Shooting Amish People

[Henry123]

... WTF is wrong with people, and is it getting worse?

I totally agree. Whats wrong with these people! They should have used cannons. A bunch of amateurs!

Yeah I'm just kidding!

[Junket]

Y'know what the guns are really for right?

You know why the founding fathers put it in the constitution for us to have the right not privilege to bear arms right?

It's not so much about the hunting, or to ward of criminals.

It's for the government.

It's giving the democracy a means to fight off a tyranny.

You gotta remember, that the leaders of the new democracy were originally a bunch of disgruntled colonists.

I'll be damned if somebody try to remove my means of blowin' the head of some power 'ungry cock. In fact, the simple act of trying to remove that means is grounds for some head-blowin'-offin'.

[Gigabitch]

I have mine because once, about 14 years ago, my brother's lunatic stripper girlfriend decided she'd rather see him dead than let him break up with her, and she tried to do something about it.

At the time, I was working very late at a restaurant where I was the last person out after counting all of the cash for the night. Recipe for disaster.

So I bought a gun, and got some guys to take me shooting to brush up. Word got around. She left me alone.

My brother had to leave town for awhile. When he came back, he bought a shotgun.

[Junket]

I agree. I know too many innocent victims of gun violence. Besides, I like the odds of surviving a basball bat attack much better than the odds of surviving a handgun attack.

Great logic, Vash.

"Well, at least they're only gonna beat the shit out of me with a bat so I can die a brief and painful death. God bless the gun laws."

[Converse]

Glad you and your bro are ok Giga!

[jurupa]

I have mine because once, about 14 years ago, my brother's lunatic stripper girlfriend decided she'd rather see him dead than let him break up with her, and she tried to do something about it.

At the time, I was working very late at a restaurant where I was the last person out after counting all of the cash for the night. Recipe for disaster.

So I bought a gun, and got some guys to take me shooting to brush up. Word got around. She left me alone.

My brother had to leave town for awhile. When he came back, he bought a shotgun.

Remind me not to piss you off.

[Gigabitch]

Remind me not to piss you off.

Don't try to kill my little brother and we'll be fine.

[vashti]

Y'know what the guns are really for right?

You know why the founding fathers put it in the constitution for us to have the right not privilege to bear arms right?

It's not so much about the hunting, or to ward of criminals.

It's for the government.

It's giving the democracy a means to fight off a tyranny.

You gotta remember, that the leaders of the new democracy were originally a bunch of disgruntled colonists.

I'll be damned if somebody try to remove my means of blowin' the head of some power 'ungry cock. In fact, the simple act of trying to remove that means is grounds for some head-blowin'-offin'.

The right to bear arms is conditional upon belonging to a militia whose purpose is to defend the state. Since we have a military now which provides for our defense, I don't see that there is an individual right to bear arms. Unfortunately, though, the gun lobby is so strong and owns so many politicians, I don't know if we will ever see it argued this way.

(because) "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Also, you missed my rationale about the bat. You would not see crazy people killing multiple people with bats because they are not as lethal as a gun. You might kill one person, but would you be able to kill 10 or 15 before someone stops you? I don't think so.

[misombra]

that's stupid logic. i japan guns are illegal and there are almost no gun crimes. my comment earlier was only in reference to the u.s. where there aren't strict laws. but if we were to enforce anti-gun laws there would be a significant decrease in gun related incidents. look, people can always cause others harm, doesn't matter what laws you create. but the idea isn't to eliminate crime completely, that will never happen. the idea is to minimize it. if you were to make laws surrounding guns stricter there would be less bad people getting their hands on them. the only reason they do now is because it's so easy.

sorry, but i disagree. the logic isn't stupid, it's very simple. just because there is a high correlation between a and b doesn't mean a causes b.

just because japan has more strict gun laws than us doesn't mean that it is causing a decrease in gun crime. japanese people living in the u.s. don't have issues with guns either, and there's guns at their almost immediate disposal.

maybe it has more to do with their culture? i think so.

guns have been around for a long time, and it's only in the last 10 years that shooting up the school became an issue.

perhaps something else is going on?

if i start running people over in my car you think we can outlaw cars too?

what we REALLY need is population control.

oh yeah, and to say that this kind of thing only happens in the u.s. is laughable. go get a newspaper.

[Junket]

The right to bear arms is conditional upon belonging to a militia whose purpose is to defend the state. Since we have a military now which provides for our defense, I don't see that there is an individual right to bear arms. Unfortunately, though, the gun lobby is so strong and owns so many politicians, I don't know if we will ever see it argued this way.

(because) "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Also, you missed my rationale about the bat. You would not see crazy people killing multiple people with bats because they are not as lethal as a gun. You might kill one person, but would you be able to kill 10 or 15 before someone stops you? I don't think so.

I will accept your argument upon the bat.

However, do you really trust the military?

Do you really trust the the government? Especially in the state that it's in?

I don't know about you, but if I see a convoy comin' down my street and imposing some sort of martial law, I don't want to stand idly by. People need the ability to fight back. It's an unofficial form of checks and balances. I want the government, the military to think to themselves "if we do this, what will the people with guns do?

We shouldn't be afraid of the government, the government should be afraid of us.

[TDurden]

sorry, but i disagree. the logic isn't stupid, it's very simple. just because there is a high correlation between a and b doesn't mean a causes b.

just because japan has more strict gun laws than us doesn't mean that it is causing a decrease in gun crime. japanese people living in the u.s. don't have issues with guns either, and there's guns at their almost immediate disposal.

maybe it has more to do with their culture? i think so.

guns have been around for a long time, and it's only in the last 10 years that shooting up the school became an issue.

perhaps something else is going on?

if i start running people over in my car you think we can outlaw cars too?

what we REALLY need is population control.

oh yeah, and to say that this kind of thing only happens in the u.s. is laughable. go get a newspaper.

it's definitely culture as well, i won't argue that point. i think violence has increased in recent years due to our society being more accepting of it. i was watching heroes the other night and they showed a guy with his head sawed in half and blood everywhere. this is on network television where they refuse to say shit or show a breast.

also the car thing. cars are meant for transportation while guns are only meant for causing harm. you can't compare the two.

and fras, it's in the constitution because back then things were very turbulant. that's not so now, they is almost zero chance of a civil war or us overthrowing the government. that's such an easy copout, make a more reasonable argument.

[misombra]

well i won't compare cars and guns anymore. except to say that there are more traffic deaths than homicides by gun in the u.s.

[Junket]

and fras, it's in the constitution because back then things were very turbulant. that's not so now, they is almost zero chance of a civil war or us overthrowing the government. that's such an easy copout, make a more reasonable argument.

Oh is it?

Did you know in NOLA after the floods the governor gave the National Guard the order to remove weapons from the citizens? Regardless of whether they had broken any laws? They indiscriminately went door to door and confiscated any armaments people had. The weapons were never returned.

What do you got, huh?

Huh?

I'd like to see you argue why it was "just" for the goverment to disarm the people.

The government exercising it's rule over the people is very real. You act as if the world has reached a state of peace. That guns have no purpose in modern society. That is not the case, even in the UK.

Hey, if you wanna go with your hands on your head, be my guest, but I'd rather go with my finger on the trigger.

[vashti]

The way we keep our government in line is by voting, not by carrying guns.

[Junket]

The way we keep our government in line is by voting, not by carrying guns.

Yes, I'm sure the National Guard put up voting booths with "Yes, confiscate our guns." and "No, do not confiscate our guns."