Originally Posted by Ricky Garces It wasn't tactful, but it was true. And in a debate, that's all that matters.
No, it's not true. Jumping into traffic will more than likely cause accidents and grief for others on the road. Hence why you're clearly not actually thinking about anything you say.
Yeah you're right, there are better ways to kill yourself, I'm just not good at thinking them up. The point was if you wanted to kill yourself, not having a gun wouldn't prevent you. You purposely missed the point and instead attacked the stupidity of the example, reason being you have no good counter argument.
Fact is the first thing a government does before trying to take over your life (aka communism) is to take away everyone's guns.
It's what the Nazi's did, and what Hitler instructed in his book.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler
The scariest phrase in the English language is this: "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you"
It's our God given right to bear arms whether or not the government thinks so. Even if some idiot down the road kills himself. I'm not afraid of the guy down the road or even the druggies who have guns. The entire reason we were grated the right to bear arms in the first place was so that we could prevent governmental tyranny.
I said that a 15 year old shot himself in the head, and from this it's concluded that he's an idiot? How so? You don't know what was going on in his personal life, or in his head. Just really ignorant to come to such quick conclusions like that.
Very true, a government that fears it's citizens owning weapons, is a government that doesn't wish to represent it's citizens. But that's not relevant as we are no where near that state, last time i checked democracy is still intact.
Originally Posted by -Adam- I said that a 15 year old shot himself in the head, and from this it's concluded that he's an idiot? How so? You don't know what was going on in his personal life, or in his head. Just really ignorant to come to such quick conclusions like that.
But even if it were an accident or he was having depression issues, it's not the gun. I know someone who accidentally backed over his daughter in the driveway.
Which is a really... morbid... thing to bring up. D: I think I'll go do something more productive.
Originally Posted by Ricky Garces Very true, a government that fears it's citizens owning weapons, is a government that doesn't wish to represent it's citizens. But that's not relevant as we are no where near that state, last time i checked democracy is still intact.
Very true, but taking away our guns is a step in that direction.
I'd rather stay as far away from that as possible, don't you agree?
Originally Posted by -Adam- I said that a 15 year old shot himself in the head, and from this it's concluded that he's an idiot? How so? You don't know what was going on in his personal life, or in his head. Just really ignorant to come to such quick conclusions like that.
O.K. Adam, I'm going to take back calling him an idiot. Doesn't change the fact that he did something really stupid.
Originally Posted by -Adam- I said that a 15 year old shot himself in the head, and from this it's concluded that he's an idiot? How so? You don't know what was going on in his personal life, or in his head. Just really ignorant to come to such quick conclusions like that.
So what was the back story then? Accident (caused by..?) or suicide?
There are two ways we could avoid this debate:
1- if guns never existed.
2- if we stick to the topic.
But forget it. It won't do any good to disarm people who need weapons to defend themselves, so it's best just ot attack the black market before gun control.
"It's our God given right to bear arms whether or not the government thinks so. Even if some idiot down the road kills himself. I'm not afraid of the guy down the road or even the druggies who have guns. The entire reason we were grated the right to bear arms in the first place was so that we could prevent governmental tyranny."
God given right? Really? Just think about that... really? I don't seem to remember that chapter of the Old Testament...
It's well worth noting that in the UK it is perfectly legal to own a firearm, providing you are sufficiently responsible and have a genuine need for it. It seems common sense, let the people who need guns have them and don't let those that don't need them have them.
And, UrbanMonk, with the misleading Hitler comparison you are cluttering up the argument with politics of no relevance. Hitler was of course referring to the occupied Russian territories and the gun status in that part of the German Reich (which of course never did happen). Obviously Hitler would want to cut the supply of guns to Russian citizens, to keep them under control. What little point that has when discussing the US or the UK, two nations that aren't under illegal occupation and never have been for hundreds of years.
The following statistic is quite a good one: "In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides. By way of international comparison, in 2004 the police in the United States reported 9,326 gun homicides." I know the UK is much smaller than the US, but not by that much.
Originally Posted by Matt Boothman "It's our God given right to bear arms whether or not the government thinks so. Even if some idiot down the road kills himself. I'm not afraid of the guy down the road or even the druggies who have guns. The entire reason we were grated the right to bear arms in the first place was so that we could prevent governmental tyranny."
God given right? Really? Just think about that... really? I don't seem to remember that chapter of the Old Testament...
We have to God given right to life. The ability to defend yourself secures that right. Whether it be from an criminal, or government agents who wish to force their beliefs on you, OR as the case may be, start taxing tea.
Therefore we have the God given right to bear arms.
And,Matt Boothman, there was no mention of the Old Testament you are cluttering up the argument with politics of no relevance. Hitler took away Bibles as well as weapons. I have read a number of books written by Jewish people who went through The Holocaust. Hopefully if we manage to keep our right to bear arms illegal occupation wouldn't happen. Kool.
Wait, am I hearing this right; Hitler might not have succeeded in parts of his plans if Jews and Poles were well armed? I really don't think civilians with regular firearms would be capable of much against the war machine that was the Nazi party. This isn't Hollywood or EA games.
Firing and killing a government official would also get you killed too. So if you shot this "govenment agent" you'd still come to the same fate. And we're talking about modern US and UK here - not early 20th century central Europe. We're not going to be overrun, we're both super powers. We both have active armies to keep harm away from us.
Btw you have a God given right to life. You also don't have the right to end anyones life. Boothman has a perfectly valid point. Is there any mention or allowance of violent defence in the Bible? Infact isn't the Christian way to "turn the other cheek". If someone asks for the robe on your back you offer them your shirt too? Remember God is compassionate after all, you think He'd be a jolly ol bean if you killed a man for stealing something as unimportant as your Bravia TV?
Originally Posted by Dr. James Btw you have a God given right to life. You also don't have the right to end anyones life. Boothman has a perfectly valid point. Is there any mention or allowance of violent defence in the Bible? Infact isn't the Christian way to "turn the other cheek". If someone asks for the robe on your back you offer them your shirt too? Remember God is compassionate after all, you think He'd be a jolly ol bean if you killed a man for stealing something as unimportant as your Bravia TV?
Yes because killing someone for stealing a TV is self-defense. The turn the other cheek reference is not intended for things such as when you're about to die at the hands of another man. There is a difference between murdering unlawfully (The proper translation of the Thou shalt not kill commandment) and killing out of self or family or even a stranger's defense. It means that if someone has wronged you, don't try to get revenge. If they are in need give them more than what they ask for. Generosity and forgiveness, pretty much. A model to go after.
I don't think we should bring theology into this. In fact I think we've all said what we think. Or shall we continue in never-ending circles?
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by OMC
.
The turn the other cheek reference is not intended for things such as when you're about to die at the hands of another man. There is a difference between murdering unlawfully (The proper translation of the Thou shalt not kill commandment) and killing out of self or family or even a stranger's defense. It means that if someone has wronged you, don't try to get revenge. If they are in need give them more than what they ask for. Generosity and forgiveness, pretty much. A model to go after.