Guns in a movie theater? Reminds me of a funny story.

About ten years ago, I went to go see "Space Jam" with this youth group. Throughout the whole movie, this red dot keeps appearing on the screen and moving around-- pretty annoying-- and I finally get fed up with it about halfway through and get up to go talk to the kid with the laser pointer. Maybe smack him and take it away, if he didn't feel like playing nice.

Only it wasn't a laser pointer. It was an underbarrel laser sight on a .45.

Yeah. I just kept my mouth shut and went back to my seat. Movie wasn't that good in the first place.

that kid is not very smart at all

neo-liberals piss me off.
globalization and gun control.

you make me fucking sick.

We should fear God (Matthew 10:28)
We should love God (Matthew 22:37)
There is no fear in love (1 John 4:18)

"Blessed are the merciful" [Matthew 5:7]
"Leave alive nothing that breathes. Show them no mercy." [Deut. 7:2]
"The Lord hardened their hearts... that they might receive no mercy." [Joshua 11:20]
"I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the Lord: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them. A curse on him who is lax in doing the Lord's work! A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed." [Jer. 13:14; 48:10]

Don't compare new and old Testament teachings, Sic. Matthew is from the new testament where mercy is obtained through Christs sacrifice for our sins. Old testament teachings are Jewish teachings and Jesus came to bring us a new covenant bought with his blood and taught us two commandments which should control our lives. Love the Lord God with all our hearts, minds, and souls, and love our neighbors as our selves. He further clarified that neighbor meant all of mankind, not just the folks who live to the left, right, behind, and across the street from you.

And Matthew 10:28 says to fear him (lowercase 'h') who can destroy our bodies and souls in hell. This is a reference to Satan, NOT God.

@trim:

You absolutely do use handguns to hunt, and I know someone who has gone hunting with an AR-15 (though I admit, it was a stupid idea. He didn't get anything).

My goal as a hunter is to get a bear with a handgun, and I'll be damned if Uncle Sam thinks he can stop that.

If the Second amendment doesn't give us an individual right to bear arms, what does it do? Legalize the National Guard? I'm pretty sure that the Constitution gives the right to the Government to have an army, so that would make it unnecessary.

I note that despite all the talk about what the statistics say, there has been no reference to any at all. Not that that's even relevant, considering that gun control is unconstitutional.

Gay marriage is fine with me, as I don't see any reason to restrict people from doing what they want if it doesn't effect me.

@ Draugnar, why not compare Old and New Testaments? Do you accept both?

Sicarius are you in favour of any kind of gun control? Or do you think people should be allowed to own any kind of weapon?

What do you think? (Sicarius is an outspoken anarchist)

Zuzak, it's my opinion that the Second Amendment allows citizens that bear arms (members of organized militias, the military, et al.) to keep them.

skeletal gun control laws. mentally deficient and convicts cannot buy guns. (convicts of a violent crime)
other tan that I see no reason to.

also the national guard has been federalized.
so obama could send the florida national guard to quell an uprsing in oregon, to the protests of both governments, and not tell congress until after the fact

I never stated why I put the bible quotes there.
I think its hilarious you thought I was critisizing the bible.

which I was. but the fact that you knew without me saying anything, says alot

Yes, much of Western Europe has lower crime rates than America, and definitely far less incarcerations... but this is due to myriad of factors, not just gun control. In Switzerland, everyone's packing heat, and crime there is quite low.

It's been mentioned, but Europe is more ethnically homogenous, which sadly makes a big difference. As well, the socialist policies give a comfortable pillow to the poor and makes them less likely to commit violent crime for money.

That said, I'm still on the fence for gun control. I'm all for the rights of people to defend themselves or their property, but I suppose I'll try the Devil's Advocate, since it seems there's very little support for gun control here. The purported benefits of lax gun control really only shine through when almost everyone in a population owns a gun and knows how to use it, and I'm not sure that many people would go out and get a gun. I mean, it's not that difficult to get a gun now, and very few people have them.

I'm sure that most second amendment advocates are very responsible with their firearms and genuinely do just want them to defend themselves and their families, but that's just not the case for lots of people. Guns act as a major deterrent, but once that line is crossed a series of vendetta action is easily triggered to the massive detriment to the community. In for a penny, in for a pound.

I'm all for guarding against the tyranny of government, but at the same time, I worry that people forget that they do not live in a democracy but a republic. There are democratic principles, but you are governed by law, not the majority. You can't say that if a large number of armed citizens overthrow the government, then maybe that's what the people want. It doesn't even take nearly a majority of people to do that, it only takes a relatively small amount of people willing, and the rest of the population to be indifferent or with too little invested to defend the government. It's not the interests of the majority that govern our nations, because those interests are incredibly dangerous to the minorities who don't agree with the majority. Our nations are governed by the rule of law, which should be overturned by a bunch of armed citizens (well meaning though they may be) who think they know how to run the country correctly.

Obviously I don't think that a lack of gun control will somehow lead to an uprising, but Second Amendment advocates keep saying that guns are also for guarding against the tyranny of government. If everyone has guns than what do governments use to enforce the law? Tanks? We've vested in the government a relative monopoly on violence such that they may enforce the law of the republic.

There are some gun control laws that should just exist period. Like an assault weapons ban. You cannot claim to me you are going to use a submachine gun for self-defense. You are going to kill multiple people with something like that. Only the army should have those kinds of guns. There's nothing wrong with selling me a revolver to keep in my house though. Sure, I might decide to go out and shoot my friend in the head with it but we have laws for what to do to stop that. Also, the friend might just have his own revolver...

And of course you can sell me a rifle to go hunting with too if you like.
The fact of the matter is, people are going to kill people, guns or no. If I am just a raging maniac, then yeah, I'll pick up a knife and use it on you, or run you over with my car, or bloody well just get a gun illegally and kill you with it. When you force law-abiding people to refrain from having guns, it puts them at an unfair disadvantage when it comes to self-defense. That being said laws should still exist for firearm ownership, getting a liscense, background checks, and specific guidelines on what weapons are allowed, no shotguns or assaults or just mass-destruction guns like that.

But seriously, if you start arguing in favor of a lot of gun control, you have to argue for knife control and things like that too.

@ Thucydides: No shotguns? Please don't tell me I have to hunt ducks with a rifle.

Some places do have knife control (of sorts). In Australia switch-blades are illegal, for example.

Why hunt ducks at all if you can use the very same weapon to wound multiple people with one shot?

And i'm not saying you shouldn't have knife control laws at all, but what I am pointing out is that people everywhere have illegal weaponry, that just happens.

@ Thucydides: Wound multiple people with one shot...? This isn't Halo or Resident Evil... you might have some misconceptions on how a shotgun works.

I know that from a long ways away it can put pieces of metal into more than one body, because it has happened to a friend of mine and his friend.... sorry if you like your shotgun but my opinion is they are too dangerous for people to own, because sometimes people get pissed.
If you decided to open up on some people with a shotgun it is not going to be pretty.

Okay, if you use something with a large spread from a large distance, yes, you could hit more than 1 person in theory. Those shots wouldn't be lethal though unless a bizarre stroke of luck though (well, not luck, but whatever).

It wouldn't be pretty with any sort of gun, and quite frankly I'd rather have someone come into a school with a shotgun that will limit him to 5 slow shots with a slow reload time, as opposed to a pair of handguns with speed loaders.

Any gun is enough to kill someone when used for that purpose. Sure a shotgun can put a hole through someone's chest, but at that point it's just overkill. No reason to ban a tool just because it can kill someone when used improperly.

*Not to mention that you can't really conceal a shotgun well, you can take a pistol almost anywhere.

Empty distinctions about the American political system for the lose. I understand that you want us to know you passed your American Government class in high school, but really, it's not necessary.

Errr... does anyone else see that big black box in the middle of the thread? Nevermind, it's gone. Weird.

"The fact of the matter is, people are going to kill people, guns or no. If I am just a raging maniac, then yeah, I'll pick up a knife and use it on you, or run you over with my car, or bloody well just get a gun illegally and kill you with it."

Uh, perhaps people will always attack people, but death is not a very common result. At least not in any situation where you have time to pull out the gun that you have concealed and would be able to defend yourself as such. Obviously if someone really wanted to kill you, they wouldn't give you a fair chance to defend yourself. They would sneak up on you. Very few of us have to worry about someone actually trying to kill us... and even then we'd have to worry less if guns were hard to come by, it's a lot harder to sneak up on someone and slit their throat than it is to conceal a handgun and just shoot them. If someone really wanted to mug you, they'd make it so that it didn't matter if you had a gun on you because they would already have their barrel at your temple.

If you're in a situation where you have time to pull out a gun and pop a cap (or gesture threateningly) in whomever you're defending yourself from, then I'm not sure proliferation of firearms is a good idea either. You could just as easily use that time to hit 'em, run away, call the police, whatever it may be. These sorts of situations usually occur when the other person doesn't actually want to hurt you... whether they're burgling your house, or it's just a simple threat display at a bar. If you pull out a gun there's a much greater chance it will escalate because there's always the, "Gee, I better shoot before he shoots me. I can't be sure if he's serious or not, but can I take that chance?" Whipping the gun out turns the situation into a very dangerous Nash equilibrium with far more disastrous outcome than the worst likely case for not whipping out the gun and just handing over your wallet and then calling the police.

Owning a gun and carrying it concealed is not as practical for self defense as people might think. Especially if it's likely the other guy also has a gun. I can see why people might get hot over the issue because it's a right guaranteed by the Constitution, but seriously... that doesn't end the argument. There should be practical reasoning behind the policy as well. When ideological adherence flies in the face of the general wellbeing of the populace and the individual it should be scrapped.

Well there's my devil's advocate. I'm still on the fence, though I would definitely support at least minimal gun control. A gun just isn't a right, it's a responsibility. Guns should at least be regulated more than driver's licenses at a minimum.

I agree they should be regulated, but to say a specific type of firearm isn't allowed is ludicrous. There are lots of people who work outdoors in the brush who depend on the handguns they carry to protect them from animals (mostly snakes and that sort). There are hunters who use rifles, shotguns, pistols, even assault rifles (though I admit, it's dumb, but it's their choice). I have no problem if the government wants to interview me personally before they hand a FOID (Firearms Owner Identification) Card, but anyone who says that some types of firearms shouldn't be allowed are putting those who use firearms for the proper uses at risk.

@ Chrispminis, I can easily imagine a situation of tyranny by the majority, or a situation where the president makes himself a dictator, in which rebellion would be justified.

Chrisp - I just saw that box as well, but I scrolled off it and can't find it now. phpDip is being attacked by phantom rectangles!

Also @ Chrispminis, to the more recent post, I'd actually disagree about valuing practicality over ideology, at least when it comes to the Constitution. If you want to have an amendment that allows guns to be banned, go ahead, but if you assume that the Constitution legalizes guns, then they shouldn't be outlawed, no matter how impractical it is. Because once you decide that you can throw out the 2nd amendment because its impractical, you basically decide that the entire Constitution is a suggestion instead of a legal document, and then you've got problems.

@ zuzak, if you distribute implements of violence to the population and take away the monopoly of violence from the government and the law then you effectively have a tyranny by the majority, or at least the ones with better aim. Hell if people were actually less indifferent, guns permeated society, and rebellion was in order I can imagine and be very afraid of say, the Christian (not to disparage Christians, although some of you are SCARY) majority deciding that they don't like the way America is turning into a "heathen" country.

I would agree a rebellion is in order if the president somehow makes himself dictator and uses the power of an indifferent majority to perpetrate injustices, but it seems just as likely as the Christian revolution I brought up earlier. And honestly... if there's a dictator in power, then clearly he'd be suspending such rights, and would make the Second Amendment moot. He might even forcefully disarm everyone. Is such a right in a time of peace and freedom necessary? It seems the main use for such a right would exist only in a world where such rights would be revoked. So what's the use?

/Devil's Advocate