The American gun Laws.....can it remain as it is?

Wendaline wrote:

ren wrote:

It's not a step taken if you don't have a gun in the first place. I think it would be pretty safe to assume that 99% of the anti gun advocates do not or have never owned a gun.

Practice what you preach, lead by example ?

You're basically saying peace advocates do not take the first step toward peace because they didn't go to war to begin with...

Not at all. If I wanted to say that then I would have said that.

I am practicing what I preach. I am pro peace and pro gun. I know about guns, I experienced them, and I have taken the time to do a little research. The same can not be said for all gun advocates or anti gun people.

You are equating law to peace. I know differently.

It's illegal to murder one another. That law did not stop the school shooting. Laws do not equal safety.

And those who wish to strip others of freedoms are not necessarily "leading by example"

I mean, ren, you have somethine that I don't think you should. I want you to give it up and if you don't I'm going to pass a law that will make you. And not only make you, but make you pay too. So, ren, pay me 100 bucks to take away that item, okay? Oh and that item is worth anywhere from 500-5000 bucks. Give it to me and I'll keep it for you, because I'm trustworthy.

Does that sound at all normal???

When you lead by example and do as you preach, in the case of not having guns, the first step is to not have a gun...

I mean, ren, you have somethine that I don't think you should. I want you to give it up and if you don't I'm going to pass a law that will make you. And not only make you, but make you pay too. So, ren, pay me 100 bucks to take away that item, okay? Oh and that item is worth anywhere from 500-5000 bucks. Give it to me and I'll keep it for you, because I'm trustworthy.

Does that sound at all normal???

Seems odd the government would charge people for taking their guns... I certainly hadn't heard about that before. if you are referring to paying taxes so that the government can seize people's firearms, worst case scenario is let the anti-gun advocates do it for free... I'm sure they won't mind.

But yes, it seems perfectly normal. gay haters are not being forced to experience homosexuality before voting on gay issues. When criminalizing rape, legislators are not required to become rapists.

ren wrote: When you lead by example and do as you preach, in the case of not having guns, the first step is to not have a gun...

But how can you make an informed decision if you're uneducated? (Not that I'm saying they should have a gun, anyone who dislikes them shouldn't, but you don't have to have one to learn.)

And a uneducated "example" is probably not the one to follow.

Seems odd the government would charge people for taking their guns... I certainly hadn't heard about that before. if you are referring to paying taxes so that the government can seize people's firearms, worst case scenario is let the anti-gun advocates do it for free... I'm sure they won't mind.

But yes, it seems perfectly normal. gay haters are not being forced to experience homosexuality before voting on gay issues. When criminalizing rape, legislators are not required to become rapists.

Let them do it for free? I'd love to see you explain that one.

As for the last paragraph, I'm a bit confused. Legislators aren't forced to use guns either.

I found a quote I thought said a lot:

"If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because guns will be needed to disarm the people. So it's not that you are anti-gun. You'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns. So you're very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous...) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions." Stefan Molyneux

Forgive those who just can't seem to trust that politically elite and the untrusting anti-gun following. Give no trust, get not trust. And why would anyone give up their livelyhood, their money, and their expensive property, sport, security, etc. for those who do not trust them?

How about just abandoning the delusion that guns are an essential part of a liberal civilization and an indicator of freedom, peace and safety and just go and live how the dozens of countries live that don't have them available next door?
Sure, they might not have seen the side where everyone just goes and buys guns at will. And yes, there is a lack of education and knowledge at that point. So what? Its not that they are any less successful in maintaining a peaceful society. Its not that they give people limited rights and even if they did, its not that there is anything wrong with it as long as the people are safe and happy.

Honestly, this discussion goes back and forth with no solid point being made by either side. Truly, most of us do both have an opinion but also understand the reasoning of the other side. Maybe the liberal gun laws are old and outdated and maybe in the recent years the US society grew to a point where they need to be changed. Maybe not. Its not that we meet conclusions or make decisions though. What happens here is just all the members expressing their opinions, and, by the way, the least of which are based on or reasoned through the philosophy and ideology the Temple claims its members to embody. Curious, is it not?

[/another two of my precious cents]

Let them do it for free? I'd love to see you explain that one.

Instead of the government spending money hiring people to detroy guns, have volunteers do it. this way people don't pay tax to have their guns taken away.

"If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because guns will be needed to disarm the people. So it's not that you are anti-gun. You'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns. So you're very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous...) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions." Stefan Molyneux

I have yet to see an armed british cop. I don't even remember seeing armed officers at the border.

And why would anyone give up their livelyhood, their money, and their expensive property, sport, security, etc. for those who do not trust them?

Because they are not selfish and want to be part of a society which does not give opportunities for psychos to do psychotic stuff? Because they are willing to make sacrifices for the greater good? That's how I see anyone who is law-abiding. We respect the law for the greater good. We pay our taxes for the greater good. As opposed to being greedy bastards who only think about themselves. Maybe this is why there is such a different attitude in europe... We're more socialist, americans are more individualist.

But yes, it seems perfectly normal. gay haters are not being forced to experience homosexuality before voting on gay issues. When criminalizing rape, legislators are not required to become rapists.

I am practicing what I preach. I am pro peace and pro gun. I know about guns, I experienced them, and I have taken the time to do a little research. The same can not be said for all gun advocates or anti gun people.

My point is that you do not need to know guns to want to outlaw them, just like you do not need to know rape to want to outlaw it. It's just like eating shit. Did you have to taste yours before knowing you didn't want any in your mouth? Me neither.

You are equating law to peace. I know differently.

I agree. Simply outlawing guns will not get rid of them. That's why I think you guys are doomed to live with your addiction to guns. Only solution is cold turkey, but that's so extreme I know it would never happen.

Gisteron wrote: How about just abandoning the delusion that guns are an essential part of a liberal civilization and an indicator of freedom, peace and safety and just go and live how the dozens of countries live that don't have them available next door?
Sure, they might not have seen the side where everyone just goes and buys guns at will. And yes, there is a lack of education and knowledge at that point. So what? Its not that they are any less successful in maintaining a peaceful society. Its not that they give people limited rights and even if they did, its not that there is anything wrong with it as long as the people are safe and happy.

Honestly, this discussion goes back and forth with no solid point being made by either side. Truly, most of us do both have an opinion but also understand the reasoning of the other side. Maybe the liberal gun laws are old and outdated and maybe in the recent years the US society grew to a point where they need to be changed. Maybe not. Its not that we meet conclusions or make decisions though. What happens here is just all the members expressing their opinions, and, by the way, the least of which are based on or reasoned through the philosophy and ideology the Temple claims its members to embody. Curious, is it not?

[/another two of my precious cents]

Good points. It would be great to live in a peaceful society. However, the reality is our race is not peaceful. You will never get rid of all guns. And those countries without them are no more safe. China = stabbings. Does nobody remember those kids?

ren wrote: Instead of the government spending money hiring people to detroy guns, have volunteers do it. this way people don't pay tax to have their guns taken away.

Ah, but there's that problem of asking people to give up thousands of dollars for nothing. Guns aren't cheap, yo!

I have yet to see an armed british cop. I don't even remember seeing armed officers at the border.

I have!!! I have a picture too, maybe I'll post it. I've seen them with guns at the airport and in London. :blink:

And I've talked with police officers here. They say that they are more scared of knives than guns. So...if the po po don't have a problem with guns, then why should I?

Because they are not selfish and want to be part of a society which does not give opportunities for psychos to do psychotic stuff? Because they are willing to make sacrifices for the greater good? That's how I see anyone who is law-abiding. We respect the law for the greater good. We pay our taxes for the greater good. As opposed to being greedy bastards who only think about themselves. Maybe this is why there is such a different attitude in europe... We're more socialist, americans are more individualist.

Riiight? (Sarcasm!) I'm not selfish...well no more than anybody else in the world. I don't own a gun. I do, however, know that "anti gun" advocates are asking people to give up their livelihoods. To lose their jobs, income, property, and, yes, safety because burglaries, rapes, assaults, etc. do happen. Actually just had two incidents reported in the local paper of women scaring off robbers with their guns. Those women were and are law abiding.

And psychos, they will ALWAYS have opportunities. Do you live in a society with cars, booze, fire, acid, knives, baseball bats, hairspray, etc? If so then you're just as selfish and bastardy as me.

My point is that you do not need to know guns to want to outlaw them, just like you do not need to know rape to want to outlaw it. It's just like eating shit. Did you have to taste yours before knowing you didn't want any in your mouth? Me neither.

No, you don't but it's an uneducated and fearful response. If you don't know how they work, if you don't know how unlikely these events are to happen in you life, if you don't know anything then, yeah, it's still an uneducated vote.

I don't like Subaru cars much either. Don't know much about the manufacturer or how the autos work, but from my experience the drivers seem bad. Maybe we should outlaw those too?

[/quote] I agree. Simply outlawing guns will not get rid of them. That's why I think you guys are doomed to live with your addiction to guns. Only solution is cold turkey, but that's so extreme I know it would never happen.[/quote]

Addiction (teeheehee :laugh: ) Thank God! That's why I choose to live here. I like personal freedoms. If I wanted to live in a country that was more strict and no more safe then I'd move.

The Art of War
by Sun Tzu

Military weapons are the means used by the Sage to punish violence and cruelty, to give peace to troublous times, to remove difficulties and dangers, and to succor those who are in peril. Every animal with blood in its veins and horns on its head will fight when it is attacked. How much more so will man, who carries in his breast the faculties of love and hatred, joy and anger! When he is pleased, a feeling of affection springs up within him; when angry, his poisoned sting is brought into play. That is the natural law which governs his being.... What then shall be said of those scholars of our time, blind to all great issues, and without any appreciation of relative values, who can only bark out their stale formulas about "virtue" and "civilization," condemning the use of military weapons? They will surely bring our country to impotence and dishonor and the loss of her rightful heritage; or, at the very least, they will bring about invasion and rebellion, sacrifice of territory and general enfeeblement. Yet they obstinately refuse to modify the position they have taken up. The truth is that, just as in the family the teacher must not spare the rod, and punishments cannot be dispensed with in the State, so military chastisement can never be allowed to fall into abeyance in the Empire. All one can say is that this power will be exercised wisely by some, foolishly by others, and that among those who bear arms some will be loyal and others rebellious.

You must all watch these videos


http://www.youtube.com/user/ST0PandL00K

I have!!! I have a picture too, maybe I'll post it. I've seen them with guns at the airport and in London.

And I've talked with police officers here. They say that they are more scared of knives than guns. So...if the po po don't have a problem with guns, then why should I?

Armed police? You sure it wasn't the army?

Armed police exists. But they don't patrol the streets. They're a special force... attached to the ministry of defence (the military).

And why would british police be scared of guns? They're such a rare occurence their biggest fears are 2cm long pocket knives and drunk people on friday night... I can live with that...

0.04 UK gun homicide rate vs 3.6 in the us... That's 90 times more likely to be shot dead in the US than in the UK...

Sy Odynaga wrote: You must all watch these videos


http://www.youtube.com/user/ST0PandL00K

It would be nice to know what they are and why.