|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
View Poll Results: Do american police generally seem too violent or oppressive to you? | |||
Yes | 60 | 65.22% | |
No | 23 | 25.00% | |
Undecided / No opinion / I'm a vegetable | 9 | 9.78% | |
Voters: 92. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
06-09-2011, 12:08 AM | #81 (permalink) | |
Music Addict
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 429
|
I edited the first message. And yes a criminal could buy a gun (on the black market). A would be criminal (as in doesn't yet have a criminal record) could also buy a hunting rifle and get it registered.
Quote:
It's like... would you refuse to live in Canada if your only other option was Iraq (cited here as the most dangerous country on earth http://listverse.com/2008/04/08/top-...aces-on-earth/)? Last edited by Mr November; 06-09-2011 at 12:13 AM. |
|
06-09-2011, 12:17 AM | #82 (permalink) | |
Partying on the inside
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,584
|
Quote:
A lot of Americans are too, on the other side of the fence. I don't deny that. I'm speaking to a common sense, logical issue. Just because you can't have fireworks without a permit, or start fires in your back yard, or carry around a machete... does that make it impossible for people to do so? Obviously not, but see, that analogy you used doesn't quite work well with something a bit more important like being able to save your own life by meeting force proportionally to defend yourself. It's not about a government protecting people from themselves. It's about a government PREVENTING people from properly defending themselves. Even if it's not a huge problem, it's a problem if it happens one single time. It does not require you to feel like your rights are or aren't violated. But I bet if your family was that one single time, you may feel a little differently. Out of sight, out of mind.. I guess... |
|
06-09-2011, 12:20 AM | #83 (permalink) | |
Partying on the inside
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,584
|
Quote:
2. I spent a year in Iraq while in the Army and I can honestly say that I would prefer living there than in Canada. (Again, you've used a horrible comparison for this, but I figure I would be humorous about it. hehe) |
|
06-09-2011, 12:26 AM | #84 (permalink) | ||||
Account Disabled
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cebu, Philippines
Posts: 677
|
i'll try to respond as carefully as I can so as not to be accused again as trolling. but before you read my every posts, please be reminded that these are my honest to goodness opinions on the current subject matter. so respect is demanded. here we go:
Quote:
second, safety and protection of every individual is a basic human right, yes. but owning a gun unfortunately is not. that's why we have the police or security officers to serve that purpose. that is their main function. i personally believe that those who should be allowed to carry a gun are those who are obliged to protect the people rather than protecting oneself. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
so having said all these things, YES we can carry guns, if we're the police. |
||||
06-09-2011, 12:29 AM | #85 (permalink) | |
Music Addict
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 429
|
Quote:
But let me put it this way, and you tell me if it's unfair. Should people be allowed the bring weapons onto an airplane? What if there was a hijacker? The rules against bringing dangerous objects onto the plane wouldn't be a 100% guarantee that it wouldn't happen. If everyone was allowed to have a gun, maybe someone could stop the hijacker. It would also make it a lot easier to hijack a plane though wouldn't it? And let's say your family was on the plane... but then what about all those other people on the plane. Is it really just about you and your right to defend you and your family? Or does the safety of all the other people come into the equation too? |
|
06-09-2011, 12:31 AM | #86 (permalink) | |
Account Disabled
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cebu, Philippines
Posts: 677
|
Quote:
|
|
06-09-2011, 12:41 AM | #87 (permalink) | ||||||
Partying on the inside
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,584
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Anyway, I don't really expect you to understand (or decide to maturely comment on) what I've posted here... but just to let you know, if it smells vaguely of troll, I delete on sight. So if you know you're just living a million miles elsewhere in terms of common sense and human perception, don't bother, as I don't want you to feel like I'm censoring you... |
||||||
06-09-2011, 12:41 AM | #88 (permalink) | |
Music Addict
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 429
|
Quote:
Obviously it's possible for someone to get onto a plane with the capacity to perform a violent high-jacking since it's happened in the past. So whether the hi-jacker has a gun isn't really as important as the question of everyone else having a gun... |
|
06-09-2011, 12:57 AM | #89 (permalink) |
Account Disabled
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cebu, Philippines
Posts: 677
|
ok. i'm convinced that this discussion is getting nowhere.
i tried to present my valid opinion and you respond with sarcasm and abrupt, hasty, unthought ridicule. you don't deserve my presence. i'm just gonna quitely walk away from this thread. |
06-09-2011, 12:58 AM | #90 (permalink) | |
Partying on the inside
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,584
|
Quote:
I'm talking about having a gun in your home, or other personal domain. If a business or other owned entity does not want guns on its premises, an individual can choose not to go there. In cases where a public service is provided by a private company, it's ultimately up to that company to decide its rules. It can be anything from no shoes, shirt, service... to no nuclear devices. These are terms of agreement. But an individual should not be expected to negotiate terms of agreement regarding the safety of his own family in his own house. |
|
|