1. Welcome To ShotTalk.com!

    We are one of the oldest and largest Golf forums on the internet with golfers from around the world sharing tips, photos and planning golf outings.

    Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon!

The Great Gun Debate

Discussion in 'No Golf For You!' started by eclark53520, Sep 25, 2009.

  1. eclark53520

    eclark53520 DB Member Extraordinaire Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    17,314
    Likes Received:
    7,372
    Trophy Points:
    363
    Location:
    South Central Wisconsin
    Country:
    United States United States
    English Golfer, if you would like to continue...

    I apologize if my previous posts sounded condescending, i did not mean to.

    I would be honored to discuss this situation with you here.
     
  2. slickpitt

    slickpitt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,706
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    188
    lmao.. I was going to chime in.. but then I realized I have no idea what you are debating other than it's about guns. IMMA KEEP MY GUNS DURN-TOOTIN' IT!
     
  3. mddubya

    mddubya Hybrid convert

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2007
    Messages:
    6,029
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gun control means using both hands. :thumbs up:
     
  4. ejdahl21

    ejdahl21 Never Lay Up Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,030
    Likes Received:
    966
    Trophy Points:
    363
    And hittin' what you aim at.
     
  5. Nikonut

    Nikonut Air Horn Golf!

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    178
    Location:
    N. Texas
    Country:
    United States United States
    Well, there is no "Gun debate" in England and other countries.

    The Government there has decided for it's citizen's, that the citizens have no right, to protect their own lives, the lives of their kin or fellow man.
    basically, thier government has decided for them that thier lives are worthless and not defendable.

    So, there is no debate!

    Oh, but they do have a "people with cameras are bad, very bad" thing to debate!

    Governments like that kind of stuff.
     
  6. N.V.M.

    N.V.M. now...a cartoon

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,972
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    188
    i wish i had a few. sometimes i feel like going down to the mall and just letting loose. even a school would do.
     
  7. eclark53520

    eclark53520 DB Member Extraordinaire Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    17,314
    Likes Received:
    7,372
    Trophy Points:
    363
    Location:
    South Central Wisconsin
    Country:
    United States United States

    :|

    Wow....
     
  8. Slingblade61

    Slingblade61 Well-Known Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    6,038
    Likes Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    313
    You do not need a gun for that. Just drive your car into the crowds at a high rate of speed.

    (don't be surprised if you get a visit from the RCMP this weekend.)
     
  9. N.V.M.

    N.V.M. now...a cartoon

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,972
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    188
    ummm, it's called "devil's advocate". relax.
     
  10. eclark53520

    eclark53520 DB Member Extraordinaire Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    17,314
    Likes Received:
    7,372
    Trophy Points:
    363
    Location:
    South Central Wisconsin
    Country:
    United States United States
    lmao..rcmp, those guys are awesome.

    If i didn't hate horses...i would think about a career change
     
  11. BigJim13

    BigJim13 Well-Known Member Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    11,725
    Likes Received:
    3,042
    Trophy Points:
    363
    I don't know what this argument is about but I never understood why people get outraged at trying to limit automatic weapons. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with gun owners or hunters- but really, what do you need an M16 for?

    And the flip side is, why put restrictions on guns at all, people who get them illegally are still going to get them illegally. Just another part of government that I don't understand I guess.
     
  12. eclark53520

    eclark53520 DB Member Extraordinaire Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    17,314
    Likes Received:
    7,372
    Trophy Points:
    363
    Location:
    South Central Wisconsin
    Country:
    United States United States
    Its not about need. 90% of people who own 4x4 trucks do not need them, most people do not need a car that goes any faster than about 80mph...yet even the cheapest econobox goes in excess of 100mph...

    Imagine what this country would be like if the government got to decide what we needed...:(

    Honestly i believe that given the resources(money) any civilian should be able to own anything the military is able to. Do remember that the 2nd amendment is mainly there to protect the people of this country from the government.
     
  13. SilverUberXeno

    SilverUberXeno El Tigre Blanco

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Messages:
    4,620
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Citing excesses in other avenues of life is not a good argument. Cars probably shouldn't be able to go more than 70mph. I don't know why they make them to go faster. I LIKE that they go faster, but it does seem self-defeating...

    There are MILLIONS of ways to kill human beings. If somebody wants to kill somebody, not having a gun is not going to stop them. But I don't see a problem with responsible people having guns. Banning guns would take them away from responsible people, not criminals. I've heard many a case where civilians with guns were able to stop, or limit the actions of a criminal with guns.

    A ban on guns would mean only the bad guys have them. I suppose if there were some magic way to erase guns from human life completely, I wouldn't have a real problem with a ban. But that's not possible.

    Not to mention that the protection of individual rights might just come down to civilians with guns in the near future.
     
  14. Wi-Golfer

    Wi-Golfer Golfer on hiatus. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,136
    Likes Received:
    1,463
    Trophy Points:
    363
    Location:
    Madison, Wi
    Country:
    United States United States

    You won't have to imagine much longer if Obama gets his way. Fine & or jail people who don't have health insurance.
     
  15. eclark53520

    eclark53520 DB Member Extraordinaire Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    17,314
    Likes Received:
    7,372
    Trophy Points:
    363
    Location:
    South Central Wisconsin
    Country:
    United States United States
    If there were some way to completely remove the gun from human life, the left would be trying to ban something else right now...probably knives, and if we didn't have those, it would be sharpened sticks...like was said...people were killing people long before the invention of the gun...taking away my ability to defend myself is not going to stop that. Some critical thinking would lead you to the realization that it will be counterproductive.
     
  16. Nikonut

    Nikonut Air Horn Golf!

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    178
    Location:
    N. Texas
    Country:
    United States United States
    Full auto weapons, are very usefull, if you are selling lots of drugs, and need to keep the other gangbangers away. indeed the more guns and firepower the better.


    one might even think that 99% of the "gun problem" could be related to the drug trade.
    hmm. hmmm. hmmmmm.
     
  17. BigJim13

    BigJim13 Well-Known Member Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    11,725
    Likes Received:
    3,042
    Trophy Points:
    363
    Actually the 2nd amendment was written so that citizens could "keep and bear arms" for the purpose of forming a militia to HELP the government in times of need.

    It reads like this:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
     
  18. Clugnut

    Clugnut Gimme some roombas!

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    3,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    188
    Depends on how you read it. I always took it as "So the citizen can restore individual rights from a tyrannical government" I believe this is original intent.
     
  19. DouginGA

    DouginGA dont tread on me

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2005
    Messages:
    913
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166

    Jim, Who but a government can pose a real threat to a free state?
     
  20. FATC1TY

    FATC1TY Taylormade Ho' Magnet

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,878
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Big Jim..

    Actually when it was written, they took it for this, included..

    * deterring undemocratic government;
    * repelling invasion;
    * suppressing insurrection;
    * facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
    * participating in law enforcement;
    * slave control in Southern slave states.


    Beyond that, it was more for the individual states and/or militias who were Patriots who favored independence over British rule.

    -------

    All talking points aside.. Banning guns is pointless. Stricter law.. is pointless. Those who use guns for means of self-defense and protection will ONLY be the ones subject to those laws and regulations. Criminals for while the people protect themselves from, will never be subject to those regulations. They will always find a way to get what they want, and cut the law out of the picture.

    Some people want to control their own lives, and protect their own. Others, don't. Others feel that nothing is worth harming or killing someone over. I can respect that, and understand to an extent that point.

    I can kill you with a rock, should that be regulated? A car? A backhoe? What about a 2x4? Should we limit the size and density of industrial lumber now?

    What about a tire iron? I've seen the destruction a tire-iron can do.. Maybe we should not be allowed to change our own tires?

    Toothbrush? Yeah, I'm sure I've seen those taken up in prison because they instantly became 6" blades and pointed object that cut men to the bone.

    Which brings up the personal responsibility of people. Irresponsible people SHOULD NOT have a weapon. Thats my opinion. However, irresponsible people have a RIGHT to have a weapon. If they qualify, and meet the mandated requirements. Have at it.

    It's no different than saying.. Poor and lazy people shouldn't have children. They should be banned from producing another leech on society. Is that a proper way to fix the problem? Certainly not. No one should be told they can't have a child, or should be banned from having a family because they are deemed "un-fit" for said situation. If they were someone who sucks the taxes from your paycheck, brings down the neighborhood, and teaches their kids to lie and steal from those.. It's still their right to have kids, regardless of how YOU feel about them having kids.

    People then argue, it's for the children.. Should we ban swimming pools then? Children are more likely to die in a swimming pool than they are with an accidental discharge of a firearm. "In a given year, there is one drowning of a child for every 11,000 residential pools in the United States. In a country with 6 million pools, this means that roughly 550 children under the age of ten drown each year. Meanwhile, there is 1 child killed by a gun for every 1 million-plus guns. In a country with an estimated 200 million guns, this means that roughly 175 children under ten die each year from guns. The likelihood of death by pool (1 in 11,000) versus death by gun (1 in a million plus) isn't even close: Molly is roughly 100 times more likely to die in a swimming pool accident at Suzy's house than in gunplay at Rick's."

    What it all boils down to, is that both sides of the arguement have talking point that can be twisted and turned. People use the arguement that their country doesn't allow handguns, that they are banned. Yet people still die for handgun accidents and are robbed and murdered with handguns. What was accomplished? No one can protect themselves but are told that they don't need to because no one has anything to hurt them. It's a totalitarian government at work.

    I chaulk it up to experiences growing up as well. I'm not afraid of a gun. We own several. We take the precautions in owning them, cleaning them, and using them. Everyone in my home, owns a gun. We all have permits and training to carry one in any form and fashion we choose. I can conceal it, or openly carry it. We train with them, and enjoy recreation with them. There is nothing better than for me and my girl to go shoot 200-300 rds at the range, and challenge each others marksmenship, or go to our IDPA matches and try and out do each other.

    When done, we both tuck our guns away on our bodies, and continue our days unknowing to anyone around us. We aren't some un-responsible hacks, or trailer trash rednecks. Infact, you'd probably never know I had a weapon on me, and I choose to present myself like that.

    Crazy? Sure... But knowing that me and mine is safe and under my watch, makes me feel content. The police have no duty to protect me from violence and attacks, they are there to clean up the mess and write the papers.
     

Share This Page