Sip Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 Absolutely ... there is often no reason to carry a gun in a "civilized" place like a large metropolitan city. Of course law enforcement and other (hopefully trained) security personel and body guards should have them ... I also think busniesses and busniess owners (such as shop owners) should be allowed to have them to protect themselves. If someone feels their life may be at risk (i.e. being threatened or stocked etc) then they may also have a legitimate excuse to apply for and get conceiled carry permits for guns or other personal protection devices. But do I think owning guns should be outlawed all together? absolutely not. There IS valid reasons for the public to own them such as protecting your land, home, or store/busniess, hunting, and recreational target shooting among others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 Absolutely ... there is no reason to carry a gun in a "civilized" place like a city large metropolitan city. Of course law enforcement and other (hopefully trained) security personel and body guards should have them ... I also think busniesses and busniess owners (such as shop owners) should be allowed to have them to protect themselves. i agree. maybe if there are laws prohibiting people in "the city" to purchase a gun unless they have a target shooting membership or a business that could be considered prone to attacks (jewelry, etc.), things would be a lot better than they are now, where even a dog can carry a gun lol... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 By the way, an example that comes to mind is that poor shmuck that caught the baseball in the stands in one of the final games of the chicago cubs this past year costing them the game. There were literally people out there looking to rip this poor guy into shreds ... If I were him, I'd be packing ANYWHERE I went ... whether I had a license to carry or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 heh, yes, people who are known to be at high-risk of being attacked, etc. should be allowed to carry guns, in my new proposal for gun ownership laws lol... geez, it's just baseball!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 lol!! whoever changed the topic title??!? Heh, okay, back to "kids"... but there's not much to say about that question without referring to other issues... anyhow, i guess going back to kids.. forget about guns... lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 Anonymouse, i'm sorry to hear that your dad was shot.. But think about it, i am talking about outlawing ALL guns, including the ones the rioters had. if they didn't have guns, neither those shopowners would've needed any to ward them off, nor would your dad have been shot... your father was shot because the rioters owned the guns, not because he didn't have a gun.. i guess you're viewing the cup half empy instead of half-full... but think about it, let's all have an arms race and get every single person in the neighbourhood armed, and then create anarchy, just like uhhh "gatil meh meghreh" .. sheesh, have we not learned from that example?!?! Right, then the State can begin to pester its citizens since the State will be the only one that will have guns. Like I said, Nazis, Soviets, Ottomans. Sorry I don't buy that argument. If you wanna be a subservient little lemming fine, I'd like to be a free thinking and able individual that is bug eyed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 I am not really following, so you are saying that since .45 are designed with a versatility of killing people and animals it makes them better? Can I ask you which guns are not purely designed to kill people? I don't understand this whole idea about protecting oneself. All my life and my parents I don't believe we were ever in a need of a gun. If one is careful about his choices there shouldn't be a need to resort to pulling the trigger. Unless you live in Texas and it is very "hip" to go hunting for already extinct wild animals to prove your manhood by decorating your walls with "unchashak" animal heads, although I don't even know how that validates the argument. Also what's up with this stupid saying "Guns don't kill people, it's people that kill people" well duh! It's only logical to understand that a person holding a gun is going to be the one to pull the trigger, just as the nukes don't kill people, unless they launched by them, so is that to say that everyone should own one? Sorry, I can't understand the logic of banning guns. This gives the State then all the rights to do what it wants with its citizens. When one side is in possession of froce, it will not cease to use it. History is on my side. If I don't have a gun to rob Jalal at the 7-11 Ill use my baseball bat. If they ban that, I'll use a piece of stick, etc., etc., eventually I'll be forced to use a spoon and fork. Keep the bannings coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 Right, then the State can begin to pester its citizens since the State will be the only one that will have guns. Like I said, Nazis, Soviets, Ottomans. Sorry I don't buy that argument. You really know nothing about anything.. You are parroting one sentence over and over again, without, I'm sure, knowing what it means or having any clue about what really happened. But as I mentioned before, it is pointless to argue with someone who parrots what the books tell him without thinking on his own terms. Knowledge is a grand thing, but when it crushes personal opinion and free will, the result would be --- YOU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel4hope Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 thats really sad dan, just because he doesnt agree with you doesnt mean hes wrong..or anymoe for that matter...dan you should nkow better...u hate it when we disagree with you and some people turn it into personal slander...buddy jan all i got2 say is..duhhh!! we are all different people with different expereinces and surely distinct ways of interpreting the world around us, so how do you expect everyone to see the world through your rose colored glasses? you cant... theres no such thing as perfect democracy and peace...afterall the world is beign goverened by human beings...for this matter-the U.S. by a Jackass--excuse the french...therefore the rulers are mostly out 4 personal gain rather that just 2 help the public....in my opinion...thats all ..be open minded..dont just try to disprove people..see where their coming from..you might learn a thing or two in the process..come on i know youre smarter than that..! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 You really know nothing about anything.. You are parroting one sentence over and over again, without, I'm sure, knowing what it means or having any clue about what really happened. But as I mentioned before, it is pointless to argue with someone who parrots what the books tell him without thinking on his own terms. Knowledge is a grand thing, but when it crushes personal opinion and free will, the result would be --- YOU. It's not that I don't know anything, it's that I know something that threatens you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 eh? Sorry I don't understand what you're asking, because there is no active verb in the sentence. My bad if I just can't get the meaning behind it. Sorry.. What I was trying to get at was, you were trying to approach it from the community's benefit point-of-view, but Extra really was asking about would-be-parents' point-of-view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 It's not that I don't know anything, it's that I know something that threatens you. Threatens me? I don't get your point in that sentence about the soviet union, etc. particularly because there is no point in it, just like all of your posts. so if you think you're THAT good to be able to say something that threatens me, do take a look in the mirror.. You just like arguing. Go to armenianclub and argue there.. you don't seem to be liked there either, for your know-it-all, i'm-right-all-the-time comments.. at least if you have a point, try to get it across without being so arrogant, at least then people would take your points into consideration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 What I was trying to get at was, you were trying to approach it from the community's benefit point-of-view, but Extra really was asking about would-be-parents' point-of-view. Stormig, I was saying it from the parents' point of view too... and all the pain they're gonna go through if their kid is harmed, etc. Perhaps I didn't mention that explicitly, but that's what I was aiming at.. I don't think parents bring kids into this world so that they would be shot and killed by some gangster.. get the point I was trying to make? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurgen Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 Sorry, I can't understand the logic of banning guns. This gives the State then all the rights to do what it wants with its citizens. When one side is in possession of froce, it will not cease to use it. History is on my side. If I don't have a gun to rob Jalal at the 7-11 Ill use my baseball bat. If they ban that, I'll use a piece of stick, etc., etc., eventually I'll be forced to use a spoon and fork. Keep the bannings coming. I tend to agree with you. When you ban guns you will only play into the hands of the maffia (not that I don't love 'm ): the illegal weapon trade, which is pretty big today, will increase enormously. If people really want to get or do something they will do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 gurgen are you talking about guns or drugs...or perhaps prostitution, gambling...etc...don't know...all I know is that I doubt many could hold up a 7-11 with a stick...regardless.. Sure its way to far gone to control at this point...I mena we have tens of millions fo guns out there - don't know...more then anough...but obviously the penalties for (illegally) carrying and usisng such should be severe.... 1 strke and you are out - regardless of excuse etc. And I really don't think that having guns around as fun toys (even if, i do admit they can be fun...) - and even for personal protection on the street etc - is really what the drafters of the Bill of Rights had in mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurgen Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 I'm not saying it's an easy question. It's just that banning everything will increase crime greatly, so governments should find a sort of middle way, like Holland does with softdrugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted January 24, 2004 Report Share Posted January 24, 2004 Dan, i dont see what you dont understand about anonymouse bringing up the fact of the soviets. If you dont understand thn you dont know history very well... The soviet nation needless to say im sure was communist,,, what does that mean... websters dictionary A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. Communism A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat. Now in this system of government everythingthe autoritarian command says has to be obeyed by the people, and one thig was that the people had no need to have guns. Hmmmm.... wonder why ???? This system of government is fatally inefficient, as we have seen, and in this system of government the outlawed gun deal was a large part contributer to the government lead murders, and mafia orginizations to accumilate the system.. Think about it, outlawing guns is only gonna take them away from the more responsible ones, the gangsters and mafia will get them nomatter what... I dont see guns ever being outlawed, i know i wont give up my 12 gauge nor .22.. I thin kthey have sufficient amount of restrictions on guns as it is, or else i would have a fully auto .22//// I can agree to a more indebt backround search or something, but still more than 80% of the gun crimes re commited using stolen or illegally baught weapons.... get it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted January 24, 2004 Report Share Posted January 24, 2004 Threatens me? I don't get your point in that sentence about the soviet union, etc. particularly because there is no point in it, just like all of your posts. so if you think you're THAT good to be able to say something that threatens me, do take a look in the mirror.. You just like arguing. Go to armenianclub and argue there.. you don't seem to be liked there either, for your know-it-all, i'm-right-all-the-time comments.. at least if you have a point, try to get it across without being so arrogant, at least then people would take your points into consideration. Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until they express themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted January 24, 2004 Report Share Posted January 24, 2004 Eve, I am sorry I had missed this post. Okay let me be very honest. Few issues to raise azatic. 1.First you look like a bratty kid, in your avatar, which relies on his mom to comb his hair. hmmmmm. I am. 2.Are you 25? Ya that's it. I am 25. (I will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of my 25th birthday this July [oh man I am OLD]) 3.What can you do for me as an adopted son? When you were Cheburashka I can understand you would be beneficial to me for I would train you to at least fetch my slippers, now I don’t know really. As my father once wisely said: “You have kids so that they can bring you a glass of water and go to the store for bread.” Chiburashka was cute but is dumb. Karlsson is a nice person and appears just when people are sad and need help and helps them and cheers them up. So if you adopt me Eve you will never have any sad days. I thought men get married to have their wife get them a glass of water. no? heheeh, j/k please don't kill me. ") 4.How do you feel having a geeky younger step-mother? Geeky women are sexy. Don't ask me why. oh, wait you will be my step-mom. Ya I have no problem as long as you hold my hand when we walk on the streets. 5.And last but not least, can you support me, because that is a requirement for my adopted child. Sure, I take home about $20 a day as a bag boy at the local super market, I am sure we can live the life of luxury with that kind of money. If you can answer each question correctly I’ll give you the honor and adopt you, otherwise you will walk around with uncombed hair. not much hair left to comb so you don't have to worry about that too much. So are you going to adopt me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 24, 2004 Report Share Posted January 24, 2004 Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until they express themselves. Exactly. You just proved my point. You seem to know yourself very well. And that's the key to proving one's stupidity. Keep it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurgen Posted January 25, 2004 Report Share Posted January 25, 2004 Azat isn't that Karlson in your avatar? The one that lives on a roof I just noticed now, but I used to love that cartoon when I was a kid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted January 25, 2004 Report Share Posted January 25, 2004 It is Gurgen jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurgen Posted January 25, 2004 Report Share Posted January 25, 2004 Yihaaaaaa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted January 25, 2004 Report Share Posted January 25, 2004 Gurgen, your avatar, is that Mowgli in his elder days? BTW: I too use to love his cartoon when I was young kid, and dd not know until recently that it was not a "Russian" cartoon but a Swedish one and written by Astrid Lindgren who also created "Pippi Longstockings" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyebruin Posted January 25, 2004 Report Share Posted January 25, 2004 Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until they express themselves. that is the smartest and the wittiest thing i've heard you say so far!!---see now, this kind of sarcasm is cool!! (not the freakin' weird hugging the cardboard box) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.