Welcome to Gaia! ::

Mayor Gravity's avatar

Questionable Borg

The rose in spring
Hero Rising
Kolyatt
Hero Rising
Kolyatt
I'm very liberal.

But even I believe in the right to bear arms. I've never shot a gun before but I have one to protect my family with.

There are some military grade weapon's that should be restricted however, unless you can prove there is a legitimate reason to have one.


I don't believe in grenades and explosives if that's where you're going. Heavy artillery (tanks, trunk-top machines, etc.)

But AK47's, AR15s, (All ARs) and every other rifle (anything semi-auto) should be allowed.

If the government and military together have any advantage over the people, and gun control grows, corruption follows in suit.

This is the original homeland security, part of what makes America great: when the average American citizen is better armed than the soldiers in other countries and we can say "BRING IT ON BRITISH"

Suddenly...homeland security is an issue.


I'm no where near an expert on guns or control on it.

But I fail to see how an AK-47 in our home is more effective against terrorism and takeover than our military's wonderbomb emporium. I have a hunting rifle to protect from intruders and wolves and bears (because I live out in the country) but a military grade AR is pretty ridiculous.

I really would rather not say "Bring it on British." I don't want to taunt or flaunt my weapons, I don't want to encourage dominance but establish equality. I have faith in my military and government to protect me as a citizen. Really if they couldn't I would be smart enough to know I'm royally ******** anyway. AK-47 or not.


I'm not suggesting you flaunt weapons (that's actually frowned upon greatly in the world of gun-ownership).

"A military style semiautomatic rifle's main purpose is to defend one's rights and the rights of others. A military style rifle allows common citizens to have at their disposal the same kind of firepower that law enforcement or the military possess to defend their civil rights when the government turns against their freedoms. Now a lot of gun jocks don't have the same kind of training as the average soldier does. There are a large number of veterans in the US population who know how to fight, but those veterans are most likely out of shape. The point is that armed citizens can put up enough of a fight as to make the suppression of their freedoms costly. Americans did this successfully in 1776 against the King's soldiers and could do so again, if need be. "

This is what I meant.

All the assault rifles will not protect you from the government. You have owners. You are a slave.
The government only owns you, if you allow them to own you.
Mayor Gravity
The rose in spring
Hero Rising
Kolyatt
Hero Rising
Kolyatt
I'm very liberal.

But even I believe in the right to bear arms. I've never shot a gun before but I have one to protect my family with.

There are some military grade weapon's that should be restricted however, unless you can prove there is a legitimate reason to have one.


I don't believe in grenades and explosives if that's where you're going. Heavy artillery (tanks, trunk-top machines, etc.)

But AK47's, AR15s, (All ARs) and every other rifle (anything semi-auto) should be allowed.

If the government and military together have any advantage over the people, and gun control grows, corruption follows in suit.

This is the original homeland security, part of what makes America great: when the average American citizen is better armed than the soldiers in other countries and we can say "BRING IT ON BRITISH"

Suddenly...homeland security is an issue.


I'm no where near an expert on guns or control on it.

But I fail to see how an AK-47 in our home is more effective against terrorism and takeover than our military's wonderbomb emporium. I have a hunting rifle to protect from intruders and wolves and bears (because I live out in the country) but a military grade AR is pretty ridiculous.

I really would rather not say "Bring it on British." I don't want to taunt or flaunt my weapons, I don't want to encourage dominance but establish equality. I have faith in my military and government to protect me as a citizen. Really if they couldn't I would be smart enough to know I'm royally ******** anyway. AK-47 or not.


I'm not suggesting you flaunt weapons (that's actually frowned upon greatly in the world of gun-ownership).

"A military style semiautomatic rifle's main purpose is to defend one's rights and the rights of others. A military style rifle allows common citizens to have at their disposal the same kind of firepower that law enforcement or the military possess to defend their civil rights when the government turns against their freedoms. Now a lot of gun jocks don't have the same kind of training as the average soldier does. There are a large number of veterans in the US population who know how to fight, but those veterans are most likely out of shape. The point is that armed citizens can put up enough of a fight as to make the suppression of their freedoms costly. Americans did this successfully in 1776 against the King's soldiers and could do so again, if need be. "

This is what I meant.

All the assault rifles will not protect you from the government. You have owners. You are a slave.
The government only owns you, if you allow them to own you.

If you don't obey, they kill you.
Mayor Gravity's avatar

Questionable Borg

The rose in spring
Mayor Gravity
The rose in spring
Hero Rising
Kolyatt


I'm no where near an expert on guns or control on it.

But I fail to see how an AK-47 in our home is more effective against terrorism and takeover than our military's wonderbomb emporium. I have a hunting rifle to protect from intruders and wolves and bears (because I live out in the country) but a military grade AR is pretty ridiculous.

I really would rather not say "Bring it on British." I don't want to taunt or flaunt my weapons, I don't want to encourage dominance but establish equality. I have faith in my military and government to protect me as a citizen. Really if they couldn't I would be smart enough to know I'm royally ******** anyway. AK-47 or not.


I'm not suggesting you flaunt weapons (that's actually frowned upon greatly in the world of gun-ownership).

"A military style semiautomatic rifle's main purpose is to defend one's rights and the rights of others. A military style rifle allows common citizens to have at their disposal the same kind of firepower that law enforcement or the military possess to defend their civil rights when the government turns against their freedoms. Now a lot of gun jocks don't have the same kind of training as the average soldier does. There are a large number of veterans in the US population who know how to fight, but those veterans are most likely out of shape. The point is that armed citizens can put up enough of a fight as to make the suppression of their freedoms costly. Americans did this successfully in 1776 against the King's soldiers and could do so again, if need be. "

This is what I meant.

All the assault rifles will not protect you from the government. You have owners. You are a slave.
The government only owns you, if you allow them to own you.

If you don't obey, they kill you.
Sure, in the movies.
Divine_Malevolence's avatar

Blessed Tactician

11,050 Points
  • Beta Contributor 0
  • Beta Critic 0
  • Contributor 150
Mayor Gravity
Divine_Malevolence
Hero Rising
Divine_Malevolence
Hero Rising


No, I saw your argument, dear, but I already responded to that argument a number of times and yet you keep throwing at me the same argument because that is the best and only ammunition you have.

Every time I argue about gun rights, it moves as this, because ultimately gun owners have more ammunition than those who believe their rights should be removed (no pun intended).
Really?
'Cause it seems like you're avoiding rebuttal because you don't actually have any argument.


I gave you my rebuttal. You speak as someone who has no better argument than "American people would never be able to defeat the government and/or the military"

I answered this a number of times. Your said statement was not the point. It is better to have the extra defense I mentioned so that in the case worse comes to worst and our government becomes tyrant, in the least there are consequences and losses in compromising our rights, and to that point, the government and/or military. I honor our military, and believe and hope that it would never get to that point and that the military remains mostly purged of corruption.

However, the central point of your argument continues to be the same. You argue with principals, not with facts and points. And you threw this argument at me 3 times Different words, but a consistent theme. and I answered you with various words and a central theme as well. So please, quit it. I very much have rebuttal, I gave it to you amply and yet you answer me with this? Psh. I have better things to do than argue the same thing over and over again.

I have a conviction to defend.
But it isn't an "extra defense" at all.
And, quite frankly, if it doesn't do anything positive, why keep it legal if it does negative?
You've done nothing to show that it does anything positive at all.


Give me one decent reason to keep guns in the hands of civilians. Just one.
How about the most generic answer in the book: self-protection against criminals.
It's more of a problem if both of you have a gun than it is if neither of you do.
Mayor Gravity
The rose in spring
Mayor Gravity
The rose in spring
Hero Rising
Kolyatt


I'm no where near an expert on guns or control on it.

But I fail to see how an AK-47 in our home is more effective against terrorism and takeover than our military's wonderbomb emporium. I have a hunting rifle to protect from intruders and wolves and bears (because I live out in the country) but a military grade AR is pretty ridiculous.

I really would rather not say "Bring it on British." I don't want to taunt or flaunt my weapons, I don't want to encourage dominance but establish equality. I have faith in my military and government to protect me as a citizen. Really if they couldn't I would be smart enough to know I'm royally ******** anyway. AK-47 or not.


I'm not suggesting you flaunt weapons (that's actually frowned upon greatly in the world of gun-ownership).

"A military style semiautomatic rifle's main purpose is to defend one's rights and the rights of others. A military style rifle allows common citizens to have at their disposal the same kind of firepower that law enforcement or the military possess to defend their civil rights when the government turns against their freedoms. Now a lot of gun jocks don't have the same kind of training as the average soldier does. There are a large number of veterans in the US population who know how to fight, but those veterans are most likely out of shape. The point is that armed citizens can put up enough of a fight as to make the suppression of their freedoms costly. Americans did this successfully in 1776 against the King's soldiers and could do so again, if need be. "

This is what I meant.

All the assault rifles will not protect you from the government. You have owners. You are a slave.
The government only owns you, if you allow them to own you.

If you don't obey, they kill you.
Sure, in the movies.

No in real life. Tell me. How great do you think the US is?
Evane Lierist's avatar

Invisible Hunter

7,100 Points
  • Profitable 100
  • Happy Birthday! 100
  • Junior Trader 100
Mayor Gravity
In 11th/12th grade, I think it should be up the the students on wither they want to learn gun control, not the parents.


I think that could be up for debate. Students in 11th/12th grade are between the ages of 16 - 18 years of age. Technically the government doesn't see a person under the age of 18 as a fully developed adult and thus may not be capable of making the right sort of decisions. It is a part of the reason why they can't vote until the age of 18. It is also a part of the reason why when a student wants to opt out of doing a certain thing such as dissecting a frog in Anatomy, they require a signature from their legal guardians/parents. Granted that not all things require parental signatures and so forth, but a lot of things do require guardian/parental consent.
If the student was 18 and considered an adult under the government, I would fully agree that they should have the decision to opt out of the course. To a certain extent I would think that students know enough at age 16 to make the decision whether or not they want to learn about guns, but at the same time, their parents may or may not want them to learn for safety reasons. So honestly it would have to be a decision made by both the parents and the student.
Then again gun education doesn't have to mandatory. It could be an optional course just like marching band, drama, sports and other things are optional. There are even courses that teach students how to drive and get a license at the successful completion of it. So if a student wanted to learn about guns, they should have the very option to. However that isn't the case.
Mayor Gravity's avatar

Questionable Borg

Divine_Malevolence
Mayor Gravity
Divine_Malevolence
Hero Rising
Divine_Malevolence
Hero Rising


No, I saw your argument, dear, but I already responded to that argument a number of times and yet you keep throwing at me the same argument because that is the best and only ammunition you have.

Every time I argue about gun rights, it moves as this, because ultimately gun owners have more ammunition than those who believe their rights should be removed (no pun intended).
Really?
'Cause it seems like you're avoiding rebuttal because you don't actually have any argument.


I gave you my rebuttal. You speak as someone who has no better argument than "American people would never be able to defeat the government and/or the military"

I answered this a number of times. Your said statement was not the point. It is better to have the extra defense I mentioned so that in the case worse comes to worst and our government becomes tyrant, in the least there are consequences and losses in compromising our rights, and to that point, the government and/or military. I honor our military, and believe and hope that it would never get to that point and that the military remains mostly purged of corruption.

However, the central point of your argument continues to be the same. You argue with principals, not with facts and points. And you threw this argument at me 3 times Different words, but a consistent theme. and I answered you with various words and a central theme as well. So please, quit it. I very much have rebuttal, I gave it to you amply and yet you answer me with this? Psh. I have better things to do than argue the same thing over and over again.

I have a conviction to defend.
But it isn't an "extra defense" at all.
And, quite frankly, if it doesn't do anything positive, why keep it legal if it does negative?
You've done nothing to show that it does anything positive at all.


Give me one decent reason to keep guns in the hands of civilians. Just one.
How about the most generic answer in the book: self-protection against criminals.
It's more of a problem if both of you have a gun than it is if neither of you do.
But a criminal is always going to have some type of weapon, I would prefer to not "bring a knife to a gun fight"
Mayor Gravity's avatar

Questionable Borg

The rose in spring
Mayor Gravity
The rose in spring
Mayor Gravity
The rose in spring

All the assault rifles will not protect you from the government. You have owners. You are a slave.
The government only owns you, if you allow them to own you.

If you don't obey, they kill you.
Sure, in the movies.

No in real life. Tell me. How great do you think the US is?
Well, I live in the US, and yes, it has its problems, but it's better than most places.
Divine_Malevolence's avatar

Blessed Tactician

11,050 Points
  • Beta Contributor 0
  • Beta Critic 0
  • Contributor 150
Mayor Gravity
Divine_Malevolence
Mayor Gravity
Divine_Malevolence
Hero Rising


I gave you my rebuttal. You speak as someone who has no better argument than "American people would never be able to defeat the government and/or the military"

I answered this a number of times. Your said statement was not the point. It is better to have the extra defense I mentioned so that in the case worse comes to worst and our government becomes tyrant, in the least there are consequences and losses in compromising our rights, and to that point, the government and/or military. I honor our military, and believe and hope that it would never get to that point and that the military remains mostly purged of corruption.

However, the central point of your argument continues to be the same. You argue with principals, not with facts and points. And you threw this argument at me 3 times Different words, but a consistent theme. and I answered you with various words and a central theme as well. So please, quit it. I very much have rebuttal, I gave it to you amply and yet you answer me with this? Psh. I have better things to do than argue the same thing over and over again.

I have a conviction to defend.
But it isn't an "extra defense" at all.
And, quite frankly, if it doesn't do anything positive, why keep it legal if it does negative?
You've done nothing to show that it does anything positive at all.


Give me one decent reason to keep guns in the hands of civilians. Just one.
How about the most generic answer in the book: self-protection against criminals.
It's more of a problem if both of you have a gun than it is if neither of you do.
But a criminal is always going to have some type of weapon, I would prefer to not "bring a knife to a gun fight"
And only one makes it so that you can't exactly run away.
Mayor Gravity's avatar

Questionable Borg

Divine_Malevolence
Mayor Gravity
Divine_Malevolence
Mayor Gravity
Divine_Malevolence
Hero Rising


I gave you my rebuttal. You speak as someone who has no better argument than "American people would never be able to defeat the government and/or the military"

I answered this a number of times. Your said statement was not the point. It is better to have the extra defense I mentioned so that in the case worse comes to worst and our government becomes tyrant, in the least there are consequences and losses in compromising our rights, and to that point, the government and/or military. I honor our military, and believe and hope that it would never get to that point and that the military remains mostly purged of corruption.

However, the central point of your argument continues to be the same. You argue with principals, not with facts and points. And you threw this argument at me 3 times Different words, but a consistent theme. and I answered you with various words and a central theme as well. So please, quit it. I very much have rebuttal, I gave it to you amply and yet you answer me with this? Psh. I have better things to do than argue the same thing over and over again.

I have a conviction to defend.
But it isn't an "extra defense" at all.
And, quite frankly, if it doesn't do anything positive, why keep it legal if it does negative?
You've done nothing to show that it does anything positive at all.


Give me one decent reason to keep guns in the hands of civilians. Just one.
How about the most generic answer in the book: self-protection against criminals.
It's more of a problem if both of you have a gun than it is if neither of you do.
But a criminal is always going to have some type of weapon, I would prefer to not "bring a knife to a gun fight"
And only one makes it so that you can't exactly run away.
and that would be a gun, and I would rather have one and not need it, than need one and not have it.
Divine_Malevolence's avatar

Blessed Tactician

11,050 Points
  • Beta Contributor 0
  • Beta Critic 0
  • Contributor 150
Mayor Gravity
Divine_Malevolence
Mayor Gravity
Divine_Malevolence
Mayor Gravity
How about the most generic answer in the book: self-protection against criminals.
It's more of a problem if both of you have a gun than it is if neither of you do.
But a criminal is always going to have some type of weapon, I would prefer to not "bring a knife to a gun fight"
And only one makes it so that you can't exactly run away.
and that would be a gun, and I would rather have one and not need it, than need one and not have it.
And I'd rather have the criminals need one and not have it than have one and not need it.
One immoral a** with one gun would cause more damage than a hundred moral people with one each would prevent.
Mayor Gravity's avatar

Questionable Borg

Divine_Malevolence
Mayor Gravity
Divine_Malevolence
Mayor Gravity
Divine_Malevolence
Mayor Gravity
How about the most generic answer in the book: self-protection against criminals.
It's more of a problem if both of you have a gun than it is if neither of you do.
But a criminal is always going to have some type of weapon, I would prefer to not "bring a knife to a gun fight"
And only one makes it so that you can't exactly run away.
and that would be a gun, and I would rather have one and not need it, than need one and not have it.
And I'd rather have the criminals need one and not have it than have one and not need it.
One immoral a** with one gun would cause more damage than a hundred moral people with one each would prevent.
and you expect criminals to abide by morals?
Divine_Malevolence's avatar

Blessed Tactician

11,050 Points
  • Beta Contributor 0
  • Beta Critic 0
  • Contributor 150
Mayor Gravity
Divine_Malevolence
Mayor Gravity
Divine_Malevolence
Mayor Gravity
But a criminal is always going to have some type of weapon, I would prefer to not "bring a knife to a gun fight"
And only one makes it so that you can't exactly run away.
and that would be a gun, and I would rather have one and not need it, than need one and not have it.
And I'd rather have the criminals need one and not have it than have one and not need it.
One immoral a** with one gun would cause more damage than a hundred moral people with one each would prevent.
and you expect criminals to abide by morals?
Exacta.
We should not set up a system where they can attain firearms.
Mayor Gravity's avatar

Questionable Borg

Divine_Malevolence
Mayor Gravity
Divine_Malevolence
Mayor Gravity
Divine_Malevolence
Mayor Gravity
But a criminal is always going to have some type of weapon, I would prefer to not "bring a knife to a gun fight"
And only one makes it so that you can't exactly run away.
and that would be a gun, and I would rather have one and not need it, than need one and not have it.
And I'd rather have the criminals need one and not have it than have one and not need it.
One immoral a** with one gun would cause more damage than a hundred moral people with one each would prevent.
and you expect criminals to abide by morals?
Exacta.
We should not set up a system where they can attain firearms.
They're will always be a way for them to get them, criminals don't exactly obey laws.
Divine_Malevolence's avatar

Blessed Tactician

11,050 Points
  • Beta Contributor 0
  • Beta Critic 0
  • Contributor 150
Mayor Gravity
Divine_Malevolence
Mayor Gravity
Divine_Malevolence
Mayor Gravity
and that would be a gun, and I would rather have one and not need it, than need one and not have it.
And I'd rather have the criminals need one and not have it than have one and not need it.
One immoral a** with one gun would cause more damage than a hundred moral people with one each would prevent.
and you expect criminals to abide by morals?
Exacta.
We should not set up a system where they can attain firearms.
They're will always be a way for them to get them, criminals don't exactly obey laws.
They won't if there aren't any.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games