Conquer Club

b.k. barunt wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Trephining wrote:The arguments that rely on "there is no need for auto or semi-auto weapons" are extremely weak in my opinion. The lack of need doesn't justify a ban.

We don't need running shoes; that doesn't mean they should be banned.

You no doubt realise that this in incredibly dishonest. It's not actually the real argument and you know it.

Dishonest? Not the real argument? Evidently you're still clueless in regards to the real argument.

The real argument is of course the reasons that the right to bear arms was originally put into the Constitution. The two main reasons for this are:

1) Protection for self and family. If thugs on the street - who might decide to pay you an impromptu visit at any given time - have automatic weapons then you would need the same to adequately protect your home against such. Too simple?

2) To maintain an armed populace in case the government tried to impose a tyrannical regime. In other words the populace should have access to the same weapons as the military. This would include automatic weapons. To allege that such are not necessary is in fact dishonest. Nice try at flipping things around there.


Honibaz

b.k. you dolt, I'm referring to the counter-argument. Which mostly takes the form of "There is no real need for automatic or semi-automatic weapons (that can't be satisfied through other means) and they have a negative effect on society as a whole".

now, whether this is true or not is up for debate, but it's dishonest to dismiss it with some lame remark about running shoes.

Snorri, you are pretty thick.

All you have done is say why our comparisons are inaccurate but have offered up not a single argument of your own. You can compare all of those things I mentioned to guns because of 1 thing that ties them together and that is that you can use the same argument for why you don't need the things I said as you can for why you don't need guns. And that is the argument that we stated at the beginning of this.

Now the previous comparison of running shoes is also a very good comparison IMO because he is right when he said that many people use the argument that the guns "are not needed." Many people make this argument that they are not needed and leave it at that. So I think he established his point very thoroughly that it is a stupid and irrational argument by comparing it to something that obviously no one has a problem with but at the same time is obviously "not needed."

Obviously, by no means, is he saying get rid of running shoes. He is just stating that if you want to make an argument for getting rid of guns you can't say "they are not needed" because then you will have to get rid of mostly every consumer product that exists today.

nyheerhh wrote:I like living in the UK. Most of us don't own a gun or feel the need to own one. If we ever need to have a civil war I guess we can rely on the US to provide us with weapons fairly quickly. After all they've been feeding them to the Irish long enough.

You're just mad cause they're free now. And they got that way by shooting at the English.

bedub1 wrote:Guns keep people peaceful and respectful.

No one was more respectful than 2Pac.

b.k. barunt wrote: Why do we have guns in America? Because in spite of an ever increasing number of faggoty gun haters who coincidentally have no problem killing babies, we're still a rootin tootin six gun shootin cowboy motherfucking nation. We like guns. We like violence. We like sending visiting Aussie liberals home in tears with their knickers down around their ankles.

Any more stoopit questions?

God Damnitt this should be a t-shirt or a sticker or printed on the one dollar bill or just----just something!

Chuuuuck wrote:Snorri, you are pretty thick.

All you have done is say why our comparisons are inaccurate but have offered up not a single argument of your own

Hey, for the record, snorri is a forum reg. If you took all the posts/arguments he has made on this subject in the past and put them together, it would look like the post-it note scene from Bruce Almighty.

Snorri1234 wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Trephining wrote:The arguments that rely on "there is no need for auto or semi-auto weapons" are extremely weak in my opinion. The lack of need doesn't justify a ban.

We don't need running shoes; that doesn't mean they should be banned.

You no doubt realise that this in incredibly dishonest. It's not actually the real argument and you know it.

Dishonest? Not the real argument? Evidently you're still clueless in regards to the real argument.

The real argument is of course the reasons that the right to bear arms was originally put into the Constitution. The two main reasons for this are:

1) Protection for self and family. If thugs on the street - who might decide to pay you an impromptu visit at any given time - have automatic weapons then you would need the same to adequately protect your home against such. Too simple?

2) To maintain an armed populace in case the government tried to impose a tyrannical regime. In other words the populace should have access to the same weapons as the military. This would include automatic weapons. To allege that such are not necessary is in fact dishonest. Nice try at flipping things around there.


Honibaz

b.k. you dolt, I'm referring to the counter-argument. Which mostly takes the form of "There is no real need for automatic or semi-automatic weapons (that can't be satisfied through other means) and they have a negative effect on society as a whole".

now, whether this is true or not is up for debate, but it's dishonest to dismiss it with some lame remark about running shoes.

Thank you so much for that fumbling attempt at deflecting attention from your own dishonesty. Trephining responded to an inane point about automatic weapons not being needed with a sarcastic reference to running shoes. Look up "sarcasm" or "irony" in the dictionary. To call such "dishonest" shows that you don't as yet understand it and to define it as "dishonest" makes you look stoopit. Just saying . . .


Honibaz

Chuuuuck wrote:Snorri, you are pretty thick.

All you have done is say why our comparisons are inaccurate but have offered up not a single argument of your own.

I got about 3 40-page threads full of arguments on this. Excuse me for not giving them again in some silly thread that just started.

You can compare all of those things I mentioned to guns because of 1 thing that ties them together and that is that you can use the same argument for why you don't need the things I said as you can for why you don't need guns. And that is the argument that we stated at the beginning of this.

A comparison which rest solely on the "need" aspect is incredibly dumb. You have to list things which have a marked negative effect on society and little to no benefit (at least, none that can't be fulfilled by other types of guns).

The things you've listed either have little negative effect or the negative effect is outweighed by the benefit.

Now the previous comparison of running shoes is also a very good comparison IMO because he is right when he said that many people use the argument that the guns "are not needed." Many people make this argument that they are not needed and leave it at that. So I think he established his point very thoroughly that it is a stupid and irrational argument by comparing it to something that obviously no one has a problem with but at the same time is obviously "not needed."

Running shoes do not kill people.

Obviously, by no means, is he saying get rid of running shoes. He is just stating that if you want to make an argument for getting rid of guns you can't say "they are not needed" because then you will have to get rid of mostly every consumer product that exists today.

The not-needed point is made because, despite reassurance by some people, believing that you need guns is a batshit insane idea which is still widely held by gunowners. People are honest to god saying that they need guns, even right here in this thread.

b.k. barunt wrote: Thank you so much for that fumbling attempt at deflecting attention from your own dishonesty. Trephining responded to an inane point about automatic weapons not being needed with a sarcastic reference to running shoes. Look up "sarcasm" or "irony" in the dictionary. To call such "dishonest" shows that you don't as yet understand it and to define it as "dishonest" makes you look stoopit. Just saying . . .

Guess what!?


I actually understood that Trephining was being sarcastic, which is why I didn't respond with attacking him for his anti-running shoes stance. Running shoes do not kill people.


It would've been better to compare them to cars, which are in fact very dangerous.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

bedub1 wrote:Guns keep people peaceful and respectful.

No one was more respectful than 2Pac.

Yeah, how'd that work out for him? Maybe if he wasn't such a piece of shit he'd still be alive.

nyheerhh wrote:I like living in the UK. Most of us don't own a gun or feel the need to own one. If we ever need to have a civil war I guess we can rely on the US to provide us with weapons fairly quickly. After all they've been feeding them to the Irish long enough.

Um... as a proud American of Irish Heritage... harking from the Great City of Boston. I have to correct you. It's really only been us Bostonians (maybe a few fellow "Mic's" from New York and Chicago)... that have been providing guns to the Irish to fight English oppression.

... and we pretty much stopped that in the late 80's or early 90's.
===

Of course you won't complain about the fact that we also cheerfully supplied you Brits during the Second World War... will you?

Snorri1234 wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote: Thank you so much for that fumbling attempt at deflecting attention from your own dishonesty. Trephining responded to an inane point about automatic weapons not being needed with a sarcastic reference to running shoes. Look up "sarcasm" or "irony" in the dictionary. To call such "dishonest" shows that you don't as yet understand it and to define it as "dishonest" makes you look stoopit. Just saying . . .

Guess what!?


I actually understood that Trephining was being sarcastic, which is why I didn't respond with attacking him for his anti-running shoes stance. Running shoes do not kill people.


It would've been better to compare them to cars, which are in fact very dangerous.

I actually wasn't being sarcastic necessarily. I was just trying to illustrate a very simple point that might be worded more clearly as:
"The lack of a need for something does not justify placing a ban on that same something."

Some of the others' points could be incorporated into my point to make it a little more complete, becoming:
"The lack of a need for something [which is also dangerous in some instances] does not justify placing a ban on that something."

Then if we want to argue in favor of the something that sentence could be extended once more to become:
"The lack of a need for something [which is also dangerous in some instances,] [but which also has a very positive role in a society's relationship between its government and its governed people in that it is a deterrent to tyranny by said government] does not justify placing a ban on that something."

bedub1 wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

bedub1 wrote:Guns keep people peaceful and respectful.

No one was more respectful than 2Pac.

Yeah, how'd that work out for him? Maybe if he wasn't such a piece of shit he'd still be alive.

i just lost all respect for you

Running shoes... and most other "unneccessary" items do have a "negative" impact on society (at least if you are a Lib you think they do)... because the production and distribution of all these "unneccessary" items increases our overall 'carbon footprint'. Thereby causing all sorts of problems.

Of course the production and distribution of all these consumer goods also fuels our economy and provided jobs... so...

aw... f**k jobs... down with consumerism!

(jokin')

Trephining wrote: Some of the others' points could be incorporated into my point to make it a little more complete, becoming:
"The lack of a need for something [which is also dangerous in some instances] does not justify placing a ban on that something."

Why not? Do you disagree with outlawing leadbased paints?

The real point the two of you are failing to agree on in your differences of opinion is the lack of need of the guns for any usefulness that can not be fulfilled by other, more appropriate, less dangerous products.

I think we all agree that lead based paint should be banned because there are products that can do exactly what it does without the down side.

But there is no product that can replace the positives of having a gun. If you want to argue just automatic and semi automatic guns then there is still no product that can replace their usefulness for what most American's (that believe in the right to bear arms) believe is the reason we should have them, and that is the fact they can be used to protect ourselves from our own government if need be, any other government that tries to start a war with us, or to protect ourselves in a time of any national disaster where the nation or just our local area falls into a period of lawlessness. I don't think there is any argument that a non semi-automatic pistol or rifle can protect you just as much as an assault rile and/or semi automatic pistols could and that is why I keep both of them in my house.

Plus... and maybe more importantly... the use / ownership of lead paint is not a Constitutionally Protected Right.

You don't need lead paint to...
1) Protect Yourself
2) Be Free / Speak Your Mind
3) Have Equal Rights / Equal Protections
etc.

I don't even think the original poster of this thread was that serious about the subject. Looks more like a ruse to get the usual people to argue against each other.

It is kind of funny that the OP assumes 9 out of 10 Americans carry guns around all the time and fire them off willy-nilly.

I suppose I could make similar gross generalizations about Australians - they only drink Fosters, they all live in or close to the outback, they have large knives (are these regulated in Australia?), and they are all former criminals.

EDIT - Edited for grammar before MeDeFe can bust me again.

silvanricky wrote:I don't even think the original poster of this thread was that serious about the subject. Looks more like a ruse to get the usual people to argue against each other.

It Worked!

thegreekdog wrote:I suppose I could make similar gross generalizations about Australians - they only drink Fosters, they all live in or close to the outback, they have large knives (are these regulated in Australia?), and they are all former criminals.

How about... "all Australians like to make ridiculous gross generalizations about Americans"
or maybe "all Australians hate all Americans and think most Americans deserve to die".

At least I would have some basis to make these... since these are the opinions of the original poster, they therfore MUST be the shared opinions of all Australians... right?

jimboston wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I suppose I could make similar gross generalizations about Australians - they only drink Fosters, they all live in or close to the outback, they have large knives (are these regulated in Australia?), and they are all former criminals.

How about... "all Australians like to make ridiculous gross generalizations about Americans"
or maybe "all Australians hate all Americans and think most Americans deserve to die".

At least I would have some basis to make these... since these are the opinions of the original poster, they therfore MUST be the shared opinions of all Australians... right?

Well, actually, if they believed that we were killing each other with our many automatic weapons, and they wanted us to all be dead, wouldn't they just leave us alone?

Chuuuuck wrote:The real point the two of you are failing to agree on in your differences of opinion is the lack of need of the guns for any usefulness that can not be fulfilled by other, more appropriate, less dangerous products.

I think we all agree that lead based paint should be banned because there are products that can do exactly what it does without the down side.

But there is no product that can replace the positives of having a gun. If you want to argue just automatic and semi automatic guns then there is still no product that can replace their usefulness for what most American's (that believe in the right to bear arms) believe is the reason we should have them, and that is the fact they can be used to protect ourselves from our own government if need be, any other government that tries to start a war with us, or to protect ourselves in a time of any national disaster where the nation or just our local area falls into a period of lawlessness. I don't think there is any argument that a non semi-automatic pistol or rifle can protect you just as much as an assault rile and/or semi automatic pistols could and that is why I keep both of them in my house.

Oh I don't actually think guns serve no purpose, I was just saying that a lack of need when something is dangerous is in fact a very good reason to ban that thing.

If you're gonna go with a flawed comparison, I'm gonna point out that flaw. My intention is to give the pro-gun side an actual legitimate and strong stance. Most people on forums I've seen arguing in favour of guns in my time have repeated the same flawed arguments over and over, and it in fact took a liberal who wasn't particularly fond of guns to convince me that there are legit reasons to have guns be legally available.


Case in point: The "I want to protect myself against the government"-argument is going to get you laughed at by most people. It would be a smart idea to acknowledge that you and your rifles are going to have a hard time defeating the US military.

thegreekdog wrote:

jimboston wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I suppose I could make similar gross generalizations about Australians - they only drink Fosters, they all live in or close to the outback, they have large knives (are these regulated in Australia?), and they are all former criminals.

How about... "all Australians like to make ridiculous gross generalizations about Americans"
or maybe "all Australians hate all Americans and think most Americans deserve to die".

At least I would have some basis to make these... since these are the opinions of the original poster, they therfore MUST be the shared opinions of all Australians... right?

Well, actually, if they believed that we were killing each other with our many automatic weapons, and they wanted us to all be dead, wouldn't they just leave us alone?

Now you are just trying to confuse me with circular arguments and logic.

Stop it!

Snorri1234 wrote:

Trephining wrote: Some of the others' points could be incorporated into my point to make it a little more complete, becoming:
"The lack of a need for something [which is also dangerous in some instances] does not justify placing a ban on that something."

Why not? Do you disagree with outlawing leadbased paints?

Not based simply on the fact that
a) there isn't a "need", and
b) it is also dangerous in some instances

There needs to be some other reason to justify a ban.

jimboston wrote:Plus... and maybe more importantly... the use / ownership of lead paint is not a Constitutionally Protected Right.

You don't need lead paint to...
1) Protect Yourself
2) Be Free / Speak Your Mind
3) Have Equal Rights / Equal Protections
etc.

I don't need guns for that either.

Snorri1234 wrote: Case in point: The "I want to protect myself against the government"-argument is going to get you laughed at by most people. It would be a smart idea to acknowledge that you and your rifles are going to have a hard time defeating the US military.

However... this IS the reason the Right is protected by our Constitution.

Therefore... not only do I have the Right to own a Rifle. I also have the Right to own a semi-automatic, and automatic, a flame-thrower, a bazooka, and a tank.

... and no I am not jokin'.

The government doesn't have the right to decide what ARMS I can or cannot own. Period.

That is the end-all be-all of the argument.

The minutia is meaninless and we should not be dragged into questions about gun safety, and/or whether or not there is a "need" for guns. That is all MOOT.

Snorri1234 wrote:

jimboston wrote:Plus... and maybe more importantly... the use / ownership of lead paint is not a Constitutionally Protected Right.

You don't need lead paint to...
1) Protect Yourself
2) Be Free / Speak Your Mind
3) Have Equal Rights / Equal Protections
etc.

I don't need guns for that either.

Maybe you don't need to protect yourself. Maybe I don't either.

However it is my Right to do so if I wish.