| Welcome to Philosophyabsurdity. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're probably looking for old friends, or old enemies. Don't panic! They still exist. Sure, they've forgotten about you. It's just the internet. But with passion, intellect and an enormous penis you can force your way back into their affections or the sex offenders register. So type a message. Expect a witty response. It's all for you... you just might have to wait 2 or 3 years. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Virginia Tech and Gun Laws; Someone had to do it | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 18 2007, 03:35 PM (3,154 Views) | |
| Evil_Henry | Apr 20 2007, 12:21 PM Post #61 |
![]()
In Vino Veritas
|
Fuck it, give them all laser cannons and have done with it.
|
![]() |
|
| RevWolf | Apr 20 2007, 12:22 PM Post #62 |
![]()
MacGyver of Sex
|
now, i never said that. I'm just pointing out how idiots put their opinions up as facts. I'd go along with leija's idea but I think that would get some opposition from civil liberties groups regarding mental health records and such being made available. As it stands you need to be a member of a gun club and have permission from a landowner (over 200 ac I think) to get a gun. I've been asked a few times over the years to write a letter of permission for someone or the others mate saying they come shoot on my property so they could get a gun. I never wrote any. I'd agree with you on handguns - never had any use to me. |
![]() |
|
| Evil_Henry | Apr 20 2007, 12:26 PM Post #63 |
![]()
In Vino Veritas
|
I wasn't presuming what your views are, I was giving you a pick and mix so I get a clean statement of your opinions. Just seemed like the easiest way without rambling. I've only ever played around with an air rifle, which couldn't kill anything larger than a strawberry. I'd like to shoot, but I'm equally interested in archery. Something very appealing about being able to judge wind, etc and knowing it's all your effort rather than a knot of cordite. A long bow is more powerful than a 12 gauge but I doubt I'd have the strength to fire the bastard. |
![]() |
|
| RevWolf | Apr 20 2007, 12:56 PM Post #64 |
![]()
MacGyver of Sex
|
yea bows are fun. I have a old compound bow i bought for humor. couldn't hit the side of a barn with it. It collects dust now. |
![]() |
|
| HollyHostess | Apr 20 2007, 01:00 PM Post #65 |
|
Consummate Cunt
|
One of my brother's uses a bow for hunting deer. I can't pull the fucker back either, but damn if he doesn't get one every season. |
| Kiss me, I'm shit faced. | |
![]() |
|
| Pestiferous | Apr 20 2007, 04:32 PM Post #66 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
When I was small, my dad had a hunting room down in our basement. He was an avid hunter, and owned 6-7 shotguns. There was no posing of pictures with his guns. When they were out of the room they were kept in gun cases (in the locked room they were kept in a locked gun cabinet). He never showed us his guns - guns were dangerous, very dangerous. His guns were never taken out to show other people, and not once did he ever take my sister and I outside and show us how to hold one. There was no glorification of these guns. I think American culture has gotten to the point where guns aren't seen as the dangerous weapons they are. They are shown to children, they are kept in cars, in bedroom drawers, in purses...all under the guise of "protection" despite the huge lack of evidence suggesting a gun owner is safer than a non-owner. And now it's become a defensive subject. Just like Bush going into his second term, gun ownership has become a point of defense in American culture. It's a right, it's part of being American...only crazies and idiots harm people with guns. Despite the fact that almost as many American children as there were victims in this massacre die by guns each year, perhaps Americans are right. Why change anything? School massacres, domestic disputes (which turn far more colourful than your usual green, black and purple bruises when there's a gun handy), accidentally shot children and toddlers, work rampages, and neighbourly disputes gone wrong are only created by idiots, mental deficients, emotional freaks. Their media will sort it all out - it wasn't your guns, it was the killer. We got his diary, see? He was sad after he lost his job 10 years before...we'll uncover every piece of dirt on this guy we can fine to reassure you at night that he wasn't normal - nothing needs to be changed. It's not you, America, it was just him. |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 20 2007, 06:33 PM Post #67 |
|
Unregistered
|
Though you say it sarcastically, that's exactly right. Individuals are responsible for their actions, not access to weapons, or cars, or drugs, or whatever the particular bogeyman might be. |
|
|
| leija | Apr 20 2007, 06:59 PM Post #68 |
|
More Valid
|
Yes it is true that sane minded individuals are responsible for their own actions. However, society is responsible for taking care of and providing protection from those individuals who are deranged or psychotic, as they don't know the difference between right and wrong. If society doesn't take care of these people, they are basically free to harm anyone. Free access to guns for everyone including this part of the population is just asking for trouble, as we have already seen. It is for the same reason that we don't allow just anyone to have radioactive matter and hazardous industrial chemicals, you must have a permit to get these materials. |
![]() |
|
| Pestiferous | Apr 20 2007, 07:09 PM Post #69 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
And culture is responsible for creating those individuals, and then giving them weapons. |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 20 2007, 07:09 PM Post #70 |
|
Unregistered
|
Exactly. However, it's the onus of the government to prove a given individual should not be allowed a given item, not the individual's responsibility to prove they're worthy. |
|
|
| Pestiferous | Apr 20 2007, 07:12 PM Post #71 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
That's fucked logic. You want something, you should prove you should have it. What you're arguing, Plague, is that a gun should be easier to attain than a driving license. Why? |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 20 2007, 07:22 PM Post #72 |
|
Unregistered
|
Ah, that's the fundamental difference right there:
I don't see the government as doling out permission to have things, or do things. Sadly, your attitude that their power is exactly that is becoming more and more pervasive. |
|
|
| Pestiferous | Apr 20 2007, 07:33 PM Post #73 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
Then why do you have a government? And you're avoiding questions like crazy, Plague. Why do you believe obtaining a gun should be easier than obtaining a driver's license? |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 20 2007, 07:51 PM Post #74 |
|
Unregistered
|
I don't. The onus for a driver's license is too much as it is. However, the justification there is that one obtains a license to use public roads. It's like a pass to drive on roads "paid for" by the government. There's nothing comparable with guns, unless one wanted to require a license to use state-funded and maintained shooting ranges if such a thing existed. |
|
|
| Xx_SwordWords_xX | Apr 20 2007, 08:13 PM Post #75 |
![]()
Satan Valid
|
Roads are paid for with YOUR taxes.... just like the schools you don't think religious symbols should be in. You should have the right to drive on the road your taxes pay for, and you shouldn't have to proove it to anyone :D.... no? *This message is muti-toned* |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 20 2007, 08:21 PM Post #76 |
|
Unregistered
|
I would agree with that, but the case could be made that you have to prove you paid taxes for the roads and this is done via a license. |
|
|
| Pestiferous | Apr 20 2007, 08:37 PM Post #77 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
Would make sense...if roads weren't paid for out of non-driving taxpayers monies as well... Look, I grasp the "it's our right!" concept (grasping it is not the same as agreeing with it), but it's also the right of a taxpaying citizen to be granted safety - which is why your tax dollars pay for police, FBI, etc. So to argue that the government has no right to enforce policies meanwhile enjoying driving stops that check people for drunk driving, etc. is rather...meaningless. Chemicals used to make meth are difficult to buy. Why, when you argue that it is the right of the individual to make smart choices? Your government has stricter policies on marijuana paraphenelia than it does guns. Why do you support these, and not stricter gun legislation? |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 20 2007, 08:47 PM Post #78 |
|
Unregistered
|
I don't support those either. If people want to use meth, or any other drug, I think it's wrong for the government to try to forcibly prevent them. I don't know where you got the idea that I supported that sort of government paternalism. I guess I'm a "good" libertarian; the conservatives call me a liberal, and the leftists think I'm a conservative. |
|
|
| Pestiferous | Apr 20 2007, 09:02 PM Post #79 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
Because one would lead into the other, lol. You support drunk driving interventions like check stops, right? What is the difference between supporting one "freedom" and not another? The entire judicial system is built on government parenting. To say the government has no right to nanny things like guns and drugs, yet believe you should be able to call 911 were a tragedy to strike, is opportunist and self-serving. |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 20 2007, 09:07 PM Post #80 |
|
Unregistered
|
No, it's not. The latter is the purvue of government, providing emergency services, while the former nannying examples are not. Actually, I don't support random drunk stops. If someone is demonstrating that they are not operating a vehicle properly and safely, then they should be stopped on the public roads. That's the extent of the deal with the devil. Randomly stopping people to check without any indication is wrong. I no more support that than I do random drug testing. Both are needlessly intrusive, and a violation of one's privacy. |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General · Next Topic » |




Fuck it, give them all laser cannons and have done with it.






7:14 PM Jul 11