for the record (re: guns thread)

Thanks for posting something with perspective and points.Now, to why I disagree with you Yes, but like the right to free speech, it does not apply in all situations. Much like "shouting fire in a crowded theater", the right does not extend when doing so would cause harm to others.So, in the case of the 2nd amendment, when are people "shouting fire"? Maybe initially, but people can lose their right to bare arms, much like they lose their right to vote. However, while it is fairly easy to check if someone is voting, it's very very hard to make sure that someone who's lost the right to bare arms is infact not armed.And finally, once again, the question still comes down to "what is an arm"?Citizens have the "right to bare arms" but is a .22 rifle an arm? Is a .357? Is a machine gun? A rocket launcher? A surface to air missile?Surely we all agree that a line must be drawn somewhere. Where do you draw the line?

Yeah. I'll try to reign it back. But it's not like it's having any effect on him. He doesn't read the posts anyway.

Wanna email that notion to the family members of the people that died at VT?I'm sure they don't consider gun control superficial crap.

I don't think you understand what the word "retract" means.I don't need to retract that "I am sure that..." because I know for a fact that "I am sure."But more importantly, you honestly believe that the family's of the victims at VT think that gun control is "superficial crap"? Honestly? That's what you believe? Those people, grieving the senseless deaths of their loved ones are picking up the newsweek about gun violence and saying, "Jesus! What a bunch of superficial crap. Guns are AOK in my book."Wow. Just wow.

Well, if you recall Nator, he ran away in the last thread too. Post 155 was his "this debate is over post"Of course that didn't stop him from coming back and posting several more times, including message 292, the one that lead to the creation of this very thread.

Icant, did you read the first post? The one about how we are not suggesting ban all guns and yet everyone keeps saying things like: Additionally, while the "National Review" online is well known for being oh so balanced, I'd like to point out that the article you linked says that there was an increase of 40% but doesn't give us any numbers about the numbers.A jump from 10 crimes to 14 crimes is 40%. But I'd hardly call 4 crimes a crime wave.While, obviously we aren't talking about numbers that low, it'd be nice to know exactly what the numbers are

Not quite. Carrying "arms" is. As I asked before, and perhaps you missed it, how do we define "arms"? It is all weapons? Some weapons? Is it "those weapons I want to own, but not those the next guy wants"?

I am aware of absolutely no states in which it is illegal to have a gun in your house if you also have alcohol in your house.This may be true for bars, but certainly not true for homes.If it were, there would certainly be a decline in gun related deaths.

This has been explained at least twice, but I'll explain it again for you because apparently you've missed it. You're arguement is: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Therefore we should not restrict gun ownership."Our point is that you can substitute any lethal weapon for "guns" and still have a valid first sentence. So, "knives don't kill people, people kill people, therefore we should not restrict knife ownership" is an equally valid principle using your arguement.So to, "nukes don't kill people, people kill people, therefore we should not restrict nuke ownership."The question we are asking is just how far you are willing to take your principle. Since, you yourself has said that guns are just an item and have no intent, it stands to reason that you would also believe the same thing about nukes.If you do not believe the same thing about nukes, it's up to you to explain why this is the case, since it is in opposition to the point you posted.And as you are so fond of saying "Retract!"

I can't believe I missed this the first time through. I hereby invoke Godwin's Law and proclaim Modulous the winner of the debate!Congrats Mod!

Jar, you are spirally down. Pull up! Pull up!You've said that "guns" were protected
We point out that "arms" are protected and correctly indicated that arms includes things like knives, missiles, tanks, nukes, chemical weapons...etc.
You agreed that things like Sarin gas should be restricted
But then you go on to say the above quote implying that you disagree with yourself.Which is it, Jar? Does the constitution allow Sarin gas or not?

Alright Jon,Time to eat your own words: Why can't a collector want to have a Nuke? Huh? Why? Why can't they? Huh? Why can't a collector validily want something? What's wrong with a collector? Retract! Retract! REtract! Retract! Collectors want things! Retract!Annoying as shit, huh? Welcome to our side of the debate.Now explain why a collector should be able to have a machine gun and not a nuke or retract retract retract!

No, Jon.The only people who get called stupid are the ones who read 10+ posts containing the exact same sentences then proceed to make a claim like: That was you. It's not my fault you were stupid. It's not my fault you failed to either read or understand the 300 or so posts which came before your statement. The fact that I disagree with you isn't what made you stupid, it's the fact that you were being stupid.I was asked previously on this thread to stop calling you stupid, but unfortunately, you decided to bring my name into your argument with Mod and brought the whole "stupid" thing up yourself.People can't blame me for explaining to you how you were stupid, can they?By the way, you have YET to address the original post of this thread and why it is that you were being so stupid in the first place?Though, I would like to point out that once again you've returned to a thread that you already declared yourself over and done with.

Jon,Can you read? Seriously? Have you read the 1st post of this thread? Let me sum it up for you AGAIN.You said that people were arguing that guns cause violence
We LISTED a LONG LIST of quotes proving that you were completely offbase in your assertation.You then respond by saying Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?The admins can come down on me again and again, but so long as you keep posting the same mistake over and over and over, I'm going to have to keep repeating that you are unbelievably stupid.There's really no other excuse
It is not necessary to say the things you say. This post earns a one day suspension. Forum Guidelines Edited by AdminPhat, : inappropriate comments

Wow. Okay, here's a helpful guide to lethality.A pointy stick is LESS LETHAL than a steak knife which in turn is LESS LETHAL than a .22 which in turn is LESS LETHAL than a .357 which in turn is LESS LETHAL than a gatling gun which in turn is LESS LETHAL than a nuke.The idea behind "less lethal" is that the item is "less" "lethal" than another item.You CAN kill someone with a pointy stick. It's harder and takes a great deal more effort than it would be to kill someone with an AK47.That is why the modern military does NOT use pointy sticks as their primary weapon when going into battle. (Do you need a source on this? I'm sure even Jar would agree)Is this clear? Or do you really need more information on how to determine if one weapon is more or less lethal than another? First, this has been addressed. You lost this point. Nuke is a noun. You can't win this argument.Second, PEOPLE is a noun. "Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people" - you are STILL blaming a noun.