OICWATUDIDTHAR. But guns were created for destruction. When you use guns to kill, you're doing it right. But if you use your car when you're drunk, or become a fatass because you use a spoon, then you're doing it wrong.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Spoons were created for eating.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yep and guns were created for shooting. Eating is good, but overeating is bad. Spoons were not created to make people fat.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

if there was a robber in my house, id probably shoot him in the legs so he wouldnt get away not try to kill him. anyways, yes you are correct, about the spoons and the cars. however, youre missing the point. if you blame the gun and not the person you could just as easily blame the spoon the car and the pencil.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah I'd probably go for the kneecaps too, if I had a gun. Which hopefully I wouldn't because they scare the shit out of me. But I'm not saying that a gun-wielding murderer shouldn't be blamed, just that easy access to guns also carries a big part of blame. Just like people with multiple drunk-driving offenses get their licenses taken away - at that point, the car becomes a weapon because it can hurt people. And guns are ALWAYS a weapon, and can always hurt people.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Any law enforcement officer will tell you "Shoot to kill"

by Anonymous 13 years ago

i fail to see how attempting to limit access for certain types of people (ie those with criminal records or those who havent taken safety classes) from accessing guns is somehow "blaming the gun" and excusing the person.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

How about owning a gun for hunting or competitive shooting?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Sure, I'm not saying they should be banned altogether. With a proper screening process, I have nothing against HUNTING rifles.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Now we're getting somewhere. Now how about self defense with some kind of test to make sure the person isn't insane/ isn't a druggie/ has no criminal record?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, I don't think guns should be allowed for self defense. If a person is allowed a hunting rifle, that should be enough anyway, if you really need to use a gun. If we're talking about the US here (which I think we are), then the bigger problem is the black market for guns, and the toleration of gun use, which certainly contributes to gun-related crimes. In essence, I just don't think fighting fire with fire is a viable solution to reducing crime.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

My thought on that can be explained by this situation: A group of punk kids are going around breaking into houses, willing to jump the person inside. One household doesn't own any guns, they break in, beat up the poor bastard inside, take some stuff, and leave. The next house they try has a gun owner living inside. Which house isn't getting broken into next time?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I definitely understand that argument, but I am looking at the issue from a much broader perspective. If guns are allowed, they WILL get in the hands of people who misuse them. Also, accidents happen. Plus, in that particular example, do you really think a group of punk kids deserve to be killed? I understand that it may deter people from breaking into that house again, but it doesn't prevent it from happening in the first place. But anyway, my argument is based on the fact that countries with lax guns laws simply do not have less crime.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm not necessarily saying the kids needed to die but if a guy came downstairs with a gun, the kids wouldn't stay long. Also, America (fairly lax gun laws) is going to have alot of crime because it has one of the highest populations in the world. I understand where you're coming from, but the wrong people will find a way to get guns no matter what, though it would be slightly more difficult.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

In regards to your question did the kids deserve to die, maybe. That is the consequence of their actions

by Anonymous 13 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbB_HVcXpPk&feature=related

by Anonymous 12 years ago

My argument is invalid.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No, not for self defense??? Are you stupid? What's to stop a 60 year old woman from getting robbed or rapped by a young man with a gun and or a knife? Your basically telling her to shut the fuk up and take it because guns are not a proper tool for defense. Your stupid!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If she doesn't want to get rapped, that bitch gotta learn how to beatbox and rhyme.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I never heard this before.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I like the message, but this is so overused.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

http://www.amirite.net/498262

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Pencils are the mechanisms used to misspell words, just as guns are the mechanism used to kill people. Guns are far to efficient and easy for killing to have in everyone's hands. And as was said above, guns are meant to kill. Pencils are not meant to spell words wrong, and cars not used for drunk driving. Pencils are meant for writing, not for misspelling, cars are meant for driving, not for drunk driving. Guns should be banned not because they kill people, but because they are very efficient to kill people.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Just because the wrong people have a chance of obtaining something and using it for the wrong reasons, does that mean that it should be illegal for EVERYONE to have that thing? It's like banning cars because you can run people over with them, or banning knives because you can stab/cut people with them. You can't ban guns effectively. Sure, guns are efficient at killing people, but so are most objects. Knives, cars, rocks, almost everything you can get your hands on, including your hands themselves, are quite efficient at killing people. What happens if someone approaches you, pulls out a knife, and tries to rob you? Do you grab your concealed handgun and shoot them? No! You don't have a concealed handgun because guns are banned! And if you don't have adequate training, and chances are you don't, then you will probably get slashed to ribbons in a futile attempt to defend yourself.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Guns are intended to kill. That is the difference. Car are intended to drive, not to run over people. Guns are far more efficient than knives, rocks or your hands. If they are banned people won't have them, even the criminals because guns have to be bought legally by someone at some point. They get to the black market from there. If the original sale is stopped, then so will the black market. If everyone had a handgun, and someone shot someone else so a different person pulled out a handgun and shot him. How would one tell the difference between the action and the reaction? A fourth person could pull a gun and shoot the person who shot the criminal.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Oh yes, how on Earth would criminals get their hands on a gun if they were illegal? It's impossible. It's not like they won't give up their unregistered guns that the government doesn't know about when they take all of our firearms away. And it's not as if you can smuggle guns in from other countries, because everyone knows how secure our borders are.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It wouldn't be impossible, but it would be hell of a lot harder.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, it would be a hell of a lot harder for us to protect ourselves if that's what you mean.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, a hell of a lot harder to get a gun. And I would bet that most people coming here illegally aren't set to become criminals. their mindset isn't "I'm coming here to murder Americans". They are only like that because we make them like that. The Republican rhetoric is that illegals are bad. But they aren't all bad, most of them are just looking for a better life than what they had. I'm not saying to let them all in, because illegal immigration does cause some problems. But they aren't all set to be criminals. Most of them are doing the jobs that no American would do anyway.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You misunderstood what I said, I meant that Americans can get guns from across the border, I wasn't talking about illegal immigrants (Although that's also a major problem but I won't get into that)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah it is a hell of a lot harder to get an imported gun than to get one from this country. If sales of guns are banned, the really hard option would be the only one to go with. Surely there would also be a law in place that prevents imports as well.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It would be as easy as getting drugs. Seriously. Laws against importing guns will do nothing. There are laws about importing drugs aren't there? How effective are they?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That is because there are massive drug cartels in Mexico.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Massive drug cartels who would jump at the chance to make money for selling guns.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So what if guns are intended for killing? Does that mean they absolutely MUST be used for that purpose, and only that purpose? In the absence of a gun, something else will be used to kill of the desire is present. Just because someone doesn't have a gun doesn't mean they aren't dangerous. If they are banned, then how would you enforce the ban without starting ultra-violent protests and revolutions to begin with? Even if you "eased them in" to a ban, people would catch on to the plan. If everyone had a handgun, there would have been no robbery at all. There would have been no shots fired. The robber/shooter-to-be would know that everyone around him was armed and dangerous.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Guns are intended to kill. Yes, sometimes they are used for protection, but that is not the intended use. Just as a car can be used for drunk driving, that is not the intended purpose. Guns are far more efficient than everything commonly used to kill, such as knives and strangling. Bring on the violent protests, it'll show the country what the gun activists are really like, violent. Imagine you hear gunshots behind you. You pull out your own gun and turn to see someone with a smoking gun. What is your first thought?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Guns are not intended to kill in cold blood; they are for protection. And why does the intention for the object matter anyway? Lots of things are used in ways they weren't intended to be used, and lots of things aren't used for their intentions.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Do you watch the news at all? If so, how many times do you see a shooting reported as opposed to guns being used for protection?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, I don't watch the news. But my point is, the point of guns are protection. I didn't say that no one ever uses them to kill aimlessly; of course they do. But if someone at a random shooting had a gun besides the shooter, less people would die. Guns are one of the best ways to kill people, yes. They are also one of the best ways to protect people.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If banning guns would save one life, just one life, wouldn't it be worth it? If we get rid of them for killing, then nor would they be needed for protection. Right now they are only needed for protection because they exist to kill.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Nows the part where I say: criminals with the intent to kill in cold blood will still be able to get guns, while the law abiding citizens will be defenseless. Not to mention it's our constitutional right to bear arms. I don't care if it's just an old, ripped up piece of paper and times have changed. Those are my rights. Those are what make the United States of America free, and one of the greatest nations on Earth.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Nevermind the Constitution says "for a militia" and not "for the commonfolk" Times have changed, and we, as a people, society, and a country, must adapt to the changes.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"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." It is the right of all U.S. citizens to bear arms, as the constitution states. Yes, times have changed. But that doesn't mean that our current way of running things and our current rights don't work today. As citizens of the United States, we have the right to bear arms. End of story.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Believe that as you will, times have changed to the point where guns are harming more than helping. The Constitution was written shortly after the Revolutionary War, in which the US fought almost entirely with militia. Times have changed in which a militia is no longer needed.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

A militia is not needed much, but crazy things happen (like terrorist attacks), and one day a miltia could prove important (though, yes, it is unlikely). And I wasn't saying we only need guns for a militia. They're also useful for individual protection, as I've pointed out. I laugh at the fact that you think getting rid of guns will cause peace. You must have too much faith in humanity. If for every deranged killer with a gun, there was also a good citizen with one to take them down, less people would commit crimes. We should also steepen punishments for breaking the laws; but that is a whole different argument.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg8rlSi5MlA

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Pretty song. But it means nothing. Of course I, along with anyone is not power/money hungry, would love to live in a peaceful world. Really, that would be great. But I am realistic. I know it is impossible. It's sad, but true. People have too many differences and there are too many people who are not willing to just sit down and work them out. Human nature is a disgusting thing, and it will keep us from true peace forever. There will ALWAYS be someone to mess it up.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Are you not even willing to give it a chance? "There never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found to prevent the drawing of the sword." Ulysses S. Grant

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Why are you asking me? I am not a politician. I have no power. It doesn't matter what I want. I can't give anything a chance. But we, as a nation, have given peace a chance. But either a stupid president, or a stupid leader somewhere else always messes it up. That's how it always will be. And it sucks, but that's how it is.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But you're saying "guns are needed for protection in society!!" You don't know that. Are you not even willing to let the banning of guns try to solve issues have a chance? Look at Australia and Japan, they have very very strict gun laws and they have the lowest murder rate. Hmm...that makes me wonder...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Japan and Australia have lower populations than the U.S. so of course they have lower murder rates. And the U.S. isn't the highest either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita http://chartsbin.com/view/ueh

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The second link (nationmaster) says that the US has .04 murders/1000 people Japan has .004/ 1000 people That is one murder in Japan for every 10 in US. And it was measured per 1000 people, so population is irrelevant. And most other world powers are well below us

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I already know this. My point was that we aren't the worst. Places like Japan are probably lower because they have an extremely controlling government and punishments are more severe, but that's just my guess. Anyway, I have come to the conclusion that this argument is pointless. Obviously, we aren't going to change eachother's opinions, and I really don't know why I bothered trying in the first place. But thanks for the debate anyway, it was a nice, civil one for a change.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Agreed. This was nice and civil. I enjoyed it. Thank you

by Anonymous 13 years ago

In Japan, it's their culture. They are tightly bound by their traditions and will hardly conspire to kill. That is one thing. One other thing I notice, is the the penal code in which how the prisoners are punished. In my country, murder = death by hang. We have a murder rate of 0.3/100000 people. If I remember correctly, in the past few years we had 0 incidents of murder. I believe it is not the fact about whether guns are banned but rather the punishment. My country has one of the lowest crime rates because we retain corporal punishment as well as capital punishment.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

First off, guns were invented to be used to hunt, not kill people. They exist now and nothing you can do will ever change that, even banning them in your country. As was said, it would be just as easy as getting drugs to get a gun, but then criminals will have guns and our police force wouldn't. How is that supposed to work? Second off, of course you don't see on the news that someone fired a gun in self-defence, that's because the news pretty much only shows the bad in the world.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But can they be used for anything else other than killing or seriously wounding? I just said that if there is no gun, then someone's going to kill someone else anyway.If someone can't obtain a high fuel-efficiency car, but can get a low fuel-efficiency car, then they will get the less fuel efficient-car. The violent protests would arise because they know that if they don't act right then, then the government will be able to take away EVERYTHING! If they want to take away our right to see a doctor if we get sick, or establish a certain religion, or control all aspects of our lives right down to the air we breathe, what can we do if we are disarmed? Peacefully demonstrate? They won't listen because they know we can't do anything else BUT peacefully demonstrate! I would probably check the surrounding area, taking as little time as possible, then shoot the person if I see a red flag. And you have to think about WHY someone would decide to start shooting at random.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Can be, yes, but more often than not, aren't Without a gun, it would be much more difficult to kill. Is not peaceful demonstration against the government one of the principles that this country is founded upon? The right to peaceably assemble? How would you tell the difference between the action and the reaction? Both of them are shooting people, both would have a smoking gun. If you wait, he may be able to kill more people, if you don't wait, he may not be the killer and you would have killed an "innocent" person.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You seriously think that the majority of people who own a gun have the intention of killing someone with that gun, or have done so already? Sure it would be more difficult, but difficulty means nothing in the face of determination. We can peacefully demonstrate all we want, but there's not much incentive for the government to stop whatever it is they're doing wrong to us unless they know that we are a thereat. If we can't force the government to stop sending people to torture camps for saying there's something wrong with the government, then what's stopping them from doing so? Why would someone start shooting in the first place? If there's five dead bodies right behind the person, and he appear to want to shoot me, then what reason do I NOT have to shoot him? And chances are, that situation would never arise. The person would have been shot dead quickly by others around me, and I would not have even seen him standing.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Many more guns are used for killing than protecting. Not always. I could be the most determined person to become a billionaire. It's possible. People have done it. But by unforeseen circumstances, such as I lose my job, it isn't possible. I could have all the determination in the world, but I will never get there. In the 1960's, African Americans demonstrated peacefully, and look at the rights they got. Just because you don't have your guns, doesn't mean you can't get anything done. Why do you always insist the use of force and of guns? Can't reason suffice? Reason does not require a gun. If someone has a gun, they might crack and go on a rampage and kill several. But let's say you didn't see that. You happen to come upon a scene where someone is being shot. How would know if that was an action or a reaction?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

And what about those guns used for recreational purposes, like target shooting? Or hunting for food? Killing someone is typically nowhere NEAR as difficult as becoming a billionaire. And "unforeseen circumstances" would typically not completely stop a determined killer. What reason would there be for the government to stop oppressing its disarmed populace? They are powerless. A peaceful demonstration would fall on deaf ears because the demonstrators are truly powerless. The keyword here is "MIGHT." Like, a guitar's strings MIGHT snap and fly into my eye and blind me. My computer MIGHT crash and my hard drive MIGHT be wiped clean of all its data. And even if your MIGHT situation came true, what about every other armed, perfectly sane person around him? Are they just going to let him kill everything he sees without lifting a finger? And what about the SOUND of a gun? Surely I'd hear gunshots and see multiple people leaving? Justice was served.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Guns are not for protection. Shields protect you. Armor protects you. Shooting someone is not a defensive action. You are not preventing harm on yourself. You're causing harm to another person. They are different things. Guns just kill and wound. If someone tries to strangle you you can push them off and run, a defensive movement. You can't do that with a gun. Guns also make it a whole lot easier to kill people. If a killer wants to kill several people, it's pretty hard to strangle each of them. With a gun he can just open fire and mow them down.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Guns CAN BE for protection. How is shooting someone with a knife, who has the clear intention of stabbing me to death, NOT a defensive action? What if you didn't know where they were? What if, in your state of panic, you couldn't tell if the person was standing right behind you? If someone's strangling you to death from behind, you're probably dead anyway. And when you're running, there's nothing stopping the other person from chasing you down and beating you into submission. LOTS of things make it a whole lot easier to kill people! Cars, poison, knives, and so on can all be used to kill people. And just because the wrong people have a chance of getting their hands on something and using it for the wrong purposes, does that mean that it should be illegal for EVERYONE to have that thing?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah but all the good people won't have guns to protect themselves and criminals will that's what no one gets that promote gun bans just Cuz gun would e illegal doesn't mean criminal and all bad people won't have them an get them drugs are illegal but is the highest market in the US more money is spent on drugs than anything else and drugs are banned and illegal but I don't see any of the criminals that sell and use them caring, just the same if guns are made illegal expect good people won't have them to protect themselves against all the bad people who still do think about that for a little. This world will never be peaceful no matter what we are all born into a sinful world ever since Adam and Eve sinned and therefor people are evil and some good but no one is perfect and all people sin and do wrong but the people who are good should not be punished because of the bad and make them get rid of there protection when the bad people will still have guns so stupid to even think gun bans would help. It's just the Gov way of trying to control us! And like many people think the 2nd wasn't no made so people could have guns to hunt it was made so the people had guns to protect themselves against other people and the Gov. An so that the Gov. Feared the people not that the people feared the Gov. Our founding fathers said that, and also said that our constitution was written so the every 2-3 hundred years when the Gov was trying to over power the people and take the power always from the people that the people should rise up and take the power back and if need be by force and the Gov now adays knows that and is trying to control us like never before therefore trying to take away our guns so we can't fight back until its too late and we have no power. People have used guns to kill people for a long time the old west had more people killing people per population than even close to today but they didn't try and take away guns cuz they knew it would only take them out of good people's hands an leave them in criminals hands. Your point is soo stupid and you are soo brain washe by the media and Gov that runs the media it's so sad how many people really believe what they hear and see on tv and Internet and shit wake up ad look into things yourself we live in a fucked up world and I am not going to give up my gun to protect me an my family and the innocent good people around me

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Then we should also ban knives, because they are quite effective as well. Oh and hands, because you can hit people and strangle people. And water, because you can drown people. Don't forget pillows, you can smother people...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Guns are far more efficient and easier than any of those.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

What I'm trying to say is that people will kill other people no matter what. It's an unfortunate part of human nature.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg8rlSi5MlA

by Anonymous 13 years ago

And how was that relevant?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Did you listen to it? Or even read the title?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, I've heard that song a million times, and what I said was that people will always kill other people. John Lennon hasn't changed that. Sorry.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Guns rights acitivists always say that "Baning won't solve the problem" Alright, what is your answer? Give everyone an incredibly deadly weapon? Yeah, that will make peace alright. Nothing like an eye for an eye to make the whole world see. You don't know for sure that banning guns would make things worse. So are you saying you won't give peace a chance?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, but I think that there should be stricter gun regulations, not completely banning them. I also think that all violent crimes should be punished much more severely. I think if we told people who committed ANY violent crime that they would be facing life in prison or the death penalty as opposed to just 5 or 10 years crime would go down. I think we should punish those who are abusing gun ownership, not the innocent citizens who are only protecting their families.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm only against concealed carry, if a person wants to have it at home, fine. But out in public, if everyone had a gun, a lot more problems would be created, many more deaths would occur. I agree with what you said about crime and punishment for said crimes, but not the death penalty, which I believe should only be used in the most extreme cases. If someone puts a murderer to death, then they are no better than the murderer. Does not an eye for an eye make the whole world blind?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Alot of people seem to think that we are for the death penalty to "Get even" or for "Justice", but that's not the case. I believe in the death penalty because I realize that there are just some people who you can't be cured. Most Pedophiles can't be cured, such a high number re-offend and I don't want to take that risk. I don't want another child's life to be ruined. Most Rapists can't be cured, they re-offend. Sadistic killers, they'll do it again. It's unfortunate but true. I'm sorry, but my sympathy only goes so far.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Does not an eye for an make the whole world blind? Proponents of the death penalty are saying that killing is ok. That makes them no better than the criminal being put to death.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, killing is okay if it's to prevent other people from killing. So, if we had captured Hitler, would you be protesting that we should keep him alive?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'd like to see where you stand on abortion if killing is so wrong.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world" (Gandi) No, killing to prevent killing is NOT OK. That only prolongs the cycle of violence. How is it broken? Peace. In order to stop violence, we must all embody peace. Yes, killing Hitler would be really stupid. He was really smart. He knew how do things. I'm not saying what he did was good, but the efficiency with which he did them was astounding. Somehow find a way to turn that knowledge into good. I think abortion is wrong and should only be used for rape victims and when the life of the mother is in jeopardy, but I also think it is not the job of the government to tell people they can't. Each case is specific, you can't put a law on that.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Sweetie, I'm sorry to break your dreams, but complete peace will never be accomplished. It's unfortunate but this perfect society that you seem to be imagining is not the society in which we live. It would be wonderful if murder wasn't necessary and it's great in theory, but it will never work. "We must all embody peace", tell that to the little girl who was raped by a 40 year old man. Tell her that he will get out of prison and live his life like he never did anything wrong and that she will never, ever feel safe again. Sick people need to be murdered, no matter how sick it may seem. Murderers are laughing at you. You just make their lives a whole lot easier. You can't yield to these people.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Your mentality is what is wrong with the world. Peace cannot be achieved unless given the chance, which it is not. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. If we kill, we are no better than the killers.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You can say that all you want, but at the end of the day it's my mentality that keeps you safe.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

And that same mentality that lets guns into everyone's hands. The guy responsible for the Arizona shooting a few weeks ago bought his gun legally. He was able to get one because he hadn't committed a crime before. But as was said, if anyone had sat down and talked to him at all, they would have noticed he was insane. Innocent lives could have been saved. But were they? A nine year old girl was killed because of the mentality you have. How does that make you feel?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ooh, personal attacks, classy. Did I not already state that I want stricter gun control? I think people should be proven mentally stable before they are given the responsibility of owning a gun. And it's people like you that are going to make it so this man is set free because of his mental state. How does that make you feel? I suppose you're against war too?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The fact remains that if guns were banned, the Arizona attacks WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. How would people like me let him go? That is false. He should be kept in jail, not put to death. "There never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found to prevent the drawing of the sword." Ulysses S. Grant Yes, I am against war

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(vitaminb):"Si vis pacem, para bellum" ("If you want peace, prepare for war!") - Flavius Vegetius Renatus (ca 390 AD)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Exactly what the world did in the 1930's. Look what happened then.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Oh, you mean when we fought back to save the lives of millions of innocent people from a vicious and unjust death? And then it restored peace and the evil paid for there misdeeds? You mean when that happened?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, we prepared for war, and guess what, war happened. Had the leaders of the Allies listened to Wilson (a liberal) after WWI, WWII probably wouldn't have happened. The Fourteen Points were based on respect for Germany, not on hatred. WWI was supposed to be the war to end all wars, but it didn't. The aftermath was everyone had an arms race and were trying to prep for war, but war just happened again because Germany was unjustly treated. Had the Allies been just to Germany, it is possible that WWII would not have happened.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Oh yes, if we would have sat down to a candlelit dinner with Hitler and asked the Japanese to please not bomb us again WWII would have never happened. Do you know your history? You do realize that WWII had begun before we were involved, right? And we weren't even going to join in the war until we were bombed? What did you expect us to do when every other country was stocking up on weapons and nukes, sit on our hands and hope we don't get attacked because if we did we wouldn't be prepared to defend ourselves?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

We were involved the whole way. WWII essentially started the second WWI ended. The way the Treaty of Versailles was set up made it almost impossible to avoid war. Germany got really crapped on by the Allies. Had we been just, it is possible WWII would not have happened. WWI and WWII are very connected. The world participated in an arms race because of the Treaty of Versailles. To say that we were not involved in WWII until the Japanese bombed us is just plain ignorant.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Had we been just to the Germans? We were following the rules of war! They lost, they had to pay for the damages they caused along with Austria-Hungary and the rest! It's always been that way! And I'm ignorant? We had our own debts to deal with.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It wasn't the debt part that was unjust, it was everything else. And yes, it was the rules of war, which only create more war. That was seen 20 years later- WWII. So many causes of WWII were from the Treaty of Versailles. Excessively punishing those who started it will only get them more pissed and that is exactly what happened.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

There are parts of the Treaty of Versailles that were excessive. But when you start a war that leads to the destruction of precious human lives you must pay. Ultimately Germany was the country to blame for the beginning of WWII, you have to hold them accountable for their actions.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

All the Allies were so unfair to Germany after WWI, what they planted were the seeds of WWII. No one should have expected that Germany would have obeyed the parameters set in the Treaty of Versailles. Wilson's Fourteen Points were all brilliant, they would have set the world toward peace, rather than war, which is what the Treaty of Versailles did.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Unfair to Germany? What about how unfair the German's were to the rest of the world? Does that hold no merit? And if someone were to, I don't know, insult you and you hit them, would it not be your fault that you hit them?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Does not an eye for an eye make the whole world blind? Must we not be the change we wish to see in the world? If we must bring about a world of peace, everyone has to participate, no one can just stand by and say "It won't happen". Those are the people that are preventing this world from having peace. Punishing anyone, whether they start it or not, contributes to the cycle of violence. If I hit them, yes, it would be my fault. Is not every person responsible for their own actions? Just because you are reacting does not give you permission to act like a total d-bag.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Have fun trying to get everyone to be peaceful. I'm sure if you tell the Muslims and the Jews not to fight each other it will go over swell.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Do you think giving up on peace and letting violence take over is the only option?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Do you think giving up on war and letting chaos take over is the only option?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

What do you mean by giving up war? You make it sound like war is a good thing. And you didn't answer the question.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah im sure if you said this to the person breaking into your house that they would just pause... see the error in their ways...and leave. Keep dreaming,we live in a world of crime so there will never be peace sadly.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

we're not saying that they should be let out again. We're saying that they should not be killed.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Are you talking about in WWII?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

for the record about your argument about making everyone carry a lethal weapon being wrong Switzerland (I think thats the country, could be wrong) makes it mandatory for people to carry assault riffles. Murders have dramatically decreased since then.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Amen to that.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If we didn't have guns people would only find other ways to kill. It really wouldn't solve anything.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The problem with guns is not that they kill, it is the efficiency with which they kill. Anything can be used to kill, it is the efficiency and intended use that creates issues.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I don't care if they kill efficiently, but they should not be banned, just because a few bad apples couldn't stay ripe!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you stood around and yelled BANG very loudly, I doubt you would kill anyone at all

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Guns are for *protection. If guns were banned criminals would still obtain them, leaving everyone else unprotected from the criminals.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Exactly. Criminals aren't going to be like, "Oh, what's this? Gun's are illegal? Well I wouldn't want to break the law or anything, so I guess that plan is sunk..." Plus most crimes are committed using unregistered guns.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Exactly! I mean the people who want guns banned should go up against a criminal with a gun when they don't have one and see what happens.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If there are harsher gun control laws, it would make it harder for them to get guns.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You mean like our "harsh" drug control laws that completely stopped drug trafficking?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It doesn't take a genius to understand this, so hopefully you two will be able to grasp this concept, with less guns there will OBVIOUSLY be less death by guns. So Nicole - explain to me how every criminal that has a gun now would obtain a gun AFTER -and if- guns are illegal.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

There are more people who have nonviolent intentions with their guns than those with violent intentions. If every CRIMINAL has a gun, then it would be safe to say that even more law-abiding citizens have a gun. If someone starts shooting people, then everyone else will shoot back in defense of themselves and the victim of the initial shooting. And so what if there are less deaths by shootings? Are people completely incapable of killing with anything else?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You, obviously, are not very smart. Please explain to me why you think that just because guns are illegal it will keep criminals from getting them. We will still have to have them for soldiers. So they will still be around. They're CRIMINALS. They don't care if they're illegal.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It will make it harder for them to get guns. When you have to insult people to back up an arguement, you've lost.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I didn't "use insult to back up" my argument. I simply stated you're inability to see something as obvious as that. Yes, it would make it harder but they would still get them and other people wouldn't leaving them defenseless.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

americans and their guns good grief

by Anonymous 13 years ago

All I can say is, I'm glad I live in Australia where we have super tight gun laws.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

i'm glad i live in canada where we have the same

by Anonymous 13 years ago

What's wrong with killing people?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

wait... why a spoon? are forks innocent or something?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

And what about sporks? They don't seem innocent either.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

yeah! i mean, thats the combined power of a fork AND a spoon.... sounds pretty destructive to me...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Exactly! Twice the destruction! Scary stuff man...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Except guns are not helpful or necessary to the general public whereas cars, pencils, and spoons are.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Here's an issue that no one has brought up yet: Every year the government issues permits and licenses for hunting purposes. These licenses and permits are issued because certain wildlife populations, such as deer, can get out of control and seriously stress the capabilities of the environment that they are in. A majority of these hunters use guns, and many of them rely on their kills for meat to feed their families. How do you propose 1) that we control these overpopulated species and 2) that we deal with the adverse impacts that these families will face when they can no longer hunt for their food?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

1. Nature bro, nature always takes care of over population. It's called survival of the fittest 2. Hunting isn't a job... they can get a job just like everyone else.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Exactly. Guns can only kill/wound. Cars are transportation, pencils can write, and spoons help us eat.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, people kill people, but they kill them with guns. Implement gun control regulations, suddenly it's that much harder for someone to open fire in a crowd, for people to do drive by shootings, etc. It is the crazy people who kill, not the weapons themselves, but if we don't let them get their hands on guns, they can't use them to harm others.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Why not just take the money wasted on this supposed gun control, and use it for programs intended on promoting peace and not killing each other with any kind of weapon?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Bill of rights; WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!!!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

http://images3.makefive.com/images/entertainment/other/visual-puns/bear-arms-7.jpg

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That was back when we had a militia, it's now irrelevant.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Only on amirite can we go from guns to black men

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You are mistaken. See, ladles make people fat, not spoons.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's not guns that kill people it's niggers with guns that kill people. a gun lying on the ground isn't going to do shit; however, when a nigger picks it up, he'll shoot you and t-bag your body.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That's the most ignorant pro gun thing I've ever heard. I know that ignorants are Republican, but this is really pushing it.... This is soo stupid, I can't even argue it. You are extremely wrong and no human with half a brain can follow that extremely idiotic logic. I hope you get a gun shoved so far up your nose, your tongue triggers the gun inside your head. And if somehow you survive that incident, then maybe your brain will start working better.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

lol what a troll.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Your mom's a troll, but I fucked her anyways

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's stating that guns are inanimate objects which cannot kill without a user. Do you not understand that?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Oh I understand it... but it's LITERALLY a fallacy (by definition). Have you taken a course on logic Mr. Anon? If that is your real name! Before you answer that I'll tell you, I've taken several logic classes and one of them focused solely on arguments. And although I cannot recall which fallacy this falls under, I do know it is one.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

do you reread your comments... At all? I don't even need to say anything you did it to yourself.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's a fucking fallacy you penis brain. By definition this post's structure has that of a fallacy of an argument.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's a fallacy that guns are tools which are occasionally used to kill? It's a fallacy that people might end up driving drunk with a car? It's a fallacy that people can misspell words while writing with a pencil? It's a fallacy that spoons are occasionally used to eat excessive amounts of food, making the consumer fat over time? According to dictionary.com, one definition of "fallacy is "a misleading or unsound argument." The argument here is that guns, like any other tools, do nothing on its own. If you put a gun on a table and leave it alone, and no one else touches it, it is not going to simply float into the air and kill someone all on its own. The same goes with any tool. Pencils do not write on their own, cars do not start themselves up and drive themselves with no outside assistance, and spoons do not shove excessive amounts of food down people's throats without a user.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Look I'm not going to give you a lesson, if you want to learn, go to college and take an argument class. Separated what you said is not a fallacy, but together it IS. I got the highest A in the class. BELIEVE ME when I say it is a fallacy. If you don't believe me take the class. THEN you can make your snarky little comments. Going to dictionary.com to look it up just shows that you don't know. Dictionary.com isn't going to give you a lesson on arguments and fallacies. There is a whole class just dedicated to lessons about this. Take it and then come back to me nave.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Explain to me, then, how exactly it IS a fallacy. Surely your supposed classes will help you there? You said "by definition" it is a fallacy. According to dictionary.com, it is not a fallacy. Until you can prove otherwise, I won't believe you.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

My goodness, I took the class a while ago, I don't remember the term that you can look up... why don't you TAKE the class and find out for yourself? If not at least look up this book, it's called "How to Think Logically" by Gary Seay and Susana Nuccetelli. I think it might be a fallacy of relevance and it might be "Straw Man Argument." But it's been a while, so I can't guarantee you, that's what it is. I'm pretty sure if you look up either the "Straw Man Argument" or "Fallacy of Relevance" you can find it though.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

@1074891 (KickAss): Ok this dudes obviously a troll lol. There's too may failed points for him to actually be serious.. That or he's like 12.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(KickAss):right because claiming that an inanimate object doesn't kill some one is CLEARY failed logic. Your a fucking idiot

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You're calling me an idiot? Are you even serious? You're the one too stupid to realize that you're too stupid to be stupider than stupid. And it's you're* YOU fucking idiot. Learn proper grammar and then come back to me peasant

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Lol I love how you don't even attempt to make a counter-point to my arguement and just try to insult me in the best way you can all while contradicting yoursel. I'm talking to you through the mobile site on the Internet, I'm not in college on the computer writing a paper. If there are careless mistakes GET THE FUCK OVER IT. If your seriously want to pull the whole grammar Nazi thing then allow me to start poking holes in your own statement starting with your redundancy on your comment about stupidity and why that is a severe grammar issue. If you would like to continue I could get grammar teachers in here so your feeble little mind can completely understand it so we can continue to make a fool of yourself.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Look buddy, the reason I'm not explaining myself to you, is because sure I COULD explain it to you, but it would be pointless because I can't understand it for you. Do you see my dilemma? You're just too stupid to understand what I have to tell you. But don't worry, it's not your fault! It's yo mamma's for raising a fool.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Troll.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

People, guns protect and guns help keep our Government in control, because once they try to take over, they know we will carry out our right to bear arms. Why should we give up our guns just because a few bad apples couldn't stay ripe? The logic is the same! Take cars away because a few bad apples couldn't stay ripe. Take spoons, forks and whatever away from people because a few apples couldn't stay ripe. People and that is simple logic. There is no flaw in this kind of logic and it should not be condemned for being proper logic............

by Anonymous 13 years ago

People kill people not guns it's a choice either way. drunks, murders, addicts etc. It's the person behind it not the item of choice. People just want an excuse these days because they don't want to take responsibility for their actions.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

If you take guns away from people who do not intend to kill, your doing it wrong. I have n idea. all of you anti gun people should join together and creat your own gun free state, if you could leave it at just that. Im sure th state would end up being gun free, alcohol free, tobacco free, gay free, jew free, negro free, mexican free, freedom free, individual free, choice free, speech free, right free, etc.. Now im not implying that all anti gun people are homophobic, racist, Nazi, communist, clones. what im saying is if feel tne need to infringe on someones rights so bad there's not way you could stop at just guns. Anyway i would totally support an anti gun state. Once word got out, all the criminals would be over in your new state having a field day, leaving us gun toting killers much safer. I dont even own a gun, that my choice and i would like to keep it that way. If its imperative that you infringe on peoples rights take away they right to bare children. my bicycle had to be licensed on order for me to ride it. My Dog is required to have a license that he has to wear at all times, need one to fish but they let anyone breed. if you cant take care of yourself, no kids

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Okay wow it's so sad to see the people on here saying guns should be banned, and are saying this because the wrong people can get ahold of them. Do you not get that to legally get a gun you do have to go through a background check and if you have a record at all you can't buy one legally. If they ban guns it'll one be unconstitutional, two not solve the problem of keeping guns outta the wrong people's hands because if you don't notice drugs are illegall but yet drug sells if the most profitable and most paid for thing in the US more money is spent on drugs then anything else. Banning guns will keep guns out of the right people hands that are law abiding citizens and will still keep them in the criminals and wrong people's hands because they will still be able to get the illegally as they do now and same with drugs. The people that own guns legally are the people that hunt, shoot targets and or use the gun for self protection not for murder or robbing. More than 80% of people that use guns to kill or rob got that gun illegally and will still be able to get that gun even if we ban them. And then the "good guys" won't have guns and won't be able to protect themselves or others. And to say that the police are there so no one needs a gun to protect themselves is like saying oh there's fire fighters so we don't need fire extinguishers or hoses. Banning guns would only do this country bad and the reason the Gov. Wants to ban them is so they can control use. They brain wash us and try to tell us all this bull shit in the news an media and don't tell us more then 90% of what's really going on. The 2nd amendment was really out into place not so people could own guns to hunt, but so that the normal day to day law abiding citizens can protect themselves, and so the Gov. Should fear the people and that the people should not fear the Gov. Look it up that's what our founding fathers said! And they also said that our constitution was wrighten so that every 2-3 hundred years if the Gov. Was messing up and trying to control the people to much that there should be an uprising of the people and they should take over the power again because this national was built on the power of the people to run the nation not big Gov. And look where we are the Gov. Is more corrupt than ever and tryin to control us like never before and trying to take away our guns because they know about what the founding fathers said about the 2nd amendment and why it was made, but most people don't really know why it's there an the meaning behind it so they are okay with it, an the Gov has done a damn good job in brain washing all you people into believing 100% of what they say or tell you that you think guns kill people an that its really that easy to get a gun legally, when its not someone with a record go try and buy a gun at a gun store where law abiding citizens but guns and see what happens background checks take at least hours if not days depending and you will get a big fat NO when trying! People need to stop watching all this bull shit news and media that is ran by the Gov to brainwash you, most people would never know this but look it up radio and tv was first invented for trying to totally brain wash people but it was only about 65% effective so they decided to use it over a long period of time and to slowly brain wash people into believing everything they say an show on tv. The press and media is sooo Gov ran its not funny. You can not put one thing on tv without it getting first ran by the Gov. An a bunch of Gov. Agencies that are in place to control the media. The everyday person does not know more than a 1/8 of what's actually going on in our country let alone the world by watching the news and I don't care what news you watch cuz while some may be "better than others" they are all Gov ran to brain wash the people. Think about how addictive and how much people watch tv and get stuck to it like flies, this is because the way it works and was made to work! It uses your stimulus of your sight and hearing to make you get interested and when your interested you believe it all. You can not really think that the Gov tells you more than 1/8 of what's really going on and what you do see and hear is what they want you to see and hear so they can control you. That's why lately everything in the news is about killings and shooting to prompt Gun bans, but shooting and killing have been going on like this for a way longer time it just wasn't so hyped up because they weren't trying to promote gun band like they are now. Most everything that the Gov uses to promote their agendas is staged and fake if you actually looked into over half of the tradeys going on you would see that they are really weird and that their is too many considents for them to not be fake. I dare everyone here to go watch the video called lose change on YouTube it'll take a little more than an hour outta your day that you usually spend watching tv getting brain washed by the Gov already and to tell me that there isn't to many considents in 9-11 for it not to be fake and Gov ran. Come on people wake up and look at the real world and see what the Gov is trying to so hard to do to us. We are a people ran nation and they are trying to take away all of our power and gun bans is like the last key they need to do it once we give up our guns it's over if we don't all wake up and realize it now it'll be to late and we will all be fucked! Please people all I'm asking is for you to use your God given brain to really look into stuff and not just believe what you see on tv or hear because your used to it because now more than ever its too many lies to know the difference. And we are in so deep that its hard for people to see, but look at the generation coming up right now they are so electronic dependt it's crazy if it doesn't have to do with tv, video games, cell phones, computers or something like that they don't like it. And the Gov knew how to do this and they did a damn good job of making us like that people used to think on their own and make decisions about things themselves now its based on tv and Internet and media that they make the decisions for you without you even knowing. So wake up get a grip and do something about it think on your own for once and look into things yourselves instead of always believing what you hear, read, or see.

by Anonymous 10 years ago