US Supreme Court upholds individual right to gun ownership

[Patroklos]

Me and my friend almost got our heads blown off when we handed a loaded gun to this women I was dated who, by the way, eventually became my wife.

Given your description of her Kid, I don't think that would have been an accident.*

SAVE KID

*I am assuming you are talking about your exwife, and not a new one we don't know about.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles
You dodged my question though, Ben. Can you explain, morally, why you don't think it's your right to stop your neighbor from owning items designed to kill, but it is your right to stop consensual adults from marrying?

Er, do you think the Bible has something against killing?

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't think it's evil, I just think the people who hunt for sport are the most pathetic specimen of human around. Especially the kind who sit up in hunting boxes and shoot animals with a scope on a high-powered rifle.

Have you ever hunted? It's really quite harder then you think. I've gone fishing, and geese hunting before, and you have to be very good to hit anything at all. I'm not the best shot, but I can get it done.

I'm all for the killing of animals for the purpose of sustenance, but not for sport. This is a topic for another thread.

No, it belongs here in this one. You were about to say that guns have no legitimate purpose in society, and I am arguing there are two: hunting and self defense. Yes, guns can be used to kill people. So can a tire iron if used with malice. Or a bat for that matter. What differentiates a firearm from other weapons?

You dodged my question though, Ben. Can you explain, morally, why you don't think it's your right to stop your neighbor from owning items designed to kill, but it is your right to stop consensual adults from marrying?

This is a false analogy. I don't have the right to restrict you from ****ing however many men you choose. That is analogous to this issue. Marriage is a different argument altogether because you are asking for public regulation and recognition.

[Will9]

The reason I support Gun Rights is banning guns is the same as banning self-protection. If you ban guns, only criminals will have guns and lawful citizens will have no way to protect themselves from a criminal with a gun. Also, gun smuggling will provide yet another source of income for organized crime.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles

How is it your right to determine if your neighbor can marry another man if it is not your right to determine if somebody carries weapons that are intended only to kill things?

Marriage is a state sanctioned contract, freedom of contract is very important. Homosexual marriage is an absolute no brainer for me, OF COURSE it should be allowed. The constitution is a document which secures personal liberty, bans on homosexual marriage are unconstitutional.

I am not conservative or, republican.

I believe the purpose of goverment is to preserve my personal liberty and has a secondary, but important, obligation to foster social cooperation to produce a prosperous society. I am pro enviroment. I am pro personal responsibility but know that many people will not be responsible, so we need to force it on them.

I am generally against bombing brown people. I am against deficit spending and my BIGGEST concern after bombing innocent brown people and stealing my rights, would be the fact that America is heading to economic suicide because of massive deficit spending.

Oh, also, i'm not Christian.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What would you prefer Imran?

People not buying so many.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Given your description of her Kid, I don't think that would have been an accident.*

SAVE KID

*I am assuming you are talking about your exwife, and not a new one we don't know about.

I's get smarter now. Any women that I'm stupid enough to date shouldn't be given a loaded gun.

edit: changed "date seriously" to just "date"

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Have you ever hunted? It's really quite harder then you think. I've gone fishing, and geese hunting before, and you have to be very good to hit anything at all. I'm not the best shot, but I can get it done.

Difficulty has nothing to do with it. And I've not hunted, only fishing, though I have fired a 0.22 as well as a high-powered rifle (as well as a bow and arrow). What can I say, I was a boy scout in Alberta. We did this kind of thing.

No, it belongs here in this one. You were about to say that guns have no legitimate purpose in society, and I am arguing there are two: hunting and self defense. Yes, guns can be used to kill people. So can a tire iron if used with malice. Or a bat for that matter. What differentiates a firearm from other weapons?

You don't need guns for self-defence, you don't need guns to hunt. If you're paranoid about self-defence, how about you do something healthy and learn a martial art.

The difference between a gun and a bat and tire iron is those other devices serve a purpose other than to kill. They are mis-used to kill rather than designed to kill. Additionally, tire irons and bats are far less lethal than guns.

This is a false analogy. I don't have the right to restrict you from ****ing however many men you choose. That is analogous to this issue. Marriage is a different argument altogether because you are asking for public regulation and recognition.

You're killing me here.

I'm not talking about ****ing at all. I'm not talking about quantity of sexual partners.

What I am asking you is to identify why it is YOUR right to stop two adults from consensually marrying eachother with no harm to anyone else, but it is NOT YOUR right to stop your neighbor from owning devices purely intended to kill.

Your position is inconsistent. Guns threaten the public safety and liberty of others, while marrying someone you love encourages a monogamous, loving relationship which is a benefit to society. Why is it the Christian position to permit that which causes death and destruction, and to prohibit that which encourages love and devotion?

[Ben Kenobi]

People not buying so many.

Well gee whiz.

I'd rather there be fewer Raider fans out there buying merchanise, but heck that's what liberty is all about.

I'm not very fond of mushrooms either. Less mushrooms make me happier.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Vesayen


Marriage is a state sanctioned contract, freedom of contract is very important. Homosexual marriage is an absolute no brainer for me, OF COURSE it should be allowed.

I did not direct the question to you, I directed it at Ben to illustrate his lack of intellectual thought. He's got obvious inconsistencies in his argument that he is blinded to, I'm just trying to illuminate them.

I believe the purpose of goverment is to preserve my personal liberty and has a secondary, but important, obligation to foster social cooperation to produce a prosperous society.

This is nice of you. Care to explain to me how gun ownership fosters social cooperation and produces a prosperous society? This should be good.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles
You don't need guns for self-defence, you don't need guns to hunt. If you're paranoid about self-defence, how about you do something healthy and learn a martial art.

To be fair if you always have a loaded shotgun on hand, and you have a big piece of plywood nailed to an oak tree in your front yard that reads "Loaded shotgun on duty! All trespassers will be shot!" you probably won't be the victim of a crime. But you probably don't pay taxes, so the govt is going to come and take your land. So you will be the criminal.

[Ben Kenobi]

Difficulty has nothing to do with it. And I've not hunted, only fishing, though I have fired a 0.22 as well as a high-powered rifle (as well as a bow and arrow). What can I say, I was a boy scout in Alberta. We did this kind of thing.

So why the personal distaste? There's nothing wrong with hunting.

You don't need guns for self-defence, you don't need guns to hunt. If you're paranoid about self-defence, how about you do something healthy and learn a martial art.

That's personal opinion. Some people would prefer not to get that close to an intruder. You may feel that you don't need a gun for self-defense, but that is not a decision you can make for someone else.

I happen to agree with you here that personally, I don't need one, but if other people want them, more power to em.

The difference between a gun and a bat and tire iron is those other devices serve a purpose other than to kill.

Oh, and self-defense isn't a purpose of a firearm? Who says you have to kill with your shot rather then frightening off an intruder?

They are mis-used to kill rather than designed to kill. Additionally, tire irons and bats are far less lethal than guns.

Ahh ok. I see your point. A firearm in the hands of someone who is trained can be a lethal weapon. So can a tire iron or a bat. Or even your hands. Someone who is properly trained in martial arts could kill someone in the right circumstance.

Yes, they are less lethal, but where do we draw the line? A firearm when used properly, does not ever have to be lethal, just the same as with a bat or a tire iron.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So why the personal distaste? There's nothing wrong with hunting.

Because all it does is serve the ego of the "macho" man who kills a helpless being just because he can. I find it pathetic and the people who genuinely enjoy this kind of stuff are pretty sick.

That's personal opinion.

So is the opinion that you need guns for self-defence. The fact is, people can defend themselves without guns. That's not opinion, it's fact.

Oh, and self-defense isn't a purpose of a firearm? Who says you have to kill with your shot rather then frightening off an intruder?

So the purpose of a firearm is just to scare people? That's funny, here I thought people were being murdered with them.

Yes, they are less lethal, but where do we draw the line? A firearm when used properly, does not ever have to be lethal, just the same as with a bat or a tire iron.

The line is drawn because firearms are explicitly intended to kill, baseball bats and tire irons are not. It's a pretty clear line, really.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes, they are less lethal, but where do we draw the line? A firearm when used properly, does not ever have to be lethal, just the same as with a bat or a tire iron.

The level of training required to consistently use a gun in a non-lethal manner is above what almost everyone, including police officers, receives. Most people are trained to shoot for center mass; otherwise you're probably just going to miss.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not talking about ****ing at all. I'm not talking about quantity of sexual partners.

That would be a correct analogy. You are putting out a false analogy, which does not hold up. You are correct in saying that you have a right to personal liberty which permits you to sleep with as many people as you wish, or to own firearms for self defence or hunting.

That is my argument here. Do you not see the parallels between the two?

What I am asking you is to identify why it is YOUR right to stop two adults from consensually marrying eachother with no harm to anyone else, but it is NOT YOUR right to stop your neighbor from owning devices purely intended to kill.

1. I don't have a right to prevent anyone from associating with another person. Your statement is worded incorrectly.

2. By that same basis, I have no right to regulate my neighbours desire to own a firearm.

Your position is inconsistent. Guns threaten the public safety and liberty of others,

How so? How do guns threaten public safety and liberty? You'll have to lay out your case rather then stating a BAM.

As for the rest, which I just snipped, I already listed several reasons why your case is a false analogy. I suggest you address the reasons I listed.