Gun Control

[Jason Tandro]

Yes, there is less crime. There are also entire civilizations that are forced to live under oppressive regimes they'd rather see the end of (AHEM Iraq... well retro Iraq. We're pretty much done there now. Or at least we should be )

Now I have to hand it to you Europeans. For the most part you seem to have a good head on your shoulders, but basically America was born out of cycle of mistreatment by our government which necessitated open revolt. The second ammendment, you might say, is the ammendment that made America (of course it was codified much later, I'm just saying).

And I've been to Japan. Like nobody has guns there except military men, private security services, and collectors, and it's basically a utopia (at least from an outside perspective), but even if I thought gun control was a good idea, America has had it engrained into our culture and basically it's a permanent stigma.

[Freedan]

Jason Tandro wrote:

Because Liberals believe in large governments. And ironically voicing their claim on behalf of the people, they slowly want to alienate basic rights. Freedom of Speech and Religion You can't be outspoken against gays, even in a church. Right To Bear Arms You can't own guns, because you don't need them and because bad people have used guns, ergo all gun owners are criminals (see the faulty logic there?)

Hold on a minute.

Liberals restrict people's rights? What about Republicans eliminating gay marriage, denying women the choice of abortion, their history of tax cuts favouring the wealthy, and legislation that allows spur-of-the-moment searches of property, communications-monitoring and indefinite detentions (Patriot Act)?

Edit: Sorry to get off topic there.

On topic, banning guns outright will do nothing, because people will always find a way to acquire and hide them. And also kill with them.

Guns are only dangerous in the wrong hands. If parents teach their kids that guns aren't toys, and show him the consequences of trying to shoot an apple off your friend's head, kids won't shoot themselves with them. At least, not as much.

[Jason Tandro]

Let me repeat what you just said off-topic as Republicans hear it:

Freedan wrote:

What about Republicans eliminating gay marriage,

Protecting the sacred institution of marriage.

Freedan wrote:

denying women the choice of abortion

Not letting women kill innocent, unborn children.

Freedan wrote:

their history of tax cuts favouring the wealthy

Not really a restriction of rights, Freedan. And I'm with you on this one. I think it's idiotic.

Freedan wrote:

and legislation that allows spur-of-the-moment searches of property, communications-monitoring and indefinite detentions

Stopping criminals and terrorists from committing atrocities by temporary leans on their civil rights. I'll admit this is a tad off, but I do believe there is a time and place to be a bit Machiavellian. The end justifies the means. Of course you have a point, that is a slippery slope.

[Freedan]

Jason Tandro wrote:

Protecting the sacred institution of marriage.

That thing that ends in divorce nearly half the time? Moreover, marriage is a contract, and not sacred. If religious institutions want to consider marriage sacred, that's fine, but the government shouldn't be legislating it.

Quote:

Not letting women kill innocent, unborn children.

Even in cases that threaten the mother's life? Because an abortion ban would cover that too.

Quote:

Not really a restriction of rights, Freedan. And I'm with you on this one. I think it's idiotic.

Maybe not "rights" per se; my point there was that certain people are treated unfairly to benefit a very small minority. That is, one small group is entitled to that which another group is not.

Quote:

Stopping criminals and terrorists from committing atrocities by temporary leans on their civil rights. I'll admit this is a tad off, but I do believe there is a time and place to be a bit Machiavellian. The end justifies the means. Of course you have a point, that is a slippery slope.

You mean these means? (scroll down to the archive of articles)

[inferiare]

Jason Tandro wrote:

Yes, there is less crime. There are also entire civilizations that are forced to live under oppressive regimes they'd rather see the end of (AHEM Iraq... well retro Iraq. We're pretty much done there now. Or at least we should be ) Now I have to hand it to you Europeans. For the most part you seem to have a good head on your shoulders, but basically America was born out of cycle of mistreatment by our government which necessitated open revolt. The second ammendment, you might say, is the ammendment that made America (of course it was codified much later, I'm just saying). And I've been to Japan. Like nobody has guns there except military men, private security services, and collectors, and it's basically a utopia (at least from an outside perspective), but even if I thought gun control was a good idea, America has had it engrained into our culture and basically it's a permanent stigma.

The only other people in Japan that have guns are the Yakuza. You left that out there.

And I'm with Jason on this one: gun control might work for those who aren't in the USA, as in, my European minions, but that's because your government is wildly different from our own. As Jason pointed out, we were screwed to the point where it was necessary to use guns, and I honestly think we're going to be using them again to keep ourselves safe. What works for you may not work for me, and in this case: gun control may work in your country, but it won't work in mine.

[Jason Tandro]

Freedan, the Dark Knight wrote:

Jason Tandro wrote: Protecting the sacred institution of marriage. That thing that ends in divorce nearly half the time? Moreover, marriage is a contract, and not sacred. If religious institutions want to consider marriage sacred, that's fine, but the government shouldn't be legislating it. Quote: Not letting women kill innocent, unborn children. Even in cases that threaten the mother's life? Because an abortion ban would cover that too. Quote: Not really a restriction of rights, Freedan. And I'm with you on this one. I think it's idiotic. Maybe not "rights" per se; my point there was that certain people are treated unfairly to benefit a very small minority. That is, one small group is entitled to that which another group is not. Quote: Stopping criminals and terrorists from committing atrocities by temporary leans on their civil rights. I'll admit this is a tad off, but I do believe there is a time and place to be a bit Machiavellian. The end justifies the means. Of course you have a point, that is a slippery slope. You mean these means? (scroll down to the archive of articles)

Well, Freedan, keep in mind that I was playing devil's advocate here, but let me give you my personal views this time:

1. Marriage.
> Civil unions are perfectly reasonable for everyone and let the religions keep the marriage. And the fact that people get divorced is not a mark against the institution.

This is problem I have. When people do something bad, the ideal that they fight for tends to go down in flames. The fact is the people that disgrace marriage by getting divorced (if in fact you want to call that a disgrace) are the ones to blame, not the institution itself. To me, marriage is the start of a family (and I believe in Eternal families, sorry to get religious), the basis of society, and most important the ultimate expression of love. I know it's unpopular to be outspoken against "gay marriage", but I feel we have a perfectly reasonable alternative set up. All I ask is that you don't force my church to marry homosexuals. Let the government unite whomever they want. Let the thousands of other churches "marry" whomever they want. Keep it out of my faith.


2. Abortion.

I obviously believe in mitigating circumstances, and have listed them on Abortion thread. But yeah, protecting unborn children is something I will fight for.

3. Tax Cuts to the Rich.

Again I agree with you 100%. I can barely pay my bills and celebrities are complaining how hard it is to keep two houses clean.

4. Patriot Act

Yeah, I suppose I can see the government going too far. We have to watch out for turning this into a McCarthyist witch hunt. But as for wire-tapping phones of suspected terrorists? I say, go for it. While I agree that those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither, there is a practical exception, and this is it.

[inferiare]

Jason Tandro wrote:

4. Patriot Act Yeah, I suppose I can see the government going too far. We have to watch out for turning this into a McCarthyist witch hunt. But as for wire-tapping phones of suspected terrorists? I say, go for it. While I agree that those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither, there is a practical exception, and this is it.

In no way should the government EVER be allowed to do this. To them, with the Patriot Act in place, anyone and everyone is a "suspected terrorist", even if they were American born and in no way involved with the Taliban/Al Qaida people. That gives them the right to wiretap everyone's phones and homes, and that is an invasion of privacy and goes against what the government is for. They want to keep us "safe"? Run better background checks. Stop letting illegals into the country. Stop letting those illegals take our identities and get away with it because we have to be "nice" (and no, I know not all illegal aliens into the country steal identities, and that it can be those that have lived in this country since they were born, but it does happen, and it goes with my argument) or else the other countries will hate us. Wiretapping is not necessary when they can do other things to ensure that the people of the nation are safe.

[Jason Tandro]

rainichan wrote:

Stop letting illegals into the country. Stop letting those illegals take our identities and get away with it because we have to be "nice"

Oh my God. I think I'm in love with you.

[inferiare]

Jason Tandro wrote:

rainichan wrote: Stop letting illegals into the country. Stop letting those illegals take our identities and get away with it because we have to be "nice" Oh my God. I think I'm in love with you.

YOU MEAN YOU WEREN'T BEFORE WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU? Off topic for a moment, I actually had a customer tell me today that if you lived in the states, you should learn English. I'm in strong agreement with that one, if only because trying to explain something to someone that involves a utility bill and they go "I no understand " makes me want to beat my head into a wall [/derail] Of course, if I were to get into that argument, I would want the "stop taking our jobs/money for welfare/stop trafficking drugs and shooting up people who are innocent" to that list too.

But this is a different debate altogether, so I'll stop derailing this now.

[Jason Tandro]

rainichan wrote:

Jason Tandro wrote: rainichan wrote: Stop letting illegals into the country. Stop letting those illegals take our identities and get away with it because we have to be "nice" Oh my God. I think I'm in love with you. YOU MEAN YOU WEREN'T BEFORE WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?

You know I've always loved you Raini! Hell were it not for the geographic distance and the fact that you're way outta my league, you'd be letting me down easy for the third time by now.

[psychokind]

ok americans, stop here you're like charlton heston in "bowling for columbine": we americans need guns, because we have bloody history! wait...
first: you have very little history
second: you can go into war constantly as you did until now, you'll never reach the amount of blood we europeans were allowed to shed^^

you had it just too peaceful over there, all alone with mexicans and canadians as... enemies? maybe if you now constantly fight over the next hundreds of years, you'll come to the same conclusion as us.

[Jason Tandro]

psychokind wrote:

ok americans, stop here you're like charlton heston in "bowling for columbine": we americans need guns, because we have bloody history! wait... first: you have very little history second: you can go into war constantly as you did until now, you'll never reach the amount of blood we europeans were allowed to shed^^ you had it just too peaceful over there, all alone with mexicans and canadians as... enemies? maybe if you now constantly fight over the next hundreds of years, you'll come to the same conclusion as us.

Well in the 20th century, most of Germany's problems with wartime were caused by corrupt political forces, such as in WWI and WWII, not to mention having to live with the stigma of being the country that spawned Hitler, the 3rd most evil man to ever live (2nd being Stalin and 1st being Walt Disney ).

Frankly, the first thing that comes to MY mind when I think Germany is beer and sausage (sorry, that's probably a horrible stereotype but it's a helluva lot better than instantly thinking Nazi War Machine (which by the way would be a badass name for a Death Metal Band)).

[Freedan]

Jason Tandro wrote:

I know it's unpopular to be outspoken against "gay marriage", but I feel we have a perfectly reasonable alternative set up. All I ask is that you don't force my church to marry homosexuals. Let the government unite whomever they want. Let the thousands of other churches "marry" whomever they want. Keep it out of my faith.

My thoughts exactly.

In Canada, same-sex marriage is allowed, but religious institutions aren't forced to perform the ceremony against their will. Not everyone is willing to accept it, and forcing people to isn't the way to go about it.

Incidentally, I tend to get a bit defensive when gay marriage is brought up. I'm sincerely in favour of it.

Anyway, this thread was about gun control, so I do believe I'll shut up and let it drift back on topic.

[Jason Tandro]

Freedan, the Dark Knight wrote:

Anyway, this thread was about gun control, so I do believe I'll shut up and let it drift back on topic.

Awww. What fun is that?

[inferiare]

psychokind wrote:

ok americans, stop here you're like charlton heston in "bowling for columbine": we americans need guns, because we have bloody history! wait... first: you have very little history second: you can go into war constantly as you did until now, you'll never reach the amount of blood we europeans were allowed to shed^^ you had it just too peaceful over there, all alone with mexicans and canadians as... enemies? maybe if you now constantly fight over the next hundreds of years, you'll come to the same conclusion as us.

Excuse me, but I've got European blood flowing through me. We've got just as much history here as everywhere else. We do have a bloody history, and it keeps getting worse because we have to bail everyone else out while worrying about our OWN damn nation. It's NOT as peaceful as you think, and I'm actually pretty damn offended by that.