Gun Control

[Eyes High]

So when its the first response is that the response of a genius or an idiot?

an idiot

So you don't think a first strike is ever justified?

I'm not for sure. I will think on that and get back to this thread.

[SwordMaster]

Chop to the neck is great but why would anyone just let you do that, unless you sneak up on them or something, or have dune like speeds you can move at Miles Teg speed you can decapitate someone with a chop

but yeah, I just think guns make it all too easy and without a gun, you have knives and sowrds and maybe try to hit someone with your car, all difficult ways. Slip some poison in their food? None of this shit is easy. A gun makes it this easy.

Point
pull trigger
kill.

Why so many gun deaths are not on purpose

[Schu]

I say let them all have guns, so long as they don't shoot me. Call it accelerated darwinism

[Eyes High]

So when its the first response is that the response of a genius or an idiot?

an idiot

So you don't think a first strike is ever justified?

Freak, you asked a very interesting and poignant question. I hope I have given this enough thought and that my response is coherent.

I do not consider myself a pacifist so to say, as in there are situations and circumstances that, in my opinion, do require a forceful response. But in the question of first strike… Well, I think I would have to go with no. When a human being makes the first physical move toward violence then that individual has basically said that further intelligent debate and negotiation is beyond all hope.

Now before anyone goes into the case of self-defense let me say that I believe if it truly comes down to self-defense then that means the other person has already made the first strike. If someone messes with my children, then they have made the first strike. When someone has entered my home with-out my permission, they struck first. If I am touched without my ok, then the first blow has already been dealt. If an individual or group threatens my family then if that threat is valid (in my mind) then the first strike has already been made, whether that threat was physical or only a verbal promise of physical harm to come.

I do consider myself to be a kind, calm, and peaceful person. I do try to be friends with nearly everyone, even though I know that is impossible because not everyone will like me nor I them. I have been in fights and altercations before, mainly in my younger days, but I do not consider myself a violent person. Violence rarely, if ever, truly solves the problem that created the situation to begin with. I’ll be among the first to admit that I am capable of having a fine Irish temper, but I would hope that I allow that temper to rule me less and less as I age and, hopefully, mature.

So do I believe is there ever a justifiable reason to strike first? I would have to say it depends on your definition of “strike.” As for me and my definition, then I would have to say that at this point and time I cannot imagine a situation that would justify being the one to strike first. It is never a clear case of get him before he can get me. Life is just not that simple.


Well that is my two cents worth for this round.

Have a nice day everyone.


Now with that said, where’s my weapons?!

[trang]

Hmm gun control to First strike and killing methods... interesting. Well the most advanced killing weapon on the planet is the human mind.

There are "Easy" ways, already demonstrated every day in the news, where you dont need a gun. You dont have to get physical or even be in the 5 state area or same country. Let your imagination run wild. Like Freak said hate to list silly stuff like that for the boys listening in the background etherworld.

I think first strike can mean a lot of different things, and doesnt necessarily mean a "death Blow". First strike can be aggressive defensive, thru observation, you strike first when things appear out of the norm or a percieved threat, while not imminent, is building. Many examples... stalkers...criminals casing... etc.

I think guns make killing more effective, not so much easier. Time and effort more effective. The "easy" to wield compared to other means, but, if you dont know what your doing, the "easy" killing can be just as dangerous for the wielder as the target.

just random thoughts, gettting caught back up on board, been off for couple days, RL junk again.

Trang.

[SadisticCynic]

[quote="Eyes High]
Now before anyone goes into the case of self-defense let me say that I believe if it truly comes down to self-defense then that means the other person has already made the first strike. If someone messes with my children, then they have made the first strike. When someone has entered my home with-out my permission, they struck first. If I am touched without my ok, then the first blow has already been dealt. If an individual or group threatens my family then if that threat is valid (in my mind) then the first strike has already been made, whether that threat was physical or only a verbal promise of physical harm to come.
[/quote]

This was what I was attempting to communicate when I said I am not a pacifist (except I don't have children).
Thanks Eyes High You can be the Mouth of SadisticCynic now .

[Seraphan]

If people dont have guns they use knives, if they dont have knives they use pointy sticks, if they dont have pointy sticks they use rocks. When a human being wants to kill another and they dont have the tools for it, they make them.
For me, if you want to own a gun you have to register it, that's it. Make sure you know how many are there and who has them. Start prohibiting them and the whole thing takes place underground without a regulating market, guns start ending up in the hands of anyone without you knowing it.

First strike, well i think it's an action you take under certain conditions, not inheritently good or bad; you have to look at the ones taking such action before even saying that it was Ok or Not.

My 2 cents for the matter.

[Freakzilla]

"I don't know how World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones."
~Albert Einstein

Smart guy.

[A Thing of Eternity]

"I don't know how World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones."
~Albert Einstein

Smart guy.

I love that quote.

[SwordMaster]

So when its the first response is that the response of a genius or an idiot?

an idiot

So you don't think a first strike is ever justified?

Freak, you asked a very interesting and poignant question. I hope I have given this enough thought and that my response is coherent.

I do not consider myself a pacifist so to say, as in there are situations and circumstances that, in my opinion, do require a forceful response. But in the question of first strike… Well, I think I would have to go with no. When a human being makes the first physical move toward violence then that individual has basically said that further intelligent debate and negotiation is beyond all hope.

Now before anyone goes into the case of self-defense let me say that I believe if it truly comes down to self-defense then that means the other person has already made the first strike. If someone messes with my children, then they have made the first strike. When someone has entered my home with-out my permission, they struck first. If I am touched without my ok, then the first blow has already been dealt. If an individual or group threatens my family then if that threat is valid (in my mind) then the first strike has already been made, whether that threat was physical or only a verbal promise of physical harm to come.

I do consider myself to be a kind, calm, and peaceful person. I do try to be friends with nearly everyone, even though I know that is impossible because not everyone will like me nor I them. I have been in fights and altercations before, mainly in my younger days, but I do not consider myself a violent person. Violence rarely, if ever, truly solves the problem that created the situation to begin with. I’ll be among the first to admit that I am capable of having a fine Irish temper, but I would hope that I allow that temper to rule me less and less as I age and, hopefully, mature.

So do I believe is there ever a justifiable reason to strike first? I would have to say it depends on your definition of “strike.” As for me and my definition, then I would have to say that at this point and time I cannot imagine a situation that would justify being the one to strike first. It is never a clear case of get him before he can get me. Life is just not that simple.


Well that is my two cents worth for this round.

Have a nice day everyone.


Now with that said, where’s my weapons?!

Well said, I of course knew you would post this way! perfect.

[Freakzilla]

Got this in my weekly Veterans Report:

The Federal Gun Control Act currently prohibits the sale of firearms to people who are "adjudicated as a mentally defective." The Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act, Bill S 669, would prevent veterans who are deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness from losing the right to own a gun.

[chanilover]

Got this in my weekly Veterans Report:

The Federal Gun Control Act currently prohibits the sale of firearms to people who are "adjudicated as a mentally defective." The Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act, Bill S 669, would prevent veterans who are deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness from losing the right to own a gun.

Is that the real reason you haven't got any guns, Freak?

[SwordMaster]

Got this in my weekly Veterans Report:

The Federal Gun Control Act currently prohibits the sale of firearms to people who are "adjudicated as a mentally defective." The Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act, Bill S 669, would prevent veterans who are deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness from losing the right to own a gun.

Is that the real reason you haven't got any guns, Freak?

Im a bit suprised FZ does not have any guns. Shit, Im a lefty liberal red card carrying party member and even I have a couple. An old .22 rifle and a Remington 870 Marine Magnum, pump action beast of a weapon that we shoot clay with. I keep the firearms up north however and do not store them in the city. Although if this revolution starts happening I might bring old Remi down and sit on my porch with it.

[SadisticCynic]

Although if this revolution starts happening I might bring old Remi down and sit on my porch with it.

Get offa mah property!

[Freakzilla]

As I said... the kids are too young. It's not that I don't want any.

[A Thing of Eternity]

As I said... the kids are too young. It's not that I don't want any.

If everyone was you I'd be all for handgun rights. Buuut...

[Phaedrus]

I've never been good with issues like this one.

I see the point of gun control advocates- they think of a world without weapons, and it seems pretty nice.

But, I think I have to side with gun rights, simply because A) guns are just one type of weapon, people will use others, B) gun control doesn't work that well, and C) you can't stop violent deaths and weapons accidents, period. It's better to extend more rights to people than it is to take them away.

[Freakzilla]

As I said... the kids are too young. It's not that I don't want any.

If everyone was you I'd be all for handgun rights. Buuut...

if everyone was Freak, i'd have gotten a gun and killed myself by now....

That's all well and fine for the children, but that wouldn't stop me from killing you or say... my wife... in a drunken rage.

[SwordMaster]

again, guns make it too easy, if FZ is drunk he cant kill you unless driving a car or truck

new idea for gun control

get rid of all guns, and everyone has to get drunk as soon as they get home from work!

[Eyes High]

again, guns make it too easy, if FZ is drunk he cant kill you unless driving a car or truck

new idea for gun control

get rid of all guns, and everyone has to get drunk as soon as they get home from work!

Bad idea. I knew some MEAN drunks. They need to be kept as far away from intoxication beverages as humanly possible.

[SwordMaster]

again, guns make it too easy, if FZ is drunk he cant kill you unless driving a car or truck

new idea for gun control

get rid of all guns, and everyone has to get drunk as soon as they get home from work!

Bad idea. I knew some MEAN drunks. They need to be kept as far away from intoxication beverages as humanly possible.

good point, mean drunks should have to live alone with only a large punching bag and some nyquil to wash down their dinner! sleep tight tuogh guy! lols! i need sleep

[Eyes High]

again, guns make it too easy, if FZ is drunk he cant kill you unless driving a car or truck

new idea for gun control

get rid of all guns, and everyone has to get drunk as soon as they get home from work!

Bad idea. I knew some MEAN drunks. They need to be kept as far away from intoxication beverages as humanly possible.

good point, mean drunks should have to live alone with only a large punching bag and some nyquil to wash down their dinner! sleep tight tuogh guy! lols! i need sleep

Now that is a GOOD idea!

[SwordMaster]

oh man the typos are all over the place tonight
you guys forgive me right?

when ever I get drunk my state goes something like this:

dance
laugh
hug people
get lazy
eat
go to bed

lols!

[SadisticCynic]

He did post laugh on his list...

[Freakzilla]

again, guns make it too easy, if FZ is drunk he cant kill you unless driving a car or truck

new idea for gun control

get rid of all guns, and everyone has to get drunk as soon as they get home from work!

Bad idea. I knew some MEAN drunks. They need to be kept as far away from intoxication beverages as humanly possible.

good point, mean drunks should have to live alone with only a large punching bag and some nyquil to wash down their dinner! sleep tight tuogh guy! lols! i need sleep

Now that is a GOOD idea!

You never see violent potheads. Fighting over the last slice of pizza is a worst case scenario.