Thread: Gun-Control
View Single Post
Old 04-09-2009, 08:38 AM   #39
English spoken in What
Totenkopf's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
Because when you have a gun that big you become a danger to those around you as well.
Merely your subjective opinion. Not inherent fact. Merely owning any weapon with a magazine that holds >1 bullet can make you a hazard in the abstract. Frankly, unless I mount a 50cal on a toyota/vehicle (like in 3rd world countries) and tool around the neighborhood firing at whatever catches my eye, your fear is dramatically overstated. Besides, how many people do you see commiting crimes with a 50 cal in the US anyway? Too damned impracticle.

I feel it is my business if my country feels like it should give out heavy weaponry with no more restriction than "amendment, and your mind looks ok", especially when that weapon can go through cars or reinforced walls, and even cleanly through a tank. We have trained, federal professionals handle those weapons because they are designed to cause mass damage ontop of death.
No offense, but since we aren't talking about frag grenades, suitcase nukes or AFVs/APCs, or other heavy weapons (how many people could afford an ICBM in their backyeard anyway? ), you've only demonstrated a fear of something and little else (esp in light of prior mentioned "minimal" preconditions).

While I get the car reference, there is a differences between a car and a gun. A car is primarily designed to get you from place to place with the chance of killing something while a gun is primarily designed to cause harm/kill the thing it is pointed at. One is a mode of transport, while the other is a tool designed to kill. You can target fire, but the primarily reason for its existence is to cause harm.
Primary reason for knives and other edged weapons is to cause harm. I'd say Skin has a fairly good grasp of that concept.

Assault Rifles and full-auto weapons are trouble because the spread and uncontrollability of such a weapon can hit civilians, go through walls and hit non-combatants. Sawn-off shotguns can be hidden, and the increased spread can hit more non-combatants. Grenades and other high explosives hurt without prejudice.
Perhaps. But can cause doesn't always translate into "will casuse" (except in the case of criminals, who've no use for the law anyway).

The second amendment gives people the right to bear arms. The vagueness could imply every weapon in existence up to atom bombs, while it can also imply defensive arms and not a stash of grenades.

Maybe people can be trusted with a full auto weapons enough to sell them at K-Mart, but personally I'd rather crime be performed with small arms and knives and have it be a -little- difficult for them to get their hands on heavy weapons than have the government personally give bigger weapons to the populous.

Call me paranoid, but I trust the average citizens as much as I trust our government.
As the Rolling Stones can't always get what you want. Besides, if you believe many of the indiscriminate claims by liberal news sources, you'd think that 90% of all guns used my the cartels are from America. Fact is, the US border is so porous and enforcement so relatively lax, that getting guns illegally would likely only be a matter of $$. Interesting that you trust the goverment only as much as you trust the "average citizen", but are quite content to have same unworthy govt control all the guns? Selective paranoia, no? (rhetorical question here)





Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,