The Sandy Hook Elementary School Shootings

Randhir said:
That's nice, but completely sidestepping both the topic and the point.
Click to expand...

not at all, your missing the point. Individuals are not allowed to own these weapons, but politicians have them at their disposal and they may even wage war?

If you're against weapon ownership then shouldn't you be consistent in who you bar from owning them?

I'll ask again, don't you find it contradicting that weapon ownership is (according to you) wrong when it is done individually, but acceptable when it is done collectively?
 
Last edited:
Nicodeamus said:
not at all, your missing the point. Individuals are not allowed to own these weapons, but politicians have them at their disposal and they may even wage war?

If you're against weapon ownership then shouldn't you be consistent in who you bar from owning them?
Click to expand...

No, you're manufacturing your own point in response to something you don't have an answer to. I never advocated on behalf of politicians having weapons of mass destruction either, did I?
 
Randhir said:
No, you're manufacturing your own point in response to something you don't have an answer to. I never advocated on behalf of politicians having weapons of mass destruction either, did I?
Click to expand...

I'm actually asking you, if we are debating the principle of gun ownership then surely we have to look at all types of gun ownership?
 
Nicodeamus said:
I answered your question about uranium and I explained why it isn't a problem. Now answer my questions..
Click to expand...

I didn't ask you any question about uranium. I made the point that you can't be for civilians having legal access to radioactive materials since you know they can't afford them. You're either for it or against it.
 
Randhir said:
I didn't ask you any question about uranium. I made the point that you can't be for civilians having legal access to radioactive materials since you know they can't afford them. You're either for it or against it.
Click to expand...

nonsense, if the outcome of civilians owning nuclear weapons is impossible then yes I can be against a totally pointless and redundant law.
 
Shooting at Connecticut school. 27 dead including 18 children

WTF are we talking about uranium and nuclear weapons?!
 
Randhir said:
Except it's not impossible.
Click to expand...

just very highly unlikely if not inconceivable. How many individuals in the last 100 years had private radioactive weapons in their possession? I would still have the police investigate people if they suspect that people might be owning these materials to build nuclear weapons (or do whatever harm). However if an individual for some reason obtains a radioactive material and wants to build cleaner electricity (or try to do some experiments on it), then I don't have an issue with that.
 
Hamster said:
WTF are we talking about uranium and nuclear weapons?!
Click to expand...

Because some don't find any problem with people buying 'all sorts' of weapons, and are naive to think they will only be for 'recreational use'.
 
Randhir said:
Well done. So it's not impossible.
Click to expand...


I am sure it is also not impossible to build a a sonic death ray or a death star....but are we really going to wrote a law for every 2nd wackjob's toy or isn't the law which prohibits you from killing people simply enough reason for police to investigate each matter on its own if they suspect you have cruel intentions?

Do we really need to ban every 2nd thing that has a potential to become a weapon, because I can think of a lot of legal things which I can use as a weapon.
 
Shooting at Connecticut school. 27 dead including 18 children

Randhir said:
Because some don't find any problem with people buying 'all sorts' of weapons, and are naive to think they will only be for 'recreational use'.
Click to expand...

Oh that. Right, carry on then.
 
Shooting at Connecticut school. 27 dead including 18 children

One must study American history to understand why gun ownership and the right to carry/own/use guns is so important to so many Americans. The 50 states that formed a federation ... the war for independence ... the Civil War ... etc. Americans are not as united as one would think looking from the outside. There are very large numbers of very paranoid people in the States linked to the history/formation of the States and Federation. Many do not trust the Federal Gov to stay true to the Constitution. Many are still survivalists at heart. Many are permanently prepared to defend their freedom. It's deeply ingrained. They hoard guns, ammunition, batteries, water, you-name-it. One must understand this to appreciate why guns are so numerous and so "holy" to so many there. The Federal Gov knows they can trigger a serious problem with internal "terrorism"/rebellion when they mess with the Constitution's principles that guarantees citizens the freedom to bear arms.
 
BeVonk! said:
One must study American history to understand why gun ownership and the right to carry/own/use guns is so important to so many Americans. The 50 states that formed a federation ... the war for independence ... the Civil War ... etc. Americans are not as united as one would think looking from the outside. There are very large numbers of very paranoid people in the States linked to the history/formation of the States and Federation. Many do not trust the Federal Gov to stay true to the Constitution. Many are still survivalists at heart. Many are permanently prepared to defend their freedom. It's deeply ingrained. They hoard guns, ammunition, batteries, water, you-name-it. One must understand this to appreciate why guns are so numerous and so "holy" to so many there. The Federal Gov knows they can trigger a serious problem with internal "terrorism"/rebellion when they mess with the Constitution's principles that guarantees citizens the freedom to bear arms.
Click to expand...

ah now the situation of a government oppressing its own people is a lot more likely than a civilian trying buy a nuclear weapon at wallmart. I can believe the first story.
 
Nicodeamus said:
I am sure it is also not impossible to build a a sonic death ray or a death star....but are we really going to wrote a law for every 2nd wackjob's toy or isn't the law which prohibits you from killing people simply enough reason for police to investigate each matter on its own if they suspect you have cruel intentions?

Do we really need to ban every 2nd thing that has a potential to become a weapon, because I can think of a lot of legal things which I can use as a weapon.
Click to expand...

Lol. Yes compare something which is real - radioactive material, to something from a movie.

Your argument is infantile.

Nicodeamus said:
Do we really need to ban every 2nd thing that has a potential to become a weapon, because I can think of a lot of legal things which I can use as a weapon.
Click to expand...

What a load of BS. I can kill you with a toothbrush, but that isn't the toothbrush's primary reason for being manufactured. I can kill you with an aerial from a router, but that isn't the reason that it was made.

What's the primary reason for guns again? Cleaning out drainpipes right? Stop with your false equivalencies and come back with a more coherent, intelligent argument please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X