Subject:
|
Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 May 1999 18:40:23 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
c576653@cclabs.missouri.(nomorespam)edu
|
Viewed:
|
812 times
|
| |
|
|
Duane Hess wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > Duane Hess wrote:
> > >
> > > Guns kill, that was their design intent.
> >
> > To the best of my knowledge, my Ruger never has.
>
> Give me one example of a fire arm that was produced, but never intened to
> discharge a projectile (other than a starting pistol).
Are you saying the to discharge a projectile is the same as to kill? My
ruger has discharged many projectiles, but probably never killed...I
bought it new. But, for the sake of the argument, I believe that there
are collectible firearms that are able to discharge firearms, but doing
so would devalue them and no one expects it to happen.
> > > What I will not support though is the NRAs stance that automatic and semi-
> > > automatic weapons are protected under this right.
> >
> > What possible reason could you have for that? They are quite obviously
> > protected by the second amendment. Every weapon available to the agents
> > of government are protected by the second.
>
>
> I will concede that they are currently protected under the second amendment,
> but I _personally_ don't support the sale of automatic or semi-automatic
> weapons to the general public. I feel that there is no need for these weapons
> to be available. We have a military. If you _must_ be around these high
> powered weapons, join it.
I happen to disagree with you, but I understand the sentiment. If the
law needs to change, then it needs to change, not be ignored. As to the
last part of what you've said, does that mean that you believe in a "if
you can't beat 'em, join 'em" philosophy? The military and other agents
of the government are exactly why automatic weapons are (and should be)
protected by the second.
> > Hunting. Killing people. Home defense. Collecting. Just to name a few.
>
> I see no sport in hunting with either a semi-automatic, or automatic weapon.
> I could do just as well with a bolt action rifle, after all it only takes
> one shot to kill. Right?
Well, I don't kill animals, I'm even a vegetarian, so I'm not interested
in that sport, but it's not for me to outlaw others' sports on a whim.
As I understand it, it often takes more than one shot, but I've never
fired at anything alive.
> Killing people. Yes. That's what guns were originally designed for. They had
> a better rage than the bow and were better at the job. You don't need
At first, they were worse.
> automatic or semi-automatic weapons to do the same function a revolver could
> perform.
I don't want automatic weapons to perform the same function as a
revolver. I want them so that I can sweep away hoards of soldiers if I
disagree with their behavior so strongly that I think it's justified.
> I stand by my one shot one kill theory.
Which means what?
> I also challenge you to
> go to a gun dealer and tell him that this is the reason why you are buying
> the gun.
So?
> Home defence. Same argument as above although this one won't bring the police
> down on you when you mention it to the gun dealer.
I sometimes hang out at the range/gun store/gun club where I shoot, and
talk to the employees and other patrons, and there's no hesitancy about
selling guns to people for home defence...what do you mean?
> Collecting. I can go along with this if the weapon has been rendered
> inoperable (remember, I'm talking semi-automatic and automatic weapons here).
Oh, but then it's not worth as much - thus less collectible, and there's
a black market for kits to make them work properly.
> >
> > > None.
> >
> > Obviously wrong.
>
> Obvious to whom?
To anyone who saw the list of reasons that I gave.
> > > They are bought and stored by
> > > (generalization) paranoid individuals who feel that they need them to • protect
> > > their family and possesions. More often then not, the storage of these • weapons
> > > is inadequate.
> >
> > You seem to know a lot more that I would have thought possible. How do
> > you get into all those peoples' houses to check on their firearms
> > storage system? Are you related to Santa Clause?
>
> I should have been more specific with the coverage of the "generalization"
> clause.
Meaning what? That you should have explained that you were trying to
vilify gun (semi-auto rifles, anyway) owners to fit your neat little
discriminatory bigoted notions? Come on! You were asserting that most
gun owners are irresponsible, paranoid, and stupid. Where do you get
off asserting this in the first place, much less trying to defend it
when I called you on it.
> This protects the child from the gun, but renders the gun
> useless in the event of a "hostile attack from outside forces."
> >
> > Unless you can remove the trigger guard quickly. My trigger guard
> > requires a little tool to remove and (for now) my son is able to
> > manipulate it correctly. I think the trigger guard in important since I
> > (obviously irresponsibly) keep ammunition in the gun.
>
> Does this mean that your child can remove the trigger guard by himself?
> I see that as an extreme danger to himself and those around him, _especially_
> if the weapon is stored loaded.
No, I said that wrong. I'm sure you'll agree that it makes more sense
if you read 'is able' as 'is not able.' Sorry about that. I'm an
advocate of wide-spread distribution of military hardware, but not of
being irresponsible.
> > > Why not buy a Doberman?
> >
> > But what NEED do you have for a doberman? Dobermans are dangerous too.
> > I was attacked by a doberman when I was eleven (I wasn't hospitalized,
> > so not too bad) but I've never been shot. Many of my neighbors raise
> > Pit Bulls. I am wildly more afraid of them than I am of the fact that
> > they own guns. (the people, not the dogs :-)
>
>
> What NEED do you have for a gun? I will concede that a Doberman as well as
> other breeds of canine can be dangerous. There are now laws which restrict
> them too, but that isn't a Constitutional issue now is it?
I was being a smart ass. People have asserted that we shouldn't have a
right to guns because we don't have a "need" for them. I was doing the
same. And I really was mauled by a doberman, and my neighbors really do
keep dangerous dogs, and I really do hate it. But we don't have such a
law where I live.
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) Discharging a projectile is not the same as to kill. If that were true, I could be arrested just for vomiting. My point was that guns were designed to kill by shooting at the intended victim (animal, vegitable, or mineral). I asked if you (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) Give me one example of a fire arm that was produced, but never intened to discharge a projectile (other than a starting pistol). (...) it. (...) I will concede that they are currently protected under the second amendment, but I _personally_ (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
