for the record (re: guns thread)

If you say I have trouble understanding your position as it's laid out, how does repeating it the exact same way over and over and over again make you think I will suddenly see it?If I really am having trouble understanding your position, it's only because you've been doing a very crappy job at explaining it. While the other anti-gunners may have the inside feelings to understand what the hell you're saying, I”and you said it wasn't just me, but in fact other pro-gunners”don't have a damn clue what the hell it is you're getting at.So, instead of just copy-pasting a post you already made, why not explain it differently, since the way you are explaining it doesn't seem to be working?Jon

You have misread the logic. The logic goes: When intent is murder, gun will be used.NOTWhen gun is used, intent is murder.These two statements are profoundly different. In effect, you created your own strawman and then falsified that. Care to retract?Jon[added in response to your edit]
Just because someone makes a song about guns only being used for killing doesn't mean it's true. You aren't seriously trying to use that as evidence, are you? If not, then it was really a lot of extra crap to dig through, and added nothing in way of the debate.
[/added in response to your edit]Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : oops

This assumes that when someone sets out to be violent, their intent is always murder. If my intent is NOT murder, then I will not shoot someone to death, whether I have a gun or not. If I DO want to kill someone, I will do it however I can, whether I have a gun or not. Do you disagree with this? If so, why? You misread that statement the same way Kuresu did.When murder, gun use.NOTWhen gun use, murder. No, you've given statistics in regards to murders and gun ownerships. You have NOT given any statistics that verifies whether access is really "easy" or it is "not easy." You don't need the stats for murders/gun ownership. You need the stats for gun access.Jon

False. The higher the desire to own guns, the less effect difficulties of access will have. In other words, just because people own a lot of guns, does not mean they were EASY to get; it could just mean that they wanted them really really really really bad. So, do you have any evidence to back your claim up? Stats on that one? Show me, how many people actually DO commit involuntary manslaughter as opposed to voluntary? Also, how many of those people used guns?

I don't think I ever said that guns weren't easy to access. Hell, I think it should be easier.So, I'm not sure what you two are arguing... Jon

Don't tell me you can buy guns at gun shows... holy crap, you can! Wow, this is the first I've ever heard of this. I mean, I knew you got groceries at the grocery store, cars from car dealers, electronics at electronics stores, and pizza from the pizzeria. But guns, at gun shows? Who would've thunk it!?

No, weapons are meant to kill. There's no reason to own a weapon other than to kill another human being. Haven't you been reading Nuggin's posts? I believe he made that quite clear only like 1000 times.Jon

Sure, but only if that's your original intent, which, if it is, makes you a pretty evil person, and I'd see no reason why a really evil person would not just go get an easy illegal gun if they couldn't get access to a legal one. I mean, they're sinister to commit mass murder, what's breaking a little gun law to them?Jon

Vacate:First, let me just thank you for your cool, calm, and non-hostile reply to my arguments. It's very much appreciated when one can debate his/her points without worry of being insulted and/or viciously verbally attacked As I've said before in regards to other things, buying fertilizer is not a right guaranteed to us by the Constitution. If you want to propose an amendment be made, go ahead, until then, your right to buy fertilizer remains restricted under the law and/or current government practices. My reply was in response to your seeming misinterpretation of my position. Unless it is you who do not feel taking away their ak-47 is an option, then you've somewhere inadvertently mistook my position. Hence my reply of: "I have never said that isn't an option. " It was not meant to offer a solution, just to clear things up. However, since you've asked for a solution... Instant background checks which simply use a national database that has information in it that is there anyway”hospital visits, criminal history, etc.”to assign a 'threat level' number to each person. That threat level number can then be used to determine to which types of weaponry an individual has access. Now, I realize this would require that the separate divisions of the government actually got along, or even spoke for that manner, but that's somewhat an issue that needs to be just fixed all around. No, I did not say that. What I said was: "It's the same way that we wouldn't let a 3 year old play with matches." In other words, the logic for not letting a 3 year old play with matches is also applicable to not letting violent criminals have access to guns. I never said, nor meant to imply, that both methods could be implemented in the same fashion; that, after all, would've just been silly . Landmines are not a right guaranteed to us by the 2nd Amendment. It's okay to restrict their use, but not the use of guns. Unless you can show me that landmines and guns are both equally "necessary to the security of a free state," then your argument is sunk. Because landmines would be destructive to the U.S. if detonated on an invading force, I believe the same logic applies here as to nukes, that is, they are more detrimental to the security of a free state than they are necessary. Let's not get too hasty, here. For starters, humans have been looking for ways to keep murderous people out of society for thousands of years. We still have not found an answer on how to do that without also infringing upon their rights, and I doubt we will find one any time some. Furthermore, I don't want all weapons legalized”nukes, landmines, etc.-just the ones necessary to the security of a free state will be fine for now. However, I would not oppose any amendments to the Constitution that somewhat increased the array of weaponry available to the public.Let me know if any parts were unclear ,
Jon

The monarchy of the King of England. Unless he means religious dogma

Do you take away a person's steak knife before they stab someone with it? We cannot predict what people will do with every possible thing they have, and it's certainly not fair to punish someone before they do something wrong. Now, I know what you're thinking; "but what could someone possibly want with a gun like one of those ak-47s except to shoot people with." Well, you'd be partially right and partially wrong in saying this. To understand why, we must go back to the 2nd Amendment, and review why it was written. Fortunately, the clue we need for this endeavour is not hidden in some mystical meaning; in fact, it's spelled right out for us: "necessary to the security of a free state." Now, let's examine this other bit you said here. The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that the citizens of the U.S. are armed enough in the event of an invasion. So, will rifles and handguns have any effect against the Canadian automatic weapons and armour-piercing rounds? Not really. To assure that they do, the people must be armed with comparable weaponry.I think we need to bring these weapons back.

I never argued this.Edited by Jon, : Jon

So, what you're really saying is that increased easy access isn't necessarily responsible? Instead, it seems as though you are arguing that the guns themselves must be increased, not just the easy access. Would you agree with Modulous' interpretation of your position that "easy access to weapons leads to proliferation which leads to an increase in the amount of lethal incidents per capita"? No. Sure. What they are able to do is different than what they want and/or will do. So, while they're certainly able to do so--as much as they're able take a shit behind a gas station--the question we must really ask is, do they actually do more damage simply because of the gun? I've addressed this in a few other posts if you want to go back through them, if not, just let me know and I will summararize it for you. Well, I'd conceal the weapon simply out of concern for your pants, since it's pretty clear that you'd take a shit in them if you saw anyone in public with a visible gun . And yes, hiding it will keep people who like to harrass people just because they are looking for a fight from trying to mess with you and/or harm you just for their thrill. In other words, some people will view the gun as a threat, and so concealing it will keep those (mentally unstable) people from getting "all in your face". Brenna's argument, not mine. I won't address this. See above. Never did. My strawman only appears as such from your quote mining. Check out this below: You've quote mined me. I addressed this, it was addressed in the Mod Proc. thread, and has been several times here, including Modulous' very well-done summary of where the debate was standing. Care to stop quote mining me? Oh? Of course, it's the quote mine "increased guns = increased violence" that has led to so much confusion. I meant it in the context of murder, and because of this, I--at that point--was under the impression that you felt an increase in guns led to an increase in deaths. Of course, people kept SHOUTING that my interpretation of the position was wrong, and so I decided to just say, "okay, fine you aren't arguing what I thought you were arguing." Of course, you were.Another problem, is that that quote mine has been posted many times as an example of me misrepresenting my opponets' position so many times. However, if I did it so many times, where the Hell are those examples? Oh? They no existen? Hmmm... ...Consider, if you quoted the Good Book, "He breathed the breath of life into the man" (not sure if that's word-for-word, but close enough). Now, you could sit and argue that it's not God doing the breathing, afterall, it just says "he." But, reading the rest of the story, you see to what "he" that pronoun refers. In similar ways, reading my entire post, i.e., not just stoppping when you think you have a quote you can use against me, you see that the "violence" to which I am referring is "murder."I hope this has made clear your error, and you will STOP using that quote mine, because having to constantly debate that single instance in which I used the word "violence", and even then in reference to "murder", is just going to clog this thread, which could shape up into an okay debate, until we hit message 300. We good there? Clearly, you've gone wrong somewhere. I guess the question of the evening is: Do you understand your position?JonPS: you didn't answer my questions regarding nuke storage

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ ____________ _ _ _ _ _En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10

... Now, now my legume friend. I addressed this one in pretty good detail. Well, technically I addressed it in regards to nukes, and then stated that the same logic applies to landmines. Remember, the PURPOSE of the amendment is to allow arms "necessary to the security of a free state." Consider this: With an ak-47, you pluk off one Canadian, two Canadian, three Canadian... protecting your country all the while doing so, i.e., you help protect the security of the free state. Well, if you blow up chunks of land everywhere trying to get rid of the Canadians, you start destroying some of that that state. Destroying the state, of course, is not protecting it; it's not "necessary to the security of a free state," in fact, it's detrimental to that security. So, this such as nukes and landmines, which destroy the very state they are supposed to be protecting, are not coverd by the 2nd Amendment.Read more of my posts for clarification, but that should pretty much sum it up. Jon

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ ____________ _ _ _ _ _En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10

Thanks for the input. I have to admit, I was pondering this one as well. A landmine may make a big hole in the ground, but hey, if it kills off 56 invading Canadians whilst so doing, then perhaps it is moreso an aid in protecting the security of a free state than it is a detriment. From this, I think it is quite possible that landmines actually are protected under the 2nd Amendment. If this argument could be well-made”and I just might be the one who will want to make it”then perhaps it is such that landmines should be made legal. I would fully agree with such logic.Anyhow, I'm just thinking outloud here. Thanks for bringing this up.Jon