So originally for a war of sorts then and not against each other. Ah well, progress is sometimes a wonderful thingRaizen said:
The same could be said for the knife that stabbed someone to death. The gun is a tool an instrument that out come can be death. Banning them does not stop there use. Plus statistics say that most guns used are illegally gotten to begin with. The person chose to pull the trigger not the gun correct? Did the gun decide for its trigger to be pulled or the knife to be plunged in a person?Frog said:
The Second Amendment was alway a part of the our original Constitution. It has never been changed. Guns and owning them were never illegal from the start of Country. So it was a right given to us from our very beginning as a country. One can go back an see quotes from founding fathers explaining the inclusion of the Second Amendment.Frog said:
The answer is you are correct if my family is in danger I want the means to protect them from that danger. In a car I protect my family by making them put their safety belts on. When my son and I do the yard I make him follow safety procedures to make sure he and I don't get hurt. In my house if someone breaks in with or without the intent to harm my family I want the means to protect them if need be. Whether the person who broke in has malicious intent or not makes no difference I don't know their intent. So I will protect my family if need be from someone doing something illegal and potentially harming my family.Frog said:
Reading the History of the Second amendment this was why it was created along with our country. Guns were given to the people for two reasons. One reason was a means to protect a citizens family from the wild and Indians. The other was to instill fear in our government with the knowledge that if they wronged us or started to become out of control the citizens had a means to revolt and over throw the government.
When a people such as the Syrians try to overthrow their government. The citizens do not have the means or weapons to really overthrow their government. What happens is my government along with your government provide them either money to buy the weapons or the weapons themselves. So it is ok if our governments provide those peoples the means to overthrow a government that is not good and also the means to protect them and their families, but it is not ok for us. Wouldn't you call that a double standard?
Chris said:
If someone breaks into our house we would dial 999.
Yes there seems to be a double standard at first glance but bear in mind the type of governments you and I have and the mindset of our respective societies.
500 years ago beheading someone was an accepted 'punishment' for wrong doing. We have moved far away from that. Some societies have not.
Remember that 'we' have a vested interest in the wealth of the Middle East.
Frog said:
So it is a " Do what we say, not what we do" type of deal. It is ok for our respective countries to arm terrorists but not ok for its citizens to be armed to protect themselves. I find that to be a double standard. We have vested interest in the ME yes should we no. You are correct 500 years ok beheading was acceptable and look at the crime rate. Now we have people who say death is to harsh a punishment which I find absurd. Death should be an acceptable punishment when it is warrented not life in prison at the expense of the tax payer.
Where does the arming terrorists come from?Chris said:
Im perfectly happy with death penalties partly for the reason you state.
You're arming yourself to protect yourself from fellow armed US citizens. I find that scarey.
What side do you think we are arming to fight in Syria? If you research it which I did our governments are arming the side that is cozy with Al-Queda.Frog said:
Arming myself from fellow armed citizens is not what I am doing. Arming myself from those that are criminals and can hurt us is what I am doing. I am fine with other armed citizens so long as they are armed legal and not harming innocent people.
First: Who said we are arming from each other?Frog said:
No.
We are "arming" for criminals and terrorist.
Second: If someone broke into your home with a weapon you're going to call the police?
You'd be dead before they even get to your home, not only that but he can kill your family and have spare time to escape.
Now if you had a some sort of defense. hm... like a small handgun; you'd most likely live and get cleared up by the police.
This is assuming the burglar has a gun.Napalm said:
They don't need one. They could have a baseball bat. Any blunt object makes a great weapon and tool to break into people's homes.Frog said:This is assuming the burglar has a gun.
Then defending ones self can be done by the same manner can it not?Napalm said:
We'll agree to disagree then
one thought though. Using a baseball bat or some other non firearm weapon requires it to be held at most at arms length...unless you throw a knife but then that leaves you defenceless?....a gun can kill from much further away...repeatedly.
one thought though. Using a baseball bat or some other non firearm weapon requires it to be held at most at arms length...unless you throw a knife but then that leaves you defenceless?....a gun can kill from much further away...repeatedly.
Whether or not I buy a Wii U will depend on the games they make for it. I have had every single console that Nintendo has made at some point in my life. But I'm waiting to see what kind of games they make for the Wii U. If they have little or no games that interest me then it's not worth it to me to buy the console. But I'm that way with every console. I won't spend several hundred dollars on a console when there's not more than one or two games that I like (or no games at all).
