|
|
#51
10-04-2005, 05:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: To all the gun nuts out there.
[ QUOTE ]
A criminal was a law abiding citizen until the moment they broke the law. Lee Oswald legally owned the rifle he used to kill the president and was not a criminal until this point (please correct me if im wrong Im not 100% on this stuff) [/ QUOTE ] Oswald was not mentally competent: [ QUOTE ] Oswald was a withdrawn and temperamental child. After they moved in with John Pic, who had joined the US Coast Guard and was stationed in New York City, Oswald struck and pulled a knife on his sister-in-law. His truancy caused him to be evaluated by psychiatrist Renatus Hartogs who had diagnosed the 14 year old Oswald as having a "personality pattern disturbance with schizoid features and passive-aggressive tendencies." In reaction, Marguerite returned to New Orleans with her son before he could be institutionalized. [/ QUOTE ] and... [ QUOTE ] Oswald was court martialed twice, first for unauthorized possession of a handgun, and later for starting a fight with a sergeant. As a result, he was demoted from private first class to private and briefly served time in the brig [/ QUOTE ] from Wikipedia [ QUOTE ] The point is that saying only a criminal would misuse a weapon is a circular argument. If this were true than there would be no new criminals. Owning a deadly weapon could make these criminal transitions all the more deazdly. [/ QUOTE ] If I am analyzing your logic here, people are now guilty of being potential criminals and therefore are untrustworthy of own firearms. Then we should you that same logic on police officers. They can go crazy and a larger percentage of them commit crimes and suicide than the general public. They seem too untrustworthy to carry firearms... Or maybe we should ban all pools from being built at people homes because every pool has the potential of causing a drowning. Read this thread and tell me which of those items should be of more concern. One causes 3+x more deaths and saves no lives... Lets get our priorities right... -Gryph 
|
|
#52
10-04-2005, 05:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: To all the gun nuts out there.
[quoteWhat good are the former weapons, because cops want them outlawed for obvious reasons and they are still legal.
[/ QUOTE ] So if "cops" say so, it must be correct. "Cops" also want to be able to listen to your phone without a warrant, and want to be able to decrypt all your emails without reason, and create huge databases of fingerprint and dna data even from people not convicted of any crime. Those must be good things too!
|
|
#53
10-04-2005, 05:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: To all the gun nuts out there.
If Im not mistaken there are no psych tests to own a gun so you could be a brooding killer amassing a huge arsenal and it would be totally legal. What makes you think you are metally competant enough to own a gun? I'm sure oswald didnt wake up everyday and tell himself "yep, still crazy."
Poice are charged with the safety of the public, citizens are not. Guns may be needed for the police to acomplish this goal. You are not charged with the safety of anything. So anything you chose to protect (yourself, family, etc.) is your own choice. But if you chose to protect yourself by using weapons that pose a great hazard to others you are crossing the line. Hence it should be illegal. Pools are not designed to kill things. Guns are. The guy who invented the gun said "cool, i can use this to kill things easier." The man who invented thepool said "cool I think people will enjoy this and then I ll get rich by selling them." Clear difference. When you buy a gun you do so with the intent of using someday to kill/seriously wound someone.
|
|
#54
10-04-2005, 05:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Banning all guns works pretty well
|
|
#55
10-04-2005, 05:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Banning all guns works pretty well
violence and murder will not be solved by arming every person in the DC area. There are much larger social forcesat work than stricter gun laws that lead to murders and violence.
|
|
#56
10-04-2005, 08:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: To all the gun nuts out there.
[ QUOTE ]
If Im not mistaken there are no psych tests to own a gun so you could be a brooding killer amassing a huge arsenal and it would be totally legal. What makes you think you are metally competant enough to own a gun? I'm sure oswald didnt wake up everyday and tell himself "yep, still crazy." [/ QUOTE ] There are tests. That is part of your background check to see if you have ever been deemed mentally incompetent. Use a better example... [ QUOTE ] Poice are charged with the safety of the public, citizens are not. Guns may be needed for the police to acomplish this goal. You are not charged with the safety of anything. So anything you chose to protect (yourself, family, etc.) is your own choice. But if you chose to protect yourself by using weapons that pose a great hazard to others you are crossing the line. Hence it should be illegal. [/ QUOTE ] You're logic is so embarrassingly flawed it would be laughable if it wasn't so serious...Just admit you are an idealogue and will never use your mind to actually think for yourself. [ QUOTE ] Pools are not designed to kill things. Guns are. The guy who invented the gun said "cool, i can use this to kill things easier." The man who invented thepool said "cool I think people will enjoy this and then I ll get rich by selling them." Clear difference. When you buy a gun you do so with the intent of using someday to kill/seriously wound someone. [/ QUOTE ] We have gone over this earlier in the thread. I had hoped it would sink in... -Gryph
|
|
#57
10-04-2005, 09:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: To all the gun nuts out there.
[ QUOTE ]
Poice are charged with the safety of the public, citizens are not. [/ QUOTE ] Not entirely true. At least not realistically. I read somewhere that there's about 1,000,000 cops in the U.S. But there's about 280 million people in the U.S. So each cop is responsible for protecting 280 people at any given time? Not possible. That means we're pretty much on our own for protecting ourselves. [ QUOTE ] So anything you chose to protect (yourself, family, etc.) is your own choice. But if you chose to protect yourself by using weapons that pose a great hazard to others you are crossing the line. [/ QUOTE ] ANY object that can be used to protect yourself or others can also become a great hazard to others. Irresponsible use of such weapons is crossing the line, but responsible use is not. [ QUOTE ] Hence it should be illegal. [/ QUOTE ] Only if the proper, responsible use of the weapon still results in deaths of innocents. This is why personal ownership of nuclear weapons should be illegal. They cannot be used in a proper, responsible manner without either killing other innocent people or harming other people in some way. Guns on the other hand can be used in a responsible manner without hurting other people. And you should really do some research on the amount of times guns are used to save lives. The number is FAR greater than the number of murders committed with guns. So by banning guns, you're ensuring that more people will die. To get you started, give this a quick read. Then check out the other articles at the bottom. [ QUOTE ] When you buy a gun you do so with the intent of using someday to kill/seriously wound someone. [/ QUOTE ] Really? My parents and grandparents have bought several rifles. All we use them for is target practice and hunting. Are you telling me that they bought those rifles so that one day they could kill/wound someone? Is this really your argument?
|
|
#58
10-04-2005, 09:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: To all the gun nuts out there.
[ QUOTE ]
Poice are charged with the safety of the public, citizens are not. Guns may be needed for the police to acomplish this goal. [/ QUOTE ] This shows another major disconnect with the law and with reality. It is a well-established legal principle in this country that the individual has no right to, or expectation of, police protection. Read this: [ QUOTE ] Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: ``For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.'' The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a ``fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.'' Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981). [/ QUOTE ] And this: [ QUOTE ] Many states, however, have specifically precluded such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.'' [/ QUOTE ] In actual practice, the job of police is not to protect people and to prevent crime, but to find and arrest criminals after the fact. To the extent that solving a crime prevents the next crime by that criminal, they also provide protection. [ QUOTE ] You are not charged with the safety of anything. So anything you chose to protect (yourself, family, etc.) is your own choice. [/ QUOTE ] This is fatuous, naive nonsense. You cannot be serious. Protection of self and family is inherent to humanity. An animal will die in defense of its young. You would rather call 911??? Probably a good thing, now that I think of it. People who think like that dilute the gene pool. [ QUOTE ] But if you chose to protect yourself by using weapons that pose a great hazard to others you are crossing the line. [/ QUOTE ] In addition to the 2nd Amendment, the constitutions of most states (44 states, I believe) specifically cite the right to bear arms. Most of those state constitutions explicitly cite self-defense as a valid use of arms. [ QUOTE ] Hence it should be illegal. [/ QUOTE ] Unsupported opinion, which will be given all the consideration it deserves.
|
|
#59
10-05-2005, 12:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: To all the gun nuts out there.
[ QUOTE ]
Unsupported opinion, which will be given all the consideration it deserves. [/ QUOTE ] hahaha HAHAHAHAHA your an idiot
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
