Poll: Do you agree with the U.S constitution that permits a U.S citizen, the right to bear firearms?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
The result of this poll remains hidden until the poll closes.

U.S. 2nd Amendment
#21
These are honestly the most civilized discussions I've heard. I appreciate it, guys. Thanks.
The Following 1 User Says Thank You to Kribbles For This Useful Post:
  • Different
Reply
#22
(28th April 2022, 10:21 PM)Kribbles Wrote: These are honestly the most civilized discussions I've heard. I appreciate it, guys. Thanks.

I'm glad you learned something from this thread. There will be more like this, coming in the near future. I'm going to start discussing somethings that haven't been discussed on JV, before. You're not going to want to miss, what I have in store for you guys, next week.
Reply
#23
I own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
[Image: LLwQFov.png]
Reply
#24
Food for thought ig?
1: Removing guns wouldn't stop criminals from obtaining them.
2: If you remove guns, people will find other ways of injuring people (with many of those alternative ways being much more painful for the victim). Some examples would be knives, homemade bombs, or even aerosol chemicals.

It's less about self-defense and more about leveling the playing field.

(edit: I've read through a few more of the posts, and a lot of the issues that have been brought up (like children playing with guns) are people not properly applying firearm safety... Some states enforce mandatory trigger locks and all states highly recommend them. Additionally, proper firearm safety also states that they should be placed in an area inaccessible to children and preferably in a lockbox of some kind.)
[Image: LLwQFov.png]
Reply
#25
(28th April 2022, 1:49 PM)*Izi-Blissers* Wrote: As a British, I don't understand this.
I've seen 2 news articles in the last 7 days of shootings in America, innocent people hurt or dead.
Do you have a procedure in order to obtain a weapon? Like criminal background check? Do you have a mental health evaluation before you're allowed to buy/carry a weapon?
Like do they do a thorough background check on you before you're allowed to carry a deadly weapon in public?
It's insane to me, the chaos it has caused, school shootings, public murder, suicide, I even saw a video of a little girl playing with a gun and she accidentally shot her cousin and then herself right after.
Another video where a girl was pranking her boyfriend and hid in his 'pantry' before he came back from work, when he opened the door to grab something he shot her by accident. It's absolutely crazy.
It's just pure sad, civilians shouldn't be allowed to carry any weapons.
OK the UK isn't perfect we have knife crime and the odd shootings, but we have laws in place to keep civilians safe from other civilians. We have armed officers who arrive in different cars to the usual police officers, but we are OK without having guns on our hip whenever we leave the house.
To carry a gun as self defence is just beyond crazy, like you get yourself into a bad situation or live in a rough area then it's your choice to move or stay.
I'm not knocking your laws, but from my point of view it has done more damage than good.
My partner got hit in the head with a hammer when he broke into a paedophiles house, the guy claimed he used it as self defence but still got sent down for 11 years for using 'unreasonable' force.
Imagine shooting someone because they accidentally walked into the wrong house LMAO the US is crazy.

So can someone just explain LMAO don't throw shade at me I'm just voicing my opinion also.
I want to h ear mor aboitnthis story pleas






Yemlo and Co.
Reply
#26
The law was written in the late 1700s so those are the only guns you should be allowed
and it says "arms" so it can be limited to 2 without breaking the constitution if it has to be stuck to

But honestly I think it shouldn't be allowed at all, here you hear about knife stuff (usually in big cities) but you actually have to get close to use a knife, someone with a gun can just pick people off from range especially if they're allowed to use (for whatever weird reason) guns made over 200 years later than what the people who wrote that rule had in mind

But there are so many over there now that I don't think it would be feasible to stop it now apart from a cutoff date of "you can't get guns that are made later than 2022" because if you took away guns, the really bad ppl would just hide their guns away
á
Reply
#27
(3rd May 2022, 2:20 PM)Camer the Dragon Wrote: The law was written in the late 1700s so those are the only guns you should be allowed

if they're allowed to use (for whatever weird reason) guns made over 200 years later than what the people who wrote that rule had in mind
 
There's no weird reason, the idea is that civilians have access to the same small arms as the military which obviously changes over time. In the unlikely event of a tyrannical government you should be on an even playing field when it comes to person-person combat
Reply
#28
(3rd May 2022, 2:20 PM)Camer the Dragon Wrote: The law was written in the late 1700s so those are the only guns you should be allowed
and it says "arms" so it can be limited to 2 without breaking the constitution if it has to be stuck to
The First Amendment was written in the late 1700s so only media mediums during those times should be allowed free speech protection under the First Amendment. If people (for whatever weird reason) wanted to use media mediums (Internet, delivering news via trucks, cars, airplanes, etc., digital billboard screens) made over 200 years later than what the people who wrote that rule had in mind, than free speech should not be protected in those mediums. 

We can play this game if you want. 

Time to give my crappy opinion because I hurled myself into this. There should definitely be firearm regulation and seeing the whole “I gotta protect myself with my whole *name off entire arsenal of weapons*,” when you live in a white picket fence subdivision is laughable. However, the whole “We need to ban them all,” is just preposterous, since they are so entrenched in the culture of the United States, they are tools in various regions of the United States (e.g. wild boar conservation) and, plot twist, criminals are not going to give up firearms (add to that if they are illegally obtained). 

Honestly, I do not have too thorough of an opinion because the debate is just a whole ass blast that is not going anywhere. Plus, it is not like Congress is going to do anything about it. If the option was between healthcare and firearms, I am taking healthcare any day of the week. 
[Image: 6a00d8341c145e53ef011570b037d5970c-pi]
Reply
#29
(3rd May 2022, 2:41 PM)David Wrote:  
There's no weird reason, the idea is that civilians have access to the same small arms as the military which obviously changes over time. In the unlikely event of a tyrannical government you should be on an even playing field when it comes to person-person combat

Ah ok
This seems like kinda overkill though

(3rd May 2022, 4:21 PM)Uptight 534 Wrote: The First Amendment was written in the late 1700s so only media mediums during those times should be allowed free speech protection under the First Amendment. If people (for whatever weird reason) wanted to use media mediums (Internet, delivering news via trucks, cars, airplanes, etc., digital billboard screens) made over 200 years later than what the people who wrote that rule had in mind, than free speech should not be protected in those mediums. 

Ah ye good point

(3rd May 2022, 4:21 PM)Uptight 534 Wrote: However, the whole “We need to ban them all,” is just preposterous, since they are so entrenched in the culture of the United States, they are tools in various regions of the United States (e.g. wild boar conservation) and, plot twist, criminals are not going to give up firearms (add to that if they are illegally obtained).

Yeah once they are in it is pretty much impossible to get them all out and it'd just increase the percentage of people who own guns that are bad since a lot of the people who wouldn't use them for bad would give them up possibly
á
The Following 1 User Says Thank You to Camer the Dragon For This Useful Post:
  • Uptight 534
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)