Gughunter wrote:

Innocents are dying!

Yeah, but the innocents are more endangered by cars and bathtubs. Let's focus on the real problems first.

I'm going to counter that by stating that cars (and bathtubs) have a useful purpose in our lives- transport, and hygene.
Guns don't take you places or wash you, or do anything else particularly useful, and yet they still take lives.

I refuse to do any more than scan that article!

Anyway, I stand by my statement regardless of how blind I may be; guns cannot be justified. :/

I'm going to counter that by stating that cars (and bathtubs) have a useful purpose in our lives- transport, and hygene.
Guns don't take you places or wash you, or do anything else particularly useful, and yet they still take lives.

I agree with the first part. I certainly don't seriously suggest eliminating cars or bathtubs (though I wouldn't mind seeing passenger rail eliminate some of the heaviest car usage).

I definitely don't agree, though, that guns don't do anything particularly useful. Aside from the right of self-defense -- and the attendant benefits of living in a society where everyone knows that everyone else has the right to defend himself -- they're also useful for hunting (which for many Americans is not just a recreational activity but a way of putting food on the table); and what could be a more romantic date than taking your sweetie to the shooting range?

Gun laws hinder the innocent more than the criminals. Criminals will always have access to guns even if they are completely illegal. Banning guns only means that the criminals now have less resistance.

Even if the above weren't the case, it wouldn't matter. As was already replied to you, guns are not the only weapons. I can go into town, buy some cheap hardware and make a device capable of launching fist-sized objects great distances. Not only that, but I can also make small explosive devices that are fist-sized objects.

Of course, I have only used this knowledge for fun to launch miscellaneous objects like potatoes at trees; but still the knowledge is there. And if I have the knowledge, that leads me to wonder how many others do - not only that, but also how many others do who would use that knowledge to create homemade weapons if they lost access to guns. Criminals would still be in business, innocents would have a more difficult time of defending themselves unless they stepped over the legal bound as well, chaos would spread throughout the land, and we would plunge into a dark age worse than what we had before the weapons were outlawed in the first place.

What really needs to be done is to punish criminals. If someone murders, put them to death. If someone steals, force them to pay back the amount twice over. If someone attacks me and destroys my kidney, take theirs for a transplant. All fair and makes criminals wonder if crime is really worth it.

Punishment is the best deterrent. It has proven itself time and time again throughout history that it works better than taking rights away and also better than trying to change people into some good-natured person they are not. Not only does it work better, but it also leaves us with all our rights intact.

Now why are we discussing this anyway? It seems a bit off topic. *goes back to check how we got into this*

Loduwijk wrote:

That does not make sense. If you are fighting for your right to carry weapons then you are one of the conservatives and would be battling the liberals. In fact, libertarians are the ones that push hardest to remove all the gun-restriction nonsense, and they are even more hardcore conservative than the republicans are.

The concept of "liberal" and "conservative" are blown way out of orbit in this game, since it's basically mocking politics in every possible way. Every bit of the game is a big joke in one form or another, with liberals doing stuff like taking hostages, stealing cars, breaking into factories and releasing the oppressed factory workers. It's a game, lighten up. :)

Deadron wrote:

Hmm, is France more free than the US? France recently started infringing the right of religious expression (wearing religious symbols)

How so? What is France doing?

Let me guess, you want more reasons to hate Bush? If you're not, I'm shocked, because the title of this entire thread seems to slant in that direction.



Bush is a good president, and an honest one. Someone on here said they wanted a literate president...I agree, but is it better to have a president who is fluent and looks good on camera, or a president that is good at directing the most powerful country on earth and looks damn awful and can't spell worth beans? Skin deep, or something more?

I'm pretty far right in politics. Not because I swear allegience to the republicans like a fan might swear to their favorite baseball team, but more in the sense that the democrats (save Zell Miller) seem to be on the wrong side of every issue. I really would like to be bi-partisan, unfortunatly the dems have really bad tastes.

Deadron wrote:

Also, in France they can dictate how you name your children. There are names not allowed for being "non-French".

The naming is to protect their culture, supposedly. Most towns have a generic list of names specific to that town, and babies are encouraged to be named from that list. However, I don't think it's actually compulsory, but I expect you'd be frowned upon if you didn't conform.

Hey, it's culture.

Rockinawsome wrote:

Let me guess, you want more reasons to hate Bush? If you're not, I'm shocked, because the title of this entire thread seems to slant in that direction.

Actually, I think Bush should just put the shovel down - he's dug himself too far already. So, let's that stay at that.

Bush is a good president, and an honest one. Someone on here said they wanted a literate president...I agree, but is it better to have a president who is fluent and looks good on camera, or a president that is good at directing the most powerful country on earth and looks damn awful and can't spell worth beans? Skin deep, or something more?

Personally, I don't think there was a decent President in office since Kennedy. And, if you wanna go back to just Republicans - the most decent one since Lincoln & maybe Eisenhower.

I'm pretty far right in politics. Not because I swear allegience to the republicans like a fan might swear to their favorite baseball team, but more in the sense that the democrats (save Zell Miller) seem to be on the wrong side of every issue. I really would like to be bi-partisan, unfortunatly the dems have really bad tastes.

From a personal stand-point, I respect that. But, from a moral stand-point, it stinks. Republicans (and some democrats) have made some stinkers in the recent years when it comes to personal freedoms of the citizens they're supposed to be looking out for. Mainly, the gay/lesbian rights. Instead, they're obliging to their religious lobbyists who are going against everything that the Bible's supposed to stand for (I am mainly speaking of "don't hate thy neighbor", or some crap along those lines). But, hey - to each his own. Which is why we live in America. =P

How is Iraq better of with Bush? They have nearly no infrastructure left, more Iraqis have been killed by the war then Saddam ever killed, and now they've got civil wars that're going to last for hundreds of years. I'd think they'd be better off without Bush.