if you were just driving across the US from point to point without any intention of ever stopping or getting out in Morton Grove, you would have to look up the individual laws of every little town that you have to drive through. Gun control laws basically make it impossible to comply with all legal regulations. Just take gun free school zones.

Image

sea wrote:
If we want to debate about how things should be, then I would argue that people should be allowed to carry, but not concealed. I feel that concealed carry is cowardly, and "security through obscurity."


Hey guess what cops are doing when they aren't in uniform? They are carrying concealed. I'm sure you'll also think it's cowardly when someone carrying concealed saves your life someday. It's not cowardly, it's just plain smart. Now if society was different and soccer moms didn't run in fear at the sight of a gun and way more people openly carried, then more people would be fine open carrying because they wouldn't stand out.

sea wrote:
I don't like this. I want to know who has a gun. If people are so proud about being able to carry their guns, they should do so openly. I am in favor of transparency.


You knowing who has a gun doesn't really help at all. I want to know what the hot girl next to me looks like naked but she has a constitutionally protected right to privacy.

sea wrote:
Agentzak wrote:
Gun control laws generally have an effect of allowing one class of people to possess guns while restricting another class or group of people. At no time in history have guns ever been outlawed for every person in the US.

This is not what Prophet implies or even states. He quite literally states that all men is what the founding fathers meant. This is not true.
The founding fathers did want all men. Sadly, the government has chipped away at "all men".

sea wrote:
Agentzak wrote:
I don't think anyone here really believes that the Patriot Act makes catching terrorists more effective. ... It's really all about chances and probabilities.

Have you talk to many Republicans lately? Many of them believe that it does - actually they gave congressional testimony to that effect. The Second Amendment was never meant to help the individual protect themselves from people other than the Federal Government (which is what this debate turned to).

I said "anyone here" as in here in Rolla, college students, etc. Not politicians.

sea wrote:
Agentzak wrote:
Guns also don't kill people 100% of the time. ... It's their choice.


But the chances are much much higher. It's about chances, as you said. Yes, people's choice to effectively kill people. Awesome.

As I said early and I strongly say again. You shoot to stop the threat, not to kill someone. If an attacker dies as a result of threat stopping, they made the choice.

sea wrote:
I agree. The government doesn't always do what I feel is "right." But one person's rights end where another begins. If you use your "rights" to endanger me, you don't have them.

Alright, I'll give up and claim that gun control is totally correct if you can do one simple little thing. Please show how someone carrying a concealed weapon puts you in more danger than someone carrying a weapon openly. Keep in mind that you have probably been around people carrying concealed weapons without you ever knowing it because nothing happened.

EDIT:Quote brackets

_________________
Don't do drugs because if you do drugs you'll go to prison, and drugs are really expensive in prison.


Last edited by Agentzak on Wed 04-25-2007 4:17PM, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 04-25-2007 12:45PM 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Wed 08-20-2003 9:47AM
Posts: 570

Source: Off Campus
Come on guys. Anyone wishing to know the true nature of the second amendment need only watch Family Guy...

http://www.zanyvideos.com/videos/family_guy_clip_the_right_to_bear_arms

If this has already been posted in this thread, please flame me a lot. I didn't bother to read all 11 pages.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 04-25-2007 4:12PM 
Offline
Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue 12-16-2003 9:10PM
Posts: 411

Source: Off Campus
Sea wrote:
Let people see the guns, let them be educated.


Perhaps this is true, but then, have you ever considered taking a concealed carry course yourself? I'm sure Prophet would know the details, but I suspect that it's possible to take the course without actually owning a gun yourself. Maybe it'd help you gain greater understanding both as to what is required of people for the right to carry a concealed weapon, and as to what sort of people are likely to go through such procedures. I'm personally thinking of doing this sometime in the next year or so.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 04-25-2007 6:15PM 
Offline
The Cap'n

Joined: Mon 10-07-2002 2:13PM
Posts: 327

Source: Off Campus
Agentzak wrote:
No it's not. The first amendment is not meant to protect the state from the federal government and neither is the second. How about the fourth amendment? Does the state need protection against unreasonable search and seizure?

States cannot bear arms, only people can. To use the word "State" would be incorrect English. I am not the only one which believes this. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the 2nd Amendment is the collective right, not individual. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the States HAVE THE RIGHT to regulate arms. Granted, all these court cases are quite old (50-100 years). If you don't agree with it, bring a case to the Supreme Court and argue it.

Agentzak wrote:
Guns should not be regulated by any sort of government, federal, state, city, no one. The problem with that is that the gun laws are so confusing and differing. Just over in Illinois concealed carry is a big no no. The state allows cities to regulate guns and Morton Grove, IL banned handguns. ... Gun control laws basically make it impossible to comply with all legal regulations. Just take gun free school zones.

Then it looks like you have lots of states to argue with. This is price one pays for having a decentralized government. Whether a decentralized government is good or not is a *completely* different conversation.

Agentzak wrote:
Hey guess what cops are doing when they aren't in uniform? They are carrying concealed. I'm sure you'll also think it's cowardly when someone carrying concealed saves your life someday. It's not cowardly, it's just plain smart. Now if society was different and soccer moms didn't run in fear at the sight of a gun and way more people openly carried, then more people would be fine open carrying because they wouldn't stand out.

Whether someone uses CC to save someone's life doesn't make CC any less cowardly. Society will not change if we hide all the weapons and pretend they aren't there. Just like society will not stop having sex if we pretend it doesn't happen.

Agentzak wrote:
You knowing who has a gun doesn't really help at all. I want to know what the hot girl next to me looks like naked but she has a constitutionally protected right to privacy.

Yes because gun are a part of a person's body....


Agentzak wrote:
This is not what Prophet implies or even states. He quite literally states that all men is what the founding fathers meant. This is not true.
The founding fathers did want all men. Sadly, the government has chipped away at "all men".
[/quote]

Were the founding fathers not members of the government that "chipped away" these rights?


----

I disagree with Concealed Carry. However, I support the right of the State to allow it. If the state is directed by the people to support it, then that's what happens. I can still disagree with it. I don't have to worry about it anyway, I live in Illinois :-D


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 04-25-2007 6:18PM 
Offline
The Cap'n

Joined: Mon 10-07-2002 2:13PM
Posts: 327

Source: Off Campus
karl wrote:
Only difference is... you actually ARE wrong. Just thinking won't make the bad things go away. Your views insult the majority of humankind. You live in a complete and utter delusion about this country and ALL of the human race.


Then I am happy to be wrong with the likes of the Supreme Court. Evidently, not all the human race is agreement with you. I'm sorry you live in a state of perpetual paranoia.

You're complete distrust of the humankind is an insult. kthxbye

See:http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2007/04/18/4056486-ap.html


Last edited by Sea on Wed 04-25-2007 7:04PM, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 04-25-2007 6:25PM 
Offline
The Cap'n

Joined: Mon 10-07-2002 2:13PM
Posts: 327

Source: Off Campus
Blue-Mage wrote:
Perhaps this is true, but then, have you ever considered taking a concealed carry course yourself? ... Maybe it'd help you gain greater understanding both as to what is required of people for the right to carry a concealed weapon, and as to what sort of people are likely to go through such procedures. I'm personally thinking of doing this sometime in the next year or so.


Having grown up in the deep South (south of New Orleans), I've grown up with guns. And each state has different procedures for CC. Some states allow unrestricted carry (VT and Alaska), others don't allow it at all (IL and WI)... and other have a state standard, which are all independent (though recipicol).

The state has mandated a CCW law. This is their right by US and State constitution. But I don't have to like it.

--sea


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 04-25-2007 6:31PM 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 11-17-2003 12:27AM
Posts: 3128
Location: The Bat Cave

Source: Fidelity
So you disagree with cowardice? That is the only reason you have really given. If you have a big wad of one hundred dollar bills, do you make sure everyone around you sees it? If not, you are a coward, after all, you believe in transparency... I don't see a need to flash a piece like some kind of street thug, I am content having a piece on my hip and knowing that I can protect myself if the need arises, I don't need liberal/thug jackasses trying to start something because I have a handgun...

_________________
Carney Institute of Technology

Why not outlaw MURDER instead of trying to outlaw guns?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 04-25-2007 6:44PM 
Offline
The Cap'n

Joined: Mon 10-07-2002 2:13PM
Posts: 327

Source: Off Campus
jthxv wrote:
So you disagree with cowardice? That is the only reason you have really given. If you have a big wad of one hundred dollar bills, do you make sure everyone around you sees it? If not, you are a coward, after all, you believe in transparency...


Yes, because money has the power to kill someone. You're comparing apples to oranges. If you want to compare properly, you should have used a taser or a pocket knife. But a pocket knife is small and easily fits into a pocket (hence the name).

Should we remove all the "Protected by *** Security" labels placed on secured facilities so that criminals break into houses?

http://www.jpfo.org/israel-firearms.htm


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed 04-25-2007 7:08PM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 07-26-2004 3:11PM
Posts: 1420

Source: VPN
Sea wrote:
States cannot bear arms, only people can. To use the word "State" would be incorrect English. I am not the only one which believes this. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the 2nd Amendment is the collective right, not individual. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the States HAVE THE RIGHT to regulate arms. Granted, all these court cases are quite old (50-100 years). If you don't agree with it, bring a case to the Supreme Court and argue it.


So the Constitution uses the word "people" but it is somehow supposed to mean "state?" Uh, if they wanted to talk about the state they would've used the word "state" and corrected the sentence appropriately. Examples might include,
The 10th amendment wrote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

They used the word "states" and they used the word "people" so they did make a distinction between the two. In the 2nd amendment there is no such word as "states", only "people"

sea wrote:
Then it looks like you have lots of states to argue with. This is price one pays for having a decentralized government. Whether a decentralized government is good or not is a *completely* different conversation.

So far owning some sort of gun is legal just about everywhere in the US but gun control laws such as the safe school zone example I showed earlier effectively ban guns without outright banning guns because actually banning guns goes against the second amendment.

sea wrote:
Whether someone uses CC to save someone's life doesn't make CC any less cowardly. Society will not change if we hide all the weapons and pretend they aren't there. Just like society will not stop having sex if we pretend it doesn't happen.

So you ignore the true life saving capabilities of CC just because you're worried about how cowardly other people are? Society won't change if we hide or show weapons because *gasp* it doesn't actually make a bit of difference to society. The only difference it makes is to the person carrying it because their chances of getting killed go way up when they proudly and openly display their weapon not to mention the annoying comments, glares, and stares that they would have to endure. The only reason that you want them to openly carry is so that they can be ridiculed while sacrificing tactical advantage against attackers. Also as a side note, many people in the US, especially Florida, would be just thrilled to legally carry around their gun openly if it wasn't for the fact that open carry is illegal and concealed carry is not so their only option is to CC.

sea wrote:
Agentzak wrote:
You knowing who has a gun doesn't really help at all. I want to know what the hot girl next to me looks like naked but she has a constitutionally protected right to privacy.

Yes because gun are a part of a person's body....

Ok, how about a knife then. If the hot girl has a knife you have no legal right to demand that she show it to you. If she has a gun you also have no legal right to demand that she show it to you. The government has not deemed your need to know her gun carrying status important enough to make a law about it and that's exactly how it should be because what inanimate objects she is carrying around in her pocket while she is on the street is really not your business. Now if she were to come to your house then you ought to have every right to know if she has a gun or not. Luckily for you they have a law that says just that. Also cops have the right to ask if you have a concealed gun or not. If you don't tell them the truth you will get some serious jail time. If you truly believe that opening carrying is somehow safer then you might like this one idea I have. How about we make everyone carrying AIDS carry around a big bright sign that says, "Hey I got AIDS." AIDS is way more dangerous than guns because way more people die from AIDS than guns. That way I can run away from these people so I won't catch AIDS. Oh wait, the probability of you catching AIDS is small unless you actually make contact with that person just the probability of you getting shot is small unless you attack someone legally carrying a concealed weapon.

----
sea wrote:
I disagree with Concealed Carry.

Then don't do it. Simple as that. I disagree with smoking but I acknowledge someone's right to smoke.

sea wrote:
However, I support the right of the State to allow it.

States don't "allow" it. Alaska and Vermont are the only two states that really understand how it is supposed to work. The people (and by people I don't mean "state", I mean individual "people") have rights and these rights are listed in a nice orderly list in the Constitution and the state isn't supposed to limit these rights by setting up permit systems where they "allow" or "grant" you rights. No, over time states have stolen these rights from the people and some are selling it back to the people for about $100 per permit and then they act like they are so gracious and nice to us for "allowing" us to carry weapons. How would you like it if the state "allowed" you to print a newspaper for a mere $1000 per issue? You said the second amendment doesn't apply to the states, so why should you think the first does? They were able to steal the second away from the people because there weren't enough people complaining about it. Just wait until they slowly suck away your first amendment rights. When that happens a few years down the road I'm sure you'll complain to some previous gun owner who will probably tell you, "I was going to protect our right to free speech but you let them take my right to own a gun so I had nothing to fight with." That's pretty much the way that good countries turn into Nazi Germany.

_________________
Don't do drugs because if you do drugs you'll go to prison, and drugs are really expensive in prison.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 175 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group