Prop 8 Overturned

[angelofdeath]

allow me to throw some fuel on the fire...

 

i dont get why everyone is so fired up about having to give license to love as casek pointed out. as i've said before, what they should be doing is simply quit seeking state recognition of their relationship status, and forging their own private associations and marrying privately the state be damned. in my view straight marriage isnt an uninfringed right in the US right now because you have to ask permission to do it! you need a license! we should all seek to remove these hurdles. i understand a large issue is in this debate is inheritance rights, 'pull the plug' decision rights, etc... but lets just leave this aside for a second.

 

this is also the fault with the concealed carry lobby... they are seeking legitimization from the state which has infringed their right to self defense and to pursue happiness so long as no one is hurt. they should be actively seeking to repeal all licensing laws on this issue, not seeking permission. they already have permission granted to them simply by their humanity.

 

but i digress..

why so much focus on gay marriage? really... i dont really understand it, hell, im still trying to figure out 'straight' marriage personally

 

if a man can 'marry' a man, then why cant he marry two men? i dont see a huge following or activist base for the promotion of polygamist marriage let alone gay polygamist marriage... cmon, lets get with it. if people can argue that the only part of the traditional definition of marriage (bond between a man and a woman) they want to hold on to is that it is a loving bond between two people, why arent there more people stretching this part of the traditional definition to include 3 people? it seems as though polygamists are still constantly condemned by just about everyone. cant we argue that if a loving bond can exist between 2 people, it surely can exist between 3 people, right? why discriminate in favor of just couples? why not heterosexual polygamy? why are the people who promote gay marriage against this and in fact most of these types supported the unprecedented assault on a church in waco texas that resulted in it being burned to the ground largely because the guy supposedly had multiple wives. i mean, really... where is the consistency on the promotion of marriage freedom? and then why cant a man marry his willing 1st cousin or his willing, of legal age daughter? i mean, arent people that hold moral objections to these relationships, just bigoted idiots?! im sure some will argue something about birth defects, but doesnt this infringe on a peoples reproductive freedom? i mean surely if someone has a right to kill a baby, they have a right to rear a child with a birth defect and its not like 'normal' couples dont have birth defects as well. why discriminate against members of a family?

 

and why restrict it solely to people? surely if a man can marry another man or another group of men which is not based on the traditional definition of marriage, why cant a man not marry an animal? why are we discriminating against sheep fuckers here? granted it could be a little hard to get a hotel room with an animal... but... just sayin'

lets atleast get the gay marriage lobby to act consistently.

 

we can see that the court system which is basically the sole arbiter of what people can and cannot do is biased against all those groups of people, not just those who seek homosexual unions. so if we are interested in freedom of marriage associations, why limit it just to 2 people in love?

[lord_casek]

and why restrict it solely to people? surely if a man can marry another man or another group of men which is not based on the traditional definition of marriage, why cant a man not marry an animal? why are we discriminating against sheep fuckers here? granted it could be a little hard to get a hotel room with an animal... but... just sayin'

lets atleast get the gay marriage lobby to act consistently.

 

 

 

Not long ago I was talking with a friend about this. About setting precedent with the whole gay marriage issue, and dolphin sex came up. There is actually a group of people who, for whatever reason, forge relationships with dolphins. Even down to the sexual aspects.

 

So, why wouldn't these people, who "love" these dolphins, not want to marry said dolphin?

Is that the next step? A new Constitutional amendment to marry a fucking dolphin?

 

My friend said, "yeah, but watch them deny the dolphin entry to a hospital"....then we'll have the whole dolphin rights movement of 2018.

[Mushu]

As long as it's consensual.

[christo-f]

Whilst I'd prefer adultery over polygamy myself and humans over animals (toasters on the other hand....) I couldn't give a shit what consensual decisions other people, animals and kitchen appliances make.

 

I go back to my original statement, I can't understand why people care what other people do if it has no effect on them.

 

Go marry 12 gay dolphin toasters for all I fucking care!!

[!@#$%]

who the fuck cares what someone else does or doesn't like?

why is what you don't like even a point?

it's a matter of opinion, and opinions should not be legislated.

 

 

i think people are forgetting that the right to go visit a dying person has to do with how they are related.

whether or not your partner gets your health insurance has to do with marital status.

tax breaks.

people who are gay have a right to enjoy this shit, even though they are gay.

just like people of different races and religions get to enjoy their privileges.

 

if so many incentives weren't already in place for people to get married, this wouldn't be a matter of civil rights.

but, it is.

there is never going to be some dolphin stuck in an ICU ward waiting to see their loved one before dying.

no one is going to try to get a tax break for marrying their dog, as the dog won't get a social security number.

 

hyperboles don't serve a debate like this very well.

[angelofdeath]

 

I go back to my original statement, I can't understand why people care what other people do if it has no effect on them.

 

agreed 1000% percent.

however, i'll conclude that you are 100% sincere when you say that when you apply this to other areas, besides gay marriage, etc.

in particular but not limited to the right of someone to own and carry firearm and the right to engage in any other arrangement between consenting adults like financial transactions, etc.

[angelofdeath]

who the fuck cares what someone else does or doesn't like?

why is what you don't like even a point?

it's a matter of opinion, and opinions should not be legislated.

 

 

i think people are forgetting that the right to go visit a dying person has to do with how they are related.

whether or not your partner gets your health insurance has to do with marital status.

tax breaks.

people who are gay have a right to enjoy this shit, even though they are gay.

just like people of different races and religions get to enjoy their privileges.

 

if so many incentives weren't already in place for people to get married, this wouldn't be a matter of civil rights.

but, it is.

there is never going to be some dolphin stuck in an ICU ward waiting to see their loved one before dying.

no one is going to try to get a tax break for marrying their dog, as the dog won't get a social security number.

 

hyperboles don't serve a debate like this very well.

 

 

i dont know if this is directed at me or not, but i already addressed this issue.

 

what needs to happen is elimination of a govt privilege status on the right of consenting adults to contract. no more licensing and no more laws. which is where the left only gets it part right. they want to legalize gay relationships, but ignore other relationships, such as polygamist arrangements. there is to much emphasis based on 'group' rights, instead of individual rights. to much characterization of 'gays' have a right to marry, blacks have this right, so and so has that right... individuals have rights, not just certain groups.

 

i think everyone in in the entire debate from the libertarians who say to privatize the entire thing to the left who says give gays a license to the right who says dont give gays a license all agree on one thing. civil unions. just about everyone when questioned about it, agree to let this happen. the right doesnt want the traditional view of marriage co-opted. the left wants to change the traditional definition. i say, who the hell cares.... it can be solved by privatizing marriage then everyone else can quit arguing who can do what, who can marry what, etc.

 

'civil unions' would address the issue of health insurance, tax breaks, 'pull the plug' rights, inheritance rights, etc. this is easily solved with contracts between consenting adults. but this is neither here nor there, because marriage belongs in the hands of those getting married, and there should be absolutely no law or regulation or license/permission slip from the state to get married.

 

its not even an absurd position to hold that marriage by its traditional definition is 'morally' correct. barack obama, the most liberal president in history holds this very same position. glenn beck holds this position. but just because someones morals says one thing doesnt mean that either party has a right to impose a broad definition through the state in order to tell people what marriage really is.

 

as for legislating opinions... i'll take the left (and the right) serious on this when they stop doing it.

both sides seem to want to legislate their own opinions. that is the majority of what governments do. legislate opinions. the left wants to legislate an opinion on any economic transaction in the world. the right wants to legislate an opinion on a private property owner has the right to build a mosque on their private property or whether 2 men should be in a relationship.

 

i also stand behind my other post 100%. if one is to support gay marriage, ideologically they must also support any other adult relationship, polygamy, incest, etc.

to not do so = hypocrisy or maybe put another way, they are not actually serious about 'civil rights' they just want a certain group to have rights and to hell with the others.

[christo-f]

agreed 1000% percent.

however, i'll conclude that you are 100% sincere when you say that when you apply this to other areas, besides gay marriage, etc.

in particular but not limited to the right of someone to own and carry firearm and the right to engage in any other arrangement between consenting adults like financial transactions, etc.

 

I would argue allowing any old dickhead to carry a gun around does affect my safety and that of my (one day to be) children being that people are not rational actors. But this argument has been played out enough and this isn't the right place for it.

 

As for $%^%@$, if you go back and read the thread the legal rights point has been bought up at least 3 times by myself and AOD.

 

Gay dolphin toasters FTW.

[lord_casek]

So, the dolphin could or couldn't visit its partner in the hospital?

What if it was a Hispanic dolphin?

[angelofdeath]

I would argue allowing any old dickhead to carry a gun around does affect my safety and that of my (one day to be) children being that people are not rational actors. But this argument has been played out enough and this isn't the right place for it.

 

As for $%^%@$, if you go back and read the thread the legal rights point has been bought up at least 3 times by myself and AOD.

 

Gay dolphin toasters FTW.

 

polygamist gay dolphin toasters furniture ftw!

 

the flaw in your argument, as i see it, is that the same ideology that says there is an 'externality' (for lack of a better word) effect to gay marriage also carries over to say that there is an 'externality' effect for a person who is carrying a holstered side arm or owns a semi automatic weapon. i can assure you that my holstered side arm or my _______ weapon will do you no harm whatsoever.

neither gay marriage nor firearms ownership violates any rights or is a threat to anything in the least, unless one thinks either is a threat to the moral view point of someone, which no one has a right to interfere with in the first place. i'd also submit that the only time a gun toter should go to jail is when he shoots an innocent person or uses it to rob someone, rape someone, etc. in another words commit a crime. and the only time a gay married man should go to jail is when he does the same thing.... commits a crime against person or property.

 

i'd also submit that all the right does is inserts 'gay people' into your argument you just made about gun owners.

just sayin'

[angelofdeath]

So, the dolphin could or couldn't visit its partner in the hospital?

What if it was a Hispanic dolphin?

 

the question really is... is the hispanic dolphin 'legal?' of course this matters mainly if you are arizona.

[shai]

Go marry 12 gay dolphin toasters for all I fucking care!!

 

Thanks, I needed a new sig line.

[lord_casek]

the question really is... is the hispanic dolphin 'legal?' of course this matters mainly if you are arizona.

 

 

An anchor dolphin?

 

Google gave me this

http://www.sexwork.com/family/dolphins1.html

[angelofdeath]

i believe tom tancredo will soon be filibustering the house against the gay hispanic dolphin anchor babies

[shai]

Another thing that REALLY pissed me off about Prop 8 was the LDS coming to California to campaign within the black community...ever heard of the "mark of Cain?" It may not be strict church policy but they never repudiated it, either.

 

The only good thing about Mormons are the freaky female ex-Mormons. Beyond that they need to stay the fuck in Utah.

[!@#$%]

i don't read these threads btw, i skim them

it tends to be a lot of hot air and like most debates, only entrenches people in what they think already and rarely opens their minds up to other things. (don't bother to say i'm in this group, because my mind does change about things.)

so my comments aren't directed at anyone or in response to anything specific except the thread title.

 

after my recent 3 posts i'll prolly take another 2 year break from this part of the site.

[christo-f]

i don't read these threads btw, i skim them

it tends to be a lot of hot air and like most debates, only entrenches people in what they think already and rarely opens their minds up to other things. (don't bother to say i'm in this group, because my mind does change about things.)

 

Reads as:

 

I don't read what anyone has to say because it's all pretty worthless. I will, however give my opinion because it's valuable.

 

You guys have closed minds and there's not much point in these discussions because you're not able to view things objectively. However I am better than that (and by extension better than you guys) because I, on the other hand DO open my mind up and and view things objectively.

 

So everyone pay attention to me whilst I repeat what other people have already said a number of times as if I'm the only one who understands anything.

 

 

 

Congratulations of a superbly wonderful post that added so much to the discussion. Look forward to your return in 2 years for more of your next level wisdom.....

[lord_casek]

i believe tom tancredo will soon be filibustering the house against the gay hispanic dolphin anchor babies

 

 

I really hope so.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Damn, props would be given if I weren't blocked from doing so.

[christo-f]

polygamist gay dolphin toasters furniture ftw!

 

the flaw in your argument, as i see it, is that the same ideology that says there is an 'externality' (for lack of a better word) effect to gay marriage also carries over to say that there is an 'externality' effect for a person who is carrying a holstered side arm or owns a semi automatic weapon. i can assure you that my holstered side arm or my _______ weapon will do you no harm whatsoever.

neither gay marriage nor firearms ownership violates any rights or is a threat to anything in the least, unless one thinks either is a threat to the moral view point of someone, which no one has a right to interfere with in the first place. i'd also submit that the only time a gun toter should go to jail is when he shoots an innocent person or uses it to rob someone, rape someone, etc. in another words commit a crime. and the only time a gay married man should go to jail is when he does the same thing.... commits a crime against person or property.

 

i'd also submit that all the right does is inserts 'gay people' into your argument you just made about gun owners.

just sayin'

 

A dickhead with a gun can fire a large amount of high velocity projectiles in a very short amount of time, most of the time anyone with half a brain can premeditate something like this so they will take out a good 5-10 people before anyone else can take them out. Sure they go to prison afterwards but your 8 year old daughter is already dead.

 

Adam marrying Steve has far less potential to kill significant amounts of people in very short periods of time on the basis of being married to each other.

 

The premise is true but practical applications make a comparison less than credible.

 

 

Your premise and theory is fine but the practical applications have extremely different potential results. You say that potential is not enough alone to infringe on what you see as basic personal rights to freedom. I say that the risks of having the ability to kill large amounts of people in short amounts of time are very high because the idea of peace through superior fire power/heavy consequences is based on the assumption that human beings are rational actors.

 

I think it's quite clear that we are not rational actors. For if we were rational actors your theory of private ownership and liberty would already be in place and working smoothly.

 

Adam can marry Steve because their marriage doesn't increase the risk of brutal death to anyone by any degree at all. People can't have any old gatt they want, just because they want because it drastically increases the chance of brutal death to people by scale based on the premise that people are not rational actors.

 

 

Not trying to be insulting but you're even more fundamentalist about this than the Taliban are about Islam, dude.

[angelofdeath]

by your logic then, the externality factor of guns being a threat to you, you must also ban... knives, house hold chemicals, pipe wrenches, base ball bats, cars, pencils, pens, pry bars, long handle ratchets, big wrenches, farm tools, shovels, hay forks, trucks, mattocks, picks, and even bare hands and legs. im sure a trained martial arts expert can kill just as many unarmed people in a crowd with his bare hands as an average trained gangster holding a gun sideways shooting people. a guy swinging a pipe wrench in the vicinity of your daughter can kill someone just as fast as a guy with a gun. a person driving a vehicle near pedestrians can easily mow them down just as easily as a guy with a gun. yet i see people walking beside busy roadways every day, within a foot of being killed by evil dangerous car drivers out to kill people. and every day in the US non violent people carry firearms right next to people in crowds and next to kids. in every place that concealed carry has been legalized crime rates have dropped. so in essence if you want to be more safe, you actually need MORE guns.

 

any farmer in america can easily mix diesel fuel with high ammonium nitrate fertilizer, both of which they have super excessive amounts of, and blow up half of his county, but i dont see there being a significant threat to anyone. anyone who owns a lawn mower can easily take a couple gallons of gas they would use for the lawn mower and mix it with styrofoam and create a make shift napalm bomb and hurl it into a crowd burning 5-10 to death.

 

but all this aside, you are also assuming that any gun control effort will have a 100% success rate of keeping the guns out of the 'bad guys' hands which is not true. but this also brings the issue of what should the 90lb grandma who is confronted by a 250lb rapist.... why would you want to deny the right of self defense to the old woman? the gun is a great equalizer.

 

a famous marine once said something that makes a lot of sense. he was asked if he was happy that he was training kids to be killers in the gun culture he was promoting. the person said something to the effect that any one with a gun is obviously a murderer because they are equipped with a gun. he responded with..'ma'am, you are obviously equipped to be a prostitute, but are you really a prostitute?'

 

my theory of liberty and property rights is not in place because we have government supremicists who seek to rule others. they seek power. they seek control. and most people dont want liberty, they want a nanny state to nurture them from cradle to grave. that is why there is not liberty in the world.

 

all im saying is... if you hold an ideology that says a firearm is a threat to you because of an externality effect, dont get mad when someone with a slightly different world view uses the exact same logic to say that our children are in danger, the countries morals are going to shit, and 'teh fagz are out of control!' because homosexuality has an 'externality' effect. anyone can make cases like this.

my stance is there is no externality effect at all unless a crime has been committed.

 

before going into the rest of their legal indoctrination in law school... the first thing that is taught is that in order for there to be a crime, there has to be a victim. me walking by your kid with a firearm is not inflicting harm on ANYONE. how has your child be hurt and how can you justify throwing me in jail for non committing any violence? a guy marrying a guy is not harming anyone. a guy with 9 wives isnt harming anyone. my theory is you dont throw someone in jail unless they actually commit a crime. you cannot throw them in jail if they think about a crime or might be capable of committing a crime. if we are throw people in jail who might be capable of a crime, everyone would be in jail.

[Mushu]

I don't think that liberals actually want the total absence of guns. Most efforts have been made to increase security, generally to not allow teenagers to order them over the internet and rampage their highschool the day after.

 

I think that it is pretty absurd to believe that marriage, a statistically unsuccessful social-construction, must remain the same forever. Sanctity is an invention, one made up by a mass to serve their insecurity. Oh the fucking horror of meaninglessness.

 

Some "moralists" base what should be avoided in life (not what is right or wrong) on pain and suffering. Pain and suffering we could do without. Homosexuals their marriages, and even their families (whether dysfunctional or functional, like heterosexual families) are not injustices.

[angelofdeath]

i dont know if you are directing this in response to me or what... but i personally choose not to debate the morality of these things. its not up to me to decide what you do or what others do. i only get to decide what i do.

 

no teenager has been allowed to get a gun over the internet, EVER. teenagers have been forbidden from owning guns for, well, essentially since the beginning of the modern era of gun control that started in the beginning of the 20th century. if this is all that liberals wanted, then they should all be in the NRA or GOA at present, because what they are scared of is already illegal. but its quite obvious they are interested in eradication of guns in the hands of civilians, period as i have never talked to a gun controller that didnt support MORE prohibitions on guns and just a 'few more sensible regulations.' there are over 20K gun laws in the US... every aspect of gun ownership is regulated, controlled or taxed by the state. if they just wanted to keep teenagers from owning guns and buying them on the net, they should pack up and go home because this issue has already be 'fixed.'

 

i still fail to see why very few in this debate want to even talk about my position on the issue. it renders EVERYONES concerns null and void. if you eliminate state interference in the institution of marriage, there is no top down definition applied to everyone and everyone gets to do what they want, when the want, so long as no violence is initiated. all is well.

 

i was, however, waiting for the marxian notion that monogamous marriage is 'tyranny' to come forward.

and my solution addresses this quite well. dont like marriage? dont get married. its that simple. the gay marriage types get to do what they want. the straight marriage types get to do what they want. and the free lovers get to do what they want.

 

how could anyone NOT be in favor of privatizing marriage??

[cunt sauce]

Are you really going to compare pencils, pens, shovels, hand and legs to Assault Rifles and Handguns? And compare Gay Marriage to Gun Control? Can someone say slippery slope??? Have you lost your mind? The purpose of a pen, shovel, pencil etc isn't to kill. It may be possible to kill someone with one, but that is surely not their designed purpose. An assault weapon or handgun you have strapped to your waist is not there for any reason other than to kill something. An AR-15 with a collapsible stock and a banana clip with a 30 round capacity has no practical purpose aside from killing people. Not Deer, but people, and many of them at that. No mainstream politician is trying to take away your Deer Hunting Rifle or your Bird Hunting gun, Angel.

 

Not saying I disagree with you on everything, just pointing out that that first part is a pretty shitty argument.

[angelofdeath]

i could care less about a 'deer hunting or bird hunting gun'

i only care about massive fire power.

 

does it really matter what object one uses to DEFEND their life? why be so concerned about full capacity mags or scary collapsible stocks? what business is it of yours what other people own? what gives you the right?

if a 70 year old woman is being beaten around and threatened to be shot if she doesnt give into a burglar and her life is in danger, are you really going to say she has no right to use whatever weapon she has available to her to kill the attacker?

 

why not blow guns then? what other purpose do they have than to kill? ban them?

the obvious point that blew right over your head is that i can just as easily kill massive amounts of people with common household items than i can with a gun.

i can kill an entire crowd of people in NYC with a car by driving right into them. i can just as quickly kill someone with a pen through the heart than a guy with a gun. if you are really worried about unnecessary killing you must also ban every conceivable instrument CAPABLE of inflicting harm.

3000 people were killed on 9/11 by arabs with boxcutters by flying a plane into the twin towers we are told. should we ban boxcutters and planes? they have killed 3000 more people than any firearm that i own, my family owns or my friends own.

 

so just because a lawn mower blade is supposed to be used on a lawn mower, it is not a threat if a maniac uses it in a threatening manner and slaughters a crowd of people with it?

 

you are not concerned about keeping people from dying, you are only concerned about controlling firearms because you are scared of them.

 

and if you cannot see the key point in my argument of the 'externality' effect... i must then assume that you do not understand what an externality is.

[cunt sauce]

 

Wow, you not only insult me by telling me that I have some sort of subconscious gayness going on...

 

You wouldn't feel insulted by me calling you a closet homo unless you thought that gays were inferior. If someone called me gay I wouldn't feel insulted, in fact I would take it as a compliment. I hear they are good when it comes to musicals and interior decorating. Seriously why are you getting all defensive? IT MUST BE TRUE!!!

 

Ha! I'm trying to irk you dog. :lol:

 

In all realness though, I'm just trying to figure out what you find immoral by two people of the same sex getting married. I'm trying to figure out how your ethics are determined. What is it that's really telling you its wrong or immoral?

 

I grew up in the Gay Tolerant Mecca of the Midwest. Kids got detention if they were caught saying faggot or using the word gay in a condescending manner. There were gay people that went to my church (when I had faith,) taught at my school, worked with my parents etc.. Being gay was never looked down upon, and a kid having two dads or two moms was never shocking or confusing to me - or most other kids my age for that matter. So I never grew up finding homosexuality or gay marriage immoral. It was natural in my community. I think its only confusing or immoral to people if they grow up in a community that isn't supportive or even tolerant of dem gay folks.

 

Interracial coupling on the other hand, that is just sick and immoral. Who wants to see a mud-baby?

[cunt sauce]

i could care less about a 'deer hunting or bird hunting gun'

i only care about massive fire power.

 

does it really matter what object one uses to DEFEND their life? why be so concerned about full capacity mags or scary collapsible stocks? what business is it of yours what other people own? what gives you the right?

if a 70 year old woman is being beaten around and threatened to be shot if she doesnt give into a burglar and her life is in danger, are you really going to say she has no right to use whatever weapon she has available to her to kill the attacker?

 

why not blow guns then? what other purpose do they have than to kill? ban them?

the obvious point that blew right over your head is that i can just as easily kill massive amounts of people with common household items than i can with a gun.

i can kill an entire crowd of people in NYC with a car by driving right into them. i can just as quickly kill someone with a pen through the heart than a guy with a gun. if you are really worried about unnecessary killing you must also ban every conceivable instrument CAPABLE of inflicting harm.

3000 people were killed on 9/11 by arabs with boxcutters by flying a plane into the twin towers we are told. should we ban boxcutters and planes? they have killed 3000 more people than any firearm that i own, my family owns or my friends own.

 

so just because a lawn mower blade is supposed to be used on a lawn mower, it is not a threat if a maniac uses it in a threatening manner and slaughters a crowd of people with it?

 

you are not concerned about keeping people from dying, you are only concerned about controlling firearms because you are scared of them.

 

and if you cannot see the key point in my argument of the 'externality' effect... i must then assume that you do not understand what an externality is.

 

Chill the fuck out, Rant-a-Tron300! I was only pointing out one mere flaw in your argument, which was the first part. I was pointing out that the a gun can be used to end a life (sometimes in defense of a life, but this is rare). Pencils, Pens, Erasers, Staplers, Shovels etc are not used or designed to end lives, nor defend them, that is why I called the first part of your argument flawed.

 

I actually don't really know how I feel about gun control, because I haven't invested a lot of time into really researching the issue.

 

I will say it seems like one of those issues that are usually used to divide the nation, just like abortion, Terry Schiavo, gay marriage etc. Pick a side. Choose the lesser of two evils, the left or the right, knowing that in the longterm they will both fuck us.

[Realism]

does it really matter what object one uses to DEFEND their life? why be so concerned about full capacity mags or scary collapsible stocks? what business is it of yours what other people own? what gives you the right?

if a 70 year old woman is being beaten around and threatened to be shot if she doesnt give into a burglar and her life is in danger, are you really going to say she has no right to use whatever weapon she has available to her to kill the attacker?

 

You can't fault her for it at all, but if the intended purpose of a firearm is to defend yourself, why do you need a semiautomatic rifle? You can kill more than one attacker and DEFEND your life with a 9mm pistol just the same.

 

I'm certainly not afraid of guns, I think owning one isn't a bad idea. I just don't see any conceivable reason why someone needs a military grade rifle to defend their home from a single burglar when they could do the same with a handgun.

[angelofdeath]

I will say it seems like one of those issues that are usually used to divide the nation, just like abortion, Terry Schiavo, gay marriage etc. Pick a side. Choose the lesser of two evils, the left or the right, knowing that in the longterm they will both fuck us.

 

the easiest answer to these issues is to decentralize. we need to stop seeking top down solutions from one central authority. if people are to accept government to run their lives, we need to at least keep it as local and small as possible.

[angelofdeath]

You can't fault her for it at all, but if the intended purpose of a firearm is to defend yourself, why do you need a semiautomatic rifle? You can kill more than one attacker and DEFEND your life with a 9mm pistol just the same.

 

if the intended purpose of a car is just to drive to work, why do you need a lexus? why do you need an suv or 4x4 if you live in the city? why do you need a new car instead of keeping your older car? why do some people need a house with 3 extra bed rooms?

its personal choice. just like anything else.

a 9mm is a poor round choice. pistols are very inaccurate. you get CAUGHT in a gun fight with a pistol, ideally you would want a RIFLE. a pistol is what it is... a small concealable firearm that you can take with you everywhere.

what if there is a group of home invaders?

you get a knock on your door. its 4 dudes with machetes. they over power you. you fun into your bed room. lock the door. would you rather have an ar15, 2 loaded 30 round mags, with a red dot optic when they knock down your door or a couple pairs of tennis shoes for defense?

 

I'm certainly not afraid of guns, I think owning one isn't a bad idea. I just don't see any conceivable reason why someone needs a military grade rifle to defend their home from a single burglar when they could do the same with a handgun.

 

not many people use battle rifles for home defense.

im not solely concerned with simple home defense or simple self defense. considering the state of the country, the possibility of economic calamity, an increasing police state and other factors, there may be a time when americans have to defend their liberty from an oppressive government. considering the tyranny of 1775 was a fraction of the tyranny we live under today.... im surprised americans have lasted this long. the british colonials were the least taxed and arguably the most free people in history, yet they revolted against their own government based on the principle of protecting natural rights. if it was right to defend liberty in 1775 it is right in 2010. there has never been a successful resistance movement in history with pistols.

 

would you rather have the jews in the warsaw ghetto in 1943 when they stood up to the nazi wehrmacht armed with full auto, large capacity magazine, accurate smalls arms like AR15's, m14's, FAL's and sig 550's or the few pistols and liberated bolt action rifles that they did have? but according to the ideology that says there is no legitimate use for semi auto or full auto weapons, high cap mags, and long range capable weapons systems would rather the jews not be armed at all. coincidentally, the nazi's favored the same thing.

 

one thing the 20th century has taught the govt supremacists is that citizens need some sort of vent. for some people, like the majority of the NRA, they are satisfied with a few states allowing ccw with permits and people being able to keep their 'deer rifles' and 'bird guns.' it will be a long time before any stringent controls will take place on these types of arms... that is until another long distance 'sniper' killer comes around. and then 'long range sniper rifles' (your daddy's deer rifle) will be targeted for more controls.