Ironworks Gaming Forum - Gun Control. Knife Control. Tomorrow, pointy sticks?

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)

- General Discussion (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36)

- - Gun Control. Knife Control. Tomorrow, pointy sticks? (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78685)

Quote:

Originally posted by Grojlach:
I will never understand the fear-based mindset that makes something think "hey, but if you take away our guns, I can't defend myself against the criminals anymore!", and that's probably the cause of all of our disagreements. I wonder though, if you personally ever decided to move abroad to a country with gun restriction laws and which doesn't have a gun culture, would you still feel the need to own a gun in order to defend yourself, even if only on a subconscious level? I certainly don't feel the need to own one, and we have strict anti-gun ownership laws over here.

If I decide to move abroad to a country that restricts or prohibits gun ownership then I will not own a gun. I will take other measures to make certain that I and my family remain safe, however. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img]
It has nothing to do with fear; rather, it has everything to do with practicality.

Quote:

Originally posted by Grojlach:
No need to be rude about it.

I wasn't being rude, merely straightforward. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

Quote:

Originally posted by Grojlach:
And I'm convinced that the complete opposite is true. Agree to disagree, then? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Always! That is much better than less socially acceptable alternatives. Variety is the spice of life. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] 

[ 05-31-2005, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: Azred ]

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
Ah, I love to see anti-gun nuts try to interpret gun ownership out of the constitution. HA! You do realize that doing so is historical revisionism. Since a gun was a common household item, a useful TOOL, kept in almost every home during the time period, your interpretation could not have been what ANYONE was thinking. But, whatever. You keep thinking what you think, and I'll keep pointing and laughing at you.

By the same token I love to see pro-gun nuts try to interpret gun regulation out of the constitution. HA HA HA!!! This viewpoint seem to take the cake when it comes to historical revisionism and deserves the most pointing and laughing.

http://www.gunlawsuits.org/defend/se.../symposium.php

Excerpt:

Quote:

In fact, history teaches us that the Founding Fathers would surely roll over in their graves if they knew the Second Amendment has become a popular argument against reasonable gun control measures. Prof. Saul Cornell of the Ohio State University and editor of the upcoming Whose Right to Bear Arms Did the Second Amendment Protect?, pointed out that our forefathers lived during a time of extensive firearm restrictions. At the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment, all of the states had restrictions on gun ownership, Boston banned the possession of loaded firearms within its city limits and Pennsylvania permitted only those deemed to have the necessary "virtue" to own firearms. It is ironic that the Founding Fathers lived at a time when it was routine for the government to know who owned guns and how many they owned, yet today those same Founding Fathers are cited in opposition to gun licensing and registration laws. It is time for the gun lobby to cease its incessant distortion of the historical record and its time for all of us to get the record straight.

The Second Amendment quite clearly states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This means that Congress cannot pass a law that completely prohibits people from owning guns--this satisfies the pro-gun-owning people. However, it doesn't say that Congress cannot pass a law stating which guns are prohibited (like assault rifles) or that gun owners can secretly own weapons (thus your gun must be legally registered)--this satisfies the anti-gun-owning people.

A gun is simply a tool. Like any tool, it can be misused. A gun cannot kill anyone by itself; a person must be purposely firing the gun at someone in order to kill. Blame the person, not the tool.

Quote:

Originally posted by Azred:

A gun is simply a tool. Like any tool, it can be misused. A gun cannot kill anyone by itself; a person must be purposely firing the gun at someone in order to kill. Blame the person, not the tool.

A gun is not just simply a tool, but specific type of tool- A Weapon. A weapon is a tool primarily designed to rip flesh and cause death/harm. Unlike, say, a hammer which is a tool designed to drive nails, but can be used to rip flesh and cause death/harm. The gun's distinction as a tool of weaponry, designed primarily to easily puncture multiple meatbags in a short amount of time, places them into a distinctly different category than simple tools.

I generally second what Azred said about the right to bear arms. Your post about prohibitions on guns at the time of the drafting of the Constitution is location-specific, and assumming it is accurate it does not reflect poorly on the right to own guns. In fact, I have no problem with thresholds to gun ownership (such as waiting periods and background checks), so long as guns are allowed to be owned by responsible citizens. Having every gun catalogued and referenced is a slight limitation, and is fine by me. The point is that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to defend their homes and their persons, and their safety. Restrictions and rules are NOT tantamount to a prohibition.

Quote:

Originally posted by Azred:
The Second Amendment quite clearly states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This means that Congress cannot pass a law that completely prohibits people from owning guns

Unless they interpreted arms as any weapon. YOu could then ban every weapon, except, say, short swords, and you still have the right to bear arms, ie shortswords, even though the type of arms is restircted.

Quote:

Originally posted by Azred:
These statements are not directed at any person, whether here on in the off-line world.

I could kill you with a credit card. I could kill you with my keys. I could kill you with my ball-point pen. I could kill you with a washcloth. I could kill you with a handful of paper towels. Finally, yes, I could kill you with a peanut butter sandwich.

I am not kidding--I really do know how to do those things.

Bah! If I or any human being was a willing participant, comatosed, or otherwise previously seriously incapacitated, then maybe it might work methinks. Anyone coming at me with a fistful of paper towels and a sandwich would be in very deep trouble, I assure you. I've seen guns and knives at work firsthand, they work.

The only way the above lethal weapons would work is if the intended target died laughing.

Quote:

Originally posted by Azred:
The Second Amendment quite clearly states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Handy... Remove all guns, supply everyone with paper towels, a credit card and a sandwich...all your gun problems solved, everyone heavily armed.

Quote:

Originally posted by Charlie:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Azred:
The Second Amendment quite clearly states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Handy... Remove all guns, supply everyone with paper towels, a credit card and a sandwich...all your gun problems solved, everyone heavily armed. [/QUOTE][img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img]

Obviously there would have to be restrictions placed on the type of sandwhich. Only single layer sadnwhichs, not double-deckers. No BLTs of course. THere's just no need for the ordinary citizen to have one of those. Military use only.

I think we should all congratulate Charlie on allowing us to take a step back and look at the situation from a completely different point of view! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]