Nope , just passing by . Hey do you think we should set up a room on skype for P&R ? We could finish this debates much faster lol .
Here we learn responsible use of a gun at an early age. Teaching a kid to handle a .22 or .410 for hunting or varmint control isn't the same as equipping them with automatic weapons and telling them its to kill Jews or some enemy du jour. Amazing that you can't see a difference... or choose not to. It is not irresponsible to teach our children gun safety, it's irresponsible not to. Where I grew up, a gun is just a tool, and the kids I see in the news who get hurt with them are generally the ones that have been kept away from learning how to safely use them. That said, the thread is about removing the 2nd amendment, and that is a US thing, so that is what I've addressed. Unlike your portion of the globe, we have the right. It isn't going to go away just because you and others outside the US don't like it. We just don't care.
"Right to gun ownership shall not be infringed" So why to do you infringe on the right on airplanes? LOL hypocrite!
Are you actually capable of conversing intelligently or is the constant name calling an ingrained habit you learned from Gworld? I have zero problem not allowing passengers to carry firearms on a plane, but then I also don't light cigars on an airplane and I do in other places. If that somehow makes you think we are less free than people in a country where the government systematically disarms inhabitants and you dont see a difference, that's really not my problem.
Murder is already illegal in the US. So I'm not sure how making every possible method one could commit a murder illegal, or less accessible will make someone any less apt to commit an act, which again, is already ILLEGAL.
I think everything that can be said to show how illogical gun control is has been said. At the end of the day you can't expect those who have never had freedom to understand it; it's like the subjects in 'Plato's cave' conceiving of outside. Helvetti has never been capable of proper debate. He conveniently ignores sections of arguments he can't counter.
I believe everyone should have the right to own guns for protection in their own home. I am not against requiring people to pass a basic firearms safety/proficiency test either before being granted a concealed carry permit. If you are against gun ownership, consider this: Why is a money transporter (don't know the correct term, those who drive armored cars and deliver money to banks) allowed to have a gun to defend money that is not even his, but a mother cannot have a gun to protect her children from a pedophile rapist who breaks into her home at 3 AM? Politicians (including those vehemently opposed to gun rights), diplomats, etc. often have bodyguards armed with various weapons, including automatics, drive in bulletproof cars, etc. No one is assigned to protect you except YOURSELF, unless you are very wealthy and can afford your own 24/7 security detail. Is the life of some corrupt hypocrite in the government worth more than yours? Ohh... but the police will protect me... right?? Yeah... by the time you call 911 and cops arrive, if some maniac determined to kill you breaks into your home, you're already dead. If there is large scale civil disorder (think of the riots in LA 20 years ago), police may be temporarily unable to come to your aid if you are attacked. You are on your own and must defend yourself by any and all means available. Think this can't happen? Anything can trigger large scale disorder (riots, natural disaster, power blackout, etc.) that will tie up all police resources and significantly delay response times, sometimes even increase them by hours. Ohh ohh... Let's confiscate all guns ohh ohh! Yeah, right. Try this in the USA and you will end up with Civil War # 2. Law enforcement and military in many places will refuse to carry out an order to disarm civilians, as many of them believe in the 2nd amendment. You will just create utter chaos by trying to confiscate guns. Besides, even if by some miracle, all legal gun owners turn in their weapons, guess what. Criminals will still have theirs. Just because something is made illegal, it will not miraculously vanish. Cocaine is illegal, and yet can be found on the streets easily. Same thing for prostitution. Software piracy is illegal, yet there are millions of warez sites, etc etc etc. Bbbbuuutt... are you willing to face the repercussions of shooting someone? If it was true self defense, there will be none legally. Morally, The attacker made a choice to put my life in danger, so he forfeits his own. Don't believe the hippie BS that violent criminals are "just troubled youngsters who were seeking a second chance to rebuild their lives and become productive in society". They know exactly what they are doing and the potential consequences for them. If they truly wanted a "second chance", plenty of resources exist to help them stop being gang members, criminals, etc instead of robbing gas stations. In any case, I would rather be locked up for 5-10 years for "using excessive force" or whatever, rather then have my brain blown out by some low-life gang banger during a robbery and end up in a wooden box box six feet under the ground.
I heard that one person was carrying and took a shot at the murderer. He ( or she ) should have taken more arms classes. It is the fact that loonies are walking around with guns that more sane people need to carry them. This bumper sticker explained where the problem lies : If guns cause crime, then spoons are to blame for Oprah being overweight. More people are killed with cars than guns... should they not go first ? There are plenty of loonies behind the wheel of 4000 pound machines hurtling down the road at you. Be careful while driving...
Here's the thing, it says gun OWNERSHIP and not possession. There are regulations already in place banning possession of weapons in certain places, such as court rooms, airplanes, etc. I DO believe that if an air marshal is not present, pilots, or even flight attendants, should have a firearm as a last resort means of protection if they were trained in its use. The "bullet will bring the plane down OMG OMG OMG" thing is largely a myth. The holes created will not be large enough to cause explosive decompression. Even so, consider this scenario: Guy on plane has bomb in underpants. You see him shout "Jihaaaad!!! Death to America!!!!!" and attempt to light it. If you do nothing = bomb goes off, possibility of killing everyone. If you shoot him before he does so = very reduced possibility of bomb going off and killing everyone. There's always the risk of missing and hitting someone else. That's very unfortunate, but in this situation, it is safer to take a chance that one person will be accidentally killed then letting the bomber go through with his plan and resulting in killing everyone including you. Just because you support the right to have something doesn't mean that there should be absolutely ZERO rules on where said object could be brought to. For example, I have nothing against pornography and believe that if someone wants to build a porn site or watch "adult" videos as much as he wants, let him. Obviously, I don't think putting porn ads on a childrens site or having the Playboy magazine in an elementary school should be allowed. You believe that humans have the right to eat, do you? Do you throw up a fit because eating is not allowed in certain places and you aren't allowed to bring your McDonalds to a library or to a museum?
Good points Beirut. Totalitarians like Helvetti are all about taking everyone's rights away because they feel they shouldn't have them themselves. What kind of pathetic auto-masochistic mentality causes one to sacrifice one's own rights to ensure the rest lose them too?