Weapons
what do you say
0
All I have are these two quotes, first, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." And, "I would rather have the gun and not need it, than need the gun and not have it." There, that's my two cents on this subject. Oh yeah, in case you're wondering, I have guns and I am a card carrying NRA member too.
0
It's so hard to take this seriously when so many people voted for guns to fight aliens. I mean honestly, any being intellegence enough to travel that far through space. Would never be hurt by anything we can think of. We can't even get to the moon in 1 day. Let alone the go to the nearest star in less than 3 generations.
0
This is a touchy subject, everyone has their own opinion and I cant say weither one is bad or not. So I prefer to stay neutral into this . :)
-1
theotherjacob wrote...
It's so hard to take this seriously when so many people voted for guns to fight aliens. I mean honestly, any being intellegence enough to travel that far through space. Would never be hurt by anything we can think of. We can't even get to the moon in 1 day. Let alone the go to the nearest star in less than 3 generations.thats the reason the poll chould be changed.
I think weapons bring Peace.
If u got a new weapon that is deadlier then a nuke and only u have it then u can bring World piece.
0
Raz733 wrote...
theotherjacob wrote...
It's so hard to take this seriously when so many people voted for guns to fight aliens. I mean honestly, any being intellegence enough to travel that far through space. Would never be hurt by anything we can think of. We can't even get to the moon in 1 day. Let alone the go to the nearest star in less than 3 generations.thats the reason the poll chould be changed.
I think weapons bring Peace.
If u got a new weapon that is deadlier then a nuke and only u have it then u can bring World piece.
Very flawed logic. America thought nukes were that and in the very best light they've prevented direct fights between the biggest military powers and that's about it. Maybe something impossible to independently duplicate like an Aldnoah drive would change things but that would just be a super nuke subject to the arbitrary controls of a human dynasty which, if North Korea is any example, is not a recipe for regional stability.
0
I have never had a fire in my house, but i have a fire extinguisher. WHY? my house might never catch on fire but when and if it does i want to have the situation under control. Guns and other weapons need to exist and every person on this earth should have a gun. If you have a family, and you dont have a gun.... You are not doing all you could do to protect them. Guns can be extremely useful tools because you dont even have to have it loaded to scare someone shitless. Guns being illegal means that law abiding citizens... wont have guns while criminals still will. If you want peace and not violence airdrop the wartorn places of our earth with sticky green, nobody can stay angry after they smoke some leafy green.
Its a good debate kid but at the end of the day i dont trust someone to make decisions for me, so i need to make sure they dont, illegal guns would be a huge issue, and maybe the guns should only be given to people with high or above IQ, not an expert, but weapons don't cause war.
"Old men think up wars for young men to die"
Its a good debate kid but at the end of the day i dont trust someone to make decisions for me, so i need to make sure they dont, illegal guns would be a huge issue, and maybe the guns should only be given to people with high or above IQ, not an expert, but weapons don't cause war.
"Old men think up wars for young men to die"
0
I'm with most who say that having a gun and not needing to use it is better than needing one and not having it.
Then again, I have a crippling addiction and attraction towards weapons. More-so their appearance and not so much their kill-factor. I am proud to say that a gun is not always what I go for if I need to defend myself, and on many occasions, I have had to defend myself from people with guns. I've been in situations where I've been held at gunpoint and thankfully come out relatively unscathed. I've never shot anyone before in self-defense, but I have at least made use of the fact that I had a gun in some of those situations, to make the aggressor back off. The idea of someone with a weapon is often enough to deter aggression, even if the person who comes at you has a weapon him/herself.
I personally prefer hand-to-hand combat and less gunplay. There's a certain honor in fighting (if you must), up close and personal to defend yourself. Sure, in this world, that doesn't always account for much, but I'd like to think that all my practice swinging a scythe around can get me somewhere.
Seriously. Blades. Now there's a weapon I can respect.
Then again, I have a crippling addiction and attraction towards weapons. More-so their appearance and not so much their kill-factor. I am proud to say that a gun is not always what I go for if I need to defend myself, and on many occasions, I have had to defend myself from people with guns. I've been in situations where I've been held at gunpoint and thankfully come out relatively unscathed. I've never shot anyone before in self-defense, but I have at least made use of the fact that I had a gun in some of those situations, to make the aggressor back off. The idea of someone with a weapon is often enough to deter aggression, even if the person who comes at you has a weapon him/herself.
I personally prefer hand-to-hand combat and less gunplay. There's a certain honor in fighting (if you must), up close and personal to defend yourself. Sure, in this world, that doesn't always account for much, but I'd like to think that all my practice swinging a scythe around can get me somewhere.
Seriously. Blades. Now there's a weapon I can respect.
0
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Weapons should be permitted, never put all your trust in a government. There may come a time when we need to rise up and overthrow the ones in charge.
0
Weapons are always needed by power, what matters is who'll be using it and whose superiority should hold. And it's inconvenient how everyone loses terribly, but it's always helping us at the same. People who chooses to hold arm do it differently. But in the end of the day, what's going to happen is your victory and your loss.
There's needn't to say about weapons anymore, it's intrenched to pits of no going back, and it's a due when a man crafted with purpose for hunting themselves.
There's needn't to say about weapons anymore, it's intrenched to pits of no going back, and it's a due when a man crafted with purpose for hunting themselves.
0
Mankind is a difficult to simply say a blanket statement for. Weapons are bad in the wrong hands, and since these wrong hands will likely get weapons despite laws to prevent such, we need weapons in the right hands.
I am in agreement with the second amendment. A strong, trained and equipped population makes for a strong nation. However I am against the usual gun enthusiast interpretation. Fighting basic regulation to avoid guns falling in the wrong hands seems off. Fighting required gun courses to have an skilled gun user seems off, and fighting basic background checks that look into mental and criminal histories is way off.
I know how to shoot from being taught at camp and from family, but own no gun at this time. I do admire weapons and have a sword and knife collection.
I am in agreement with the second amendment. A strong, trained and equipped population makes for a strong nation. However I am against the usual gun enthusiast interpretation. Fighting basic regulation to avoid guns falling in the wrong hands seems off. Fighting required gun courses to have an skilled gun user seems off, and fighting basic background checks that look into mental and criminal histories is way off.
I know how to shoot from being taught at camp and from family, but own no gun at this time. I do admire weapons and have a sword and knife collection.
-1
here's the reason why anyone who says we need guns for protection are kidding themselves by hiding behind the second amendment.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
This is the exact wording of the second amendment. Let me point out the obvious, only fools cherry pick statements. This amendment says specifically that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The people who wrote this had no intention of people keeping guns and not being a part of this militia.
This was written in a time of possible war. The reason the people had a right to bear arms is so that they could fight. How many people right now that own guns in the united states are active or former members of the military, how many are part of the national guard or volunteer forces. How many go through active military drills to be a well regulated militiaman? How many people that own the billions of guns that the united states owns and produces are in the hands of people who actively train to use them on a daily, weekly, monthly basis?
The real answer is very few actively practice gun safety and the knowledge needed to properly use a firearm. Almost none of these people are actually part of an active regulated militia, like the Michigan militia that gets so much hate. I can guarantee that very few people actually work with their neighbours to form a protection unit that trains together in gun practices and discuss accountability for situations that may occur. There are no weekly neighbourhood chapter meetings to discuss crime in the area or politics or anything. This just doesn't actively happen.
So if you want to hide behind the second amendment but aren't an active militiaman, you are not doing what the constitution says.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
This is the exact wording of the second amendment. Let me point out the obvious, only fools cherry pick statements. This amendment says specifically that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The people who wrote this had no intention of people keeping guns and not being a part of this militia.
This was written in a time of possible war. The reason the people had a right to bear arms is so that they could fight. How many people right now that own guns in the united states are active or former members of the military, how many are part of the national guard or volunteer forces. How many go through active military drills to be a well regulated militiaman? How many people that own the billions of guns that the united states owns and produces are in the hands of people who actively train to use them on a daily, weekly, monthly basis?
The real answer is very few actively practice gun safety and the knowledge needed to properly use a firearm. Almost none of these people are actually part of an active regulated militia, like the Michigan militia that gets so much hate. I can guarantee that very few people actually work with their neighbours to form a protection unit that trains together in gun practices and discuss accountability for situations that may occur. There are no weekly neighbourhood chapter meetings to discuss crime in the area or politics or anything. This just doesn't actively happen.
So if you want to hide behind the second amendment but aren't an active militiaman, you are not doing what the constitution says.
-1
Guns are pretty ridiculous. We couldn't kill each other fast enough with crossbows and spears so now we mass produce a class of weapon that can potentially end dozens of lives in a matter of seconds. What a fucking waste. Say what you want, but guns don't solve problems. They accelerate the resolution.
But no matter how much we protest these guns, nothing will change. There are far too many people who will simply refuse any attempt to disarm them. Even if some godlike being set foot into our world and did use the favor of dismantling every firearm on the planet, the first thing these people would do is try to acquire a new gun. It's a sad and useless effort to try and persuade them.
And it doesn't stop with guns. We have explosives, chemical weapons, missiles, and even nukes for that city you just NEED to wipe off the map. The arms race is ludicrous. None of these things benefit the people, any people.
Maybe this is just a pipe dream but what we really need is a shields race. If we could protect lives more efficiently than we can end them, we would make those weapons meaningless. We'd have to resolve our conflicts in ways that don't involve putting a bullet in the other guy's brain. What a horrible world that would be.
But no matter how much we protest these guns, nothing will change. There are far too many people who will simply refuse any attempt to disarm them. Even if some godlike being set foot into our world and did use the favor of dismantling every firearm on the planet, the first thing these people would do is try to acquire a new gun. It's a sad and useless effort to try and persuade them.
And it doesn't stop with guns. We have explosives, chemical weapons, missiles, and even nukes for that city you just NEED to wipe off the map. The arms race is ludicrous. None of these things benefit the people, any people.
Maybe this is just a pipe dream but what we really need is a shields race. If we could protect lives more efficiently than we can end them, we would make those weapons meaningless. We'd have to resolve our conflicts in ways that don't involve putting a bullet in the other guy's brain. What a horrible world that would be.
0
ChrisBRosado123 wrote...
Guns are pretty ridiculous. We couldn't kill each other fast enough with crossbows and spears so now we mass produce a class of weapon that can potentially end dozens of lives in a matter of seconds. What a fucking waste. Say what you want, but guns don't solve problems. They accelerate the resolution.But no matter how much we protest these guns, nothing will change. There are far too many people who will simply refuse any attempt to disarm them. Even if some godlike being set foot into our world and did use the favor of dismantling every firearm on the planet, the first thing these people would do is try to acquire a new gun. It's a sad and useless effort to try and persuade them.
And it doesn't stop with guns. We have explosives, chemical weapons, missiles, and even nukes for that city you just NEED to wipe off the map. The arms race is ludicrous. None of these things benefit the people, any people.
Maybe this is just a pipe dream but what we really need is a shields race. If we could protect lives more efficiently than we can end them, we would make those weapons meaningless. We'd have to resolve our conflicts in ways that don't involve putting a bullet in the other guy's brain. What a horrible world that would be.
They invented effective personal shields in Dune and it just forced people to return to putting sharp metal sticks into each other again. Or assassinating them when they weren't shielded.
0
ChrisBRosado123 wrote...
Guns are pretty ridiculous. We couldn't kill each other fast enough with crossbows and spears so now we mass produce a class of weapon that can potentially end dozens of lives in a matter of seconds. What a fucking waste.To think that while everything else in human enterprise advanced in terms of technology, but our weapons didn't, isn't realistic.
ChrisBRosado123 wrote...
Say what you want, but guns don't solve problems. They accelerate the resolution.The problem of (for example) Nazi Germany was in part solved thanks to superior military power of the Allied forces, not because of peaceful protest.
ChrisBRosado123 wrote...
But no matter how much we protest these guns, nothing will change. There are far too many people who will simply refuse any attempt to disarm them. Even if some godlike being set foot into our world and did use the favor of dismantling every firearm on the planet, the first thing these people would do is try to acquire a new gun. It's a sad and useless effort to try and persuade them.Then don't waste your efforts (at least not all of them) for a gun free nation or a gun free world, but support and fight for more gun legislation, more training, more backround checks, so on and so fort.
ChrisBRosado123 wrote...
And it doesn't stop with guns. We have explosives, chemical weapons, missiles, and even nukes for that city you just NEED to wipe off the map. The arms race is ludicrous. None of these things benefit the people, any people.Not only that they have benefited the people (i don't know which people you are talking about), but they still do benefit the people. I don't support nations necessarily having explosives, missiles or nukes (i certainly don't support chemical weapons for any purpose, it should be for any nation illegal to have), but in todays nuclear world, it does benefit nations to have them as a deterrent.
Again, that doesn't mean i support nations having nukes, i wish we lived in nuke free world. But i do understand that USA having nukes and Russia having nukes and North-Korea having nukes makes a big difference how other nations conduct themselves against these countries. It makes it far less likely for another nations to attack these nuclear powers precisely because of the nukes. And that, in it self, is a benefit to the people.
(The situation of North-Korea is different from USA for example, because i think NK is a hostage crisis, but i think you get my point.)
ChrisBRosado123 wrote...
Maybe this is just a pipe dream but what we really need is a shields race. If we could protect lives more efficiently than we can end them, we would make those weapons meaningless. We'd have to resolve our conflicts in ways that don't involve putting a bullet in the other guy's brain. What a horrible world that would be.We don't need a shields race, what we need is a global society so that all nations to some extent are dependent on other nations, meaning it would make conflict less likely. I am pretty sure there won't be a conflict between two EU countries during my life time or during the life time of the next generation, because of this co-dependency and co-operation, and this build up of almost becoming a single nation of different states. I mean the very purpose of EU was to prevent another World War from happening.
0
I could purchase a baseball bat for 20 dollars to play the game. Come home to a cheating lover and use that same bat on their lover. It's not a matter of getting rid of weapons. People use what they have on hand. Glass heavy ashtray... Cement block... Nails...
0
I live in Texas baby, i own them babies
Mostly because i have "companies" contract jobs to make extra cash for bills. Working with and others has its own enemies, and not the "oh im going to sue them" kind of enemies. Their a little bit more "expressive" when dealing with things. So someway or another your bound in creating enemies one way or another. I own, for my protection from this "expressive clients"
and way not own one, their good ice breakers, and im soon [hopefully] starting a career in law enforcement so the training i have goes a long way, and have almost every equipment for the police academy so i don't have to waist that cash son U feeL mE
seriously though i think people in the right mind set should own some firepower ether for hunting, sporting, protection or just simply because its fun shooting and like how they look.
world peace F@#$ERS
Mostly because i have "companies" contract jobs to make extra cash for bills. Working with and others has its own enemies, and not the "oh im going to sue them" kind of enemies. Their a little bit more "expressive" when dealing with things. So someway or another your bound in creating enemies one way or another. I own, for my protection from this "expressive clients"
and way not own one, their good ice breakers, and im soon [hopefully] starting a career in law enforcement so the training i have goes a long way, and have almost every equipment for the police academy so i don't have to waist that cash son U feeL mE
seriously though i think people in the right mind set should own some firepower ether for hunting, sporting, protection or just simply because its fun shooting and like how they look.
world peace F@#$ERS
0
Holoofyoistu
The Messenger
Rin_Penelope wrote...
weapons is the one thing keeping the war to exist in this world, many weapon manufacturer dig up ridiculous amount of money from every war that wage around the world, do you think weapon is worthy enough to exist?Unless you can promise me that no one will ever go insane and attack anyone ever again
Yes
0
Alphalicious
The Omegalicious
The fact areas with Gun laws and gun free zones see more crime than areas with more gun owning Americans should speak volumes in it self. Weapons are a product of mans intelligence to overcome his surroundings and adversities. Maybe that means being able to defend ones self from a totalitarian state (canon to current events) or to scare off the bear during your fishing trip.....
more serious note: If you ever see bear cubs RUN, mother bears are ferocious defenders, seriously if he was 5-10ft closer to the shore he may not have drawn in time
more serious note: If you ever see bear cubs RUN, mother bears are ferocious defenders, seriously if he was 5-10ft closer to the shore he may not have drawn in time
0
theotherjacob wrote...
here's the reason why anyone who says we need guns for protection are kidding themselves by hiding behind the second amendment.A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
This is the exact wording of the second amendment. Let me point out the obvious, only fools cherry pick statements. This amendment says specifically that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The people who wrote this had no intention of people keeping guns and not being a part of this militia.
This was written in a time of possible war. The reason the people had a right to bear arms is so that they could fight. How many people right now that own guns in the united states are active or former members of the military, how many are part of the national guard or volunteer forces. How many go through active military drills to be a well regulated militiaman? How many people that own the billions of guns that the united states owns and produces are in the hands of people who actively train to use them on a daily, weekly, monthly basis?
The real answer is very few actively practice gun safety and the knowledge needed to properly use a firearm. Almost none of these people are actually part of an active regulated militia, like the Michigan militia that gets so much hate. I can guarantee that very few people actually work with their neighbours to form a protection unit that trains together in gun practices and discuss accountability for situations that may occur. There are no weekly neighbourhood chapter meetings to discuss crime in the area or politics or anything. This just doesn't actively happen.
So if you want to hide behind the second amendment but aren't an active militiaman, you are not doing what the constitution says.
That's an interesting interpretation of the U.S. Consitution and specifically the 2nd Amendment, and I know many people share this view with you. I don't agree with it for a few reasons which I hope you'll consider:
I don't think Militia means what you think it means. My understanding of that term (as it was used in other period writings which I've read) does not mean a standing/fixed or even State/Federal Army. It is litterally the local community of "the people" comming together in their own common defense. Guns were unregulated and most households in rural areas had them for both hunting and defense. I am in the U.S. Military, and I do not consider myself in the Militia. The Militia would be my civilian neighbors in a time of crisis. I have voluntarily signed away some of my rights as a citizen by taking the oath to serve and signing my contract of service. I have to follow additional laws and am subject to a more stringent and additional legal system than I was as a civilian. The Army and the Militia when this was written also followed a similar legal separation.
Also, remember, the war you speak of that shaped this document was a war by "the people" against their own government - a government that had lost it's legitimacy with "the people," which is why it's called a Revolution. Americans today think of themselves as Americans in a way that the Colonial Americans in the British Empire did not.
I would also draw your attention to the very term "the people" in the amendment itself (which is why I'm writing it in quotes). It has specific meaning and is used in other amendments and in the Preamble... "We the People..." I think you are overlooking the importance of it's use in the 2nd Ammendment and elsewhere. "The people" are more than just the militia but the militia can not exist without "the people" AND a free (from tearany) state can not exist without a militia, ergo... "the people" shall not have their right to own and use firearms restricted.
It may surprise you that I do not own a gun and have thankfully never been in a position where I needed one outside of my service. I have never felt the need for one as a tool of personal/family self defense. I may or may not buy one in the future, but I strongly believe it is my natural (IE, not granted by a document or government) Right to do so should I so choose. I think it is a human right as we all have the right to defend ourselves and should be of the mindset to do so should the need arise. I think many people today are taught through school, politics, and societiey to think of the Bill of Rights as a listing of Rights that the Government gives us. This is not the case at all. The Bill or Rights is a document limiting the power of Government, not a document giving Rights to it's people. The authors believed that the Rights originated with each of us as individuals, and the main opposition to the Bill of Rights while it was being debated wasn't that these Rights didn't exist, but rather if they were written down on paper, that the Government or elements in society could seek to limit them through "interpretation" of what they really mean.
Given all that I have taken the time to write, I hope you will reexamine your understanding and opinion of the 2nd Amendment and indeed... what Rights are in general.
Back to the original topic though... Weapons.
I think weapons are tools. Guns are just one type of weapon, but almost anything can be used as a weapon. They can be used to protect or oppress the weak and helpless... Murder and steal or defend and save. Before firearms, there were more primitive and brutal weapons which placed more importance on the physical abilities of weilder. Ironically, firearms do more to protect the most vulnerable than previous weapons did.
I wish we could live in a world where evil acts by people didn't exist. I wish there was no need for self defense or defending others. Until such time exists, I think we have a right to weapons. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men (humanity) to do nothing". In some countries, this will take the form of firearms, in others... It won't. Each free society/country should weigh the advantages and risks for themselves.