Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A?

Hand Guns Yes ... Hand Guns used only at shooting range or controlled arena where the hand gun is kept secure.
Anyone caught with a hand gun in public should be imprisoned without exception for a period no less than 6 months.

 

Check out Luby's Cafeteria in Texas. Mc Donalds in Chula Vista. Ect-ect.

 

Since you have cast aspersions on my reasons for leaving this thread, I will explain.

The last time I tried to "debate" this subject with you, you banned me a week for "trolling", for me a some what new debating tactic, which I did not care for.

So I really don't care if it seems, to you, like an excuse to get out of a debate, I just don't feel like being banned for standing up to you on this subject.
Have a nice day.

 

OWB

I haven't banned anyone for ages, and i don't do it for nothing - can you point out the post that got you the ban and i'll investigate.

Yours

Balbus

 

Here is the information you asked for:

OWB

As I keep saying – if you were interested in things beyond defending guns then you would have already been discussing them and when called on that you would have entered into other discussions.

From what I can tell your posts mainly fit into the ‘god, guns and gays’ areas that I talked about earlier the mantra of the conservative and neo-con right wing that they use to distract from any open and honest debate on other things.

So yes I’m calling you a liar because you are a liar you claim that I’m refusing to discuss other issues, yet there are many threats on the forum that do discuss other issues as far as I can tell you’ve not contributed anything of any worth to any of them.

Quote:
Personally I'm still waiting for you, to take me up on my offer to discuss “societal problems”.


I told you that if you said this again I’d consider it trolling, it seemed fair warning – one week time out for trolling.

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353277&page=27

Have a nice day.

 

No.

I'm looking at this from the view point of someone who gets commands from above. Sees first hand the atrocities of the Government.

The Government can and will be eventually overthrown. Hence, the need for well armed Militia's.

We as soldiers will not act on Unlawful Orders from above so we're not the ones to fear.

Potential Civil War on repeat.

Fear? I don't give a shit, I have plenty of guns to go around. Take it or leave it.

I believe in being prepared if even for nothing. Break in's, thugs etc.

 

Cal

What would bring about the ‘governments’ overthrow, not the means (which you think will be “armed Militia's”) but the reasons what would bring about this rebellion?

I mean US government abuses of power have gone on for years and in many case the American public have gone along with it and even been supportive.

I’ve said before that the best defence against tyranny is a balanced political system and the best hope of bring one down is an army that isn’t willing to open fire on its own people.

The problem is that in US history, government controlled forces have opened fire on ‘rebellious’ citizens.

But that’s my argument people are not asking why they are afraid they just desire a gun because they’re afraid. I think it would be better to try and tackle the root causes of the fear.

And you are prepared because you fear.

Also while a gun may or may not deter or stop a break in, it cannot tackle the reasons as to why the person is breaking in. In other word the gun can only tackle the symptoms not the causes.

 

You think I fear? LOL you don't know me.

I have guns now simply because I like them. I shoot in my home-time to keep my scores up. I'm an expert marksman rewarded by the Army.

Guns are what I do.

I have to have one by my side 90% of the time due to being active duty. I go home and have guns there.

Call it a hobby.

 

There's nothing at all wrong with owning a gun or many guns if you like. It should only be illegal to commit a criminal act using a gun, and I applaud anyone who uses a gun in preventing a criminal act.

 

Ew balbus you don't know me like that. There have been brake ins in my neighborhood and where my house is its like an easy target. I prefer to be prepared for everything and anything its not being afraid its being smart. I carry water with me in my backpack in casei get thirsty I Tye my shoes cause I might trip and I want a gun in my home for the off chance some one tries to harm my family. You don't need to have a gun no one is forcing you. The government doesn't put restrictions on you being a pompous prick they shouldn't put them on my right to self defense.

 

Rights need no justification. And if Balbus is a smart and rational as he claims, he will likely avoid breaking into your home, which if he did attempt anyway, would likely reduce the number of posts on this site immensely.
The best defense is a strong offense.

 

If you didn't notice, it already is illegal to commit a criminal act using a gun.


Just go ahead and buy more guns. Shoot each other, the more the better. That way there will be more space and natural resources for the rest of us. Go, shoot!

 

Failed reading comprehension? Try parsing this way, "It should ONLY be illegal to commit a criminal act using a gun." Recognizing the fact that "it is currently illegal to commit a criminal act using a gun", one might easily assume that criminals rather than guns are where our focus should be, and considering the additional fact that weapons other than guns can kill, in every case a human is involved. Show me a case where a gun, on its own has committed a felony act and then we might have a case for outlawing guns.

After 9/11 would you like to also outlaw airplanes?

 

Logic = not for you

 

Are you withholding or do you just not to have any to offer?

 

Show me case where an inanimate object - on it's own and without any human intervention - has ever done anything and I might stop withholding.

 

Cal

I don’t know you but I do read your posts.

And you seem to be implying that military life in ‘active duty’ (by which I take a combat zone) were it is prudent to be armed is the same as living in your civilian society were you also feel it is prudent to be armed. In other words you seem to feel that living in you home is like living in a combat zone.

And while I think some level of fear is prudent in a combat zone is that really how a supposedly peaceful society should live, in a state of fear?

 

Dark sugar

And you want to be prepared because you are frightened someone is going to harm you and your family. You think you are going to be attacked at any moment so of course you think it ‘smart’ to be armed.

But if you were not so frightened its very possible you wouldn’t feel you needed to be armed.

To you carrying a lethal weapon with the intention to maim or kill is the same as carrying some water or tying your shoes?

I’m not so afraid of the society I live in that I feel the need to have a gun to protect myself from it.

Wouldn’t it be better to try and tackle the root of this fear and start working toward having a society that isn’t as frighten?

 

But do you understand the reasons why you feel the need to attack? Why do you feel so threatened that you want to go on the attack to defend yourself? Is attacking the most prudent and sensible way to deal with the problem?

*

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world from personal interaction to how they see other countries.

They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of criminal or political suppression.

This attitude can lead to a near paranoid outlook were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.

The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

 

I’ve often said that I’ve got nothing against the law abiding and responsible owning a gun, but that doesn’t mean I’m against gun control measures because the flip side of that view is that I’m against the criminal minded and irresponsible gaining access to firearms of any kind.

Now I’ve often asked - do pro-gunners want guns out of the hands of criminals - and the most common answer I got is – yes, but that is impossible – the second bit turning the yes effectively into no – meaning they do want guns in the hands of criminals.

The ‘impossible’ argument is the idea that there is no alternative; nothing can be done to get guns out of the hands of the criminally minded.

But many things could be done to limit criminal access to guns, it is just that many pro-gunners seem to object to them, it is not impossible it is just seems to me that they want to make it look like it is impossible.