I thought guns had been banned from National parks?

imported post

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NATIONAL_PARKS_SUICIDES?SITE=MOSTP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT





Looks like a ban did not work.

imported post

Yeah, well, allot of people thought that assault stylerifles had been banned for awhile, too. NOT

Murder and theft are also suppose to be banned. That hasn't been working out to well either.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

Murder and theft are also suppose to be banned. That hasn't been working out to well either.

Click to expand...

Better do away with those laws after you do away with the park ban. Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite.:quirky

Click to expand...

The major difference is that murder and theft are acts perpetrated by an individual(s) against a victim(s).

Where as gun bans are effected against inanimate objects, which can do nothing on their own, therefore they cannot victimize anyone or anything.

It makes more sense to ban a behavior than an object.

imported post

Gordie wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

Murder and theft are also suppose to be banned. That hasn't been working out to well either.

Click to expand...

Better do away with those laws after you do away with the park ban. Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite.:quirky

Click to expand...

The major difference is that murder and theft are acts perpetrated by an individual(s) against a victim(s).

Where as gun bans are effected against inanimate objects, which can do nothing on their own, therefore they cannot victimize anyone or anything.

It makes more sense to ban a behavior than an object.

Click to expand...

if only one of awdstylez professors had told him about corpus delicti or locus standi instead of karlus marxi

imported post

Gordie wrote:

The major difference is that murder and theft are acts perpetrated by an individual(s) against a victim(s).

Where as gun bans are effected against inanimate objects, which can do nothing on their own, therefore they cannot victimize anyone or anything.

It makes more sense to ban a behavior than an object.

Click to expand...

The logic is the same. Laws don't stop bad people. Bad people will be bad people no matter what. Laws stop "on the fence" people. Someone breaking a law doesn't make the law useless.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Gordie wrote:

The major difference is that murder and theft are acts perpetrated by an individual(s) against a victim(s).

Where as gun bans are effected against inanimate objects, which can do nothing on their own, therefore they cannot victimize anyone or anything.

It makes more sense to ban a behavior than an object.

Click to expand...

The logic is the same. Laws don't stop bad people. Bad people will be bad people no matter what. Laws stop "on the fence" people. Someone breaking a law doesn't make the law useless.

Click to expand...

But taking away the means to defend oneself from those bad people is not logical at all,which is all that is accomplished by gun bans. Bad behavior should be punished, possession of a tool which can be used for good as well as bad should be a non-issue. It is the behavior of the person that determines if the tool is used for good or bad.

If you can't understand the difference, then I can't help you.:banghead:

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

...SNIP

Click to expand...

Yes or no, shouldnuclearexplosivesbe readily available at Walmart? What's your pro/con analysis of that situation?They're a tool that can be used for good or bad, just like a gun.SNIP...

Click to expand...

Holly .... Ever hear of a "Daisy cutter"? By your standards we should prohibit sales of gasoline and ignition sources.So what if people need to run equipment and light fires for legitimate reasons. How about fertilizer and fuel oil, my god that needs to be closely watched, remember Oklahoma City? So what if people need to raise crops with fertilizer, and power machinery with fuel oil. Oh my, did you know that people can buy black powder in bulk!! WOW! There are civilians that actually own cannons! The horror ... my god think of the children....

You really need to get out more. There are missile silos all over the mid west each containing multiple warheads. They are not located on military bases, they are located in farm fields. Why go to Walmart when anyone who wants one can just take from the few people on guard. But why bother, just go to Russia and buy one.

But as usual your question emanates from a flawed starting point. A Bomb is just that ...a bomb. It is a weapon of mass destruction without any peaceful purpose unless you considergenocide a peaceful purpose. It is actually very much a single purpose item, and it is the height of hyperbola and gratuity to compare it to firearms ownership on any scale. The fact is that radioactive materials ARE sold in Walmart. They just do not contain a fissionable volume of material. I suppose a person could buy enough watches and build a bomb, and maybe set it off with a microwave oven.

You really do have an unreasonable fear of the world and everyone in it. Perhaps you should seek help.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Yes or no, shouldnuclearexplosivesbe readily available at Walmart? What's your pro/con analysis of that situation?They're a tool that can be used for good or bad, just like a gun.So don't go off-topic, just answer the questions.

Click to expand...

OK, with out going off topic, the common sense answer would be NO.

Now, if we were to ban every item that Walmart sold in it's stores that could be used as a tool for good OR BAD, we'd elliminate at least 3/4 of all the merchandise found in the store.

AWD, it seems that you rarely failed to come up with the most non-senseical responses in these forums. I'm willing to give youthe benefit of the doubt, that you are attempting to play "devils advocate"in providing the rest of us a source of mental exercise. If I'm wrong, then man, you reeeeeeeally need help.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Gordie wrote:

But taking away the means to defend oneself from those bad people is not logical at all, which is all that is accomplished by gun bans.  Bad behavior should be punished, possession of a tool which can be used for good as well as bad should be a non-issue.  It is the behavior of the person that determines if the tool is used for good or bad.

If you can't understand the difference, then I can't help you.:banghead:

Click to expand...

 

Yes or no, should nuclear explosives be readily available at Walmart?  What's your pro/con analysis of that situation?  They're a tool that can be used for good or bad, just like a gun.  So don't go off-topic, just answer the questions. 

Click to expand...

Why shouldn't they be allowed? It's not like the average WalMart customer can afford Nuclear explosives. So, allowed or not, they won't be for sale in WalMart. :quirky

Once again you give government credit for things which society and markets accomplish all on their own.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Gordie wrote:

But taking away the means to defend oneself from those bad people is not logical at all,which is all that is accomplished by gun bans. Bad behavior should be punished, possession of a tool which can be used for good as well as bad should be a non-issue. It is the behavior of the person that determines if the tool is used for good or bad.

If you can't understand the difference, then I can't help you.:banghead:

Click to expand...

Yes or no, shouldnuclearexplosivesbe readily available at Walmart? What's your pro/con analysis of that situation?They're a tool that can be used for good or bad, just like a gun.So don't go off-topic, just answer the questions.

Click to expand...

It's official, you're beyond help.:what:

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

Murder and theft are also suppose to be banned. That hasn't been working out to well either.

Click to expand...

Better do away with those laws after you do away with the park ban. Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite.:quirky

Click to expand...

:uhoh: The stupidity of this statement is mind boggling

There is good reason why murder and theft are illegal as they are crimes against others. But trolling is trolling I guess. Best to derail every thread you possibly can. Right?

imported post

I'm not convinced that our current approach to alcohol use (very broadly, at a societal level, including related functions of government), actually does anything to, say, reduce traffic fatalities due to drunk driving.

Simply put, we demand and thus encourage compliance, and true responsibility becomes increasingly ignored and forgotten.

Once again you give government credit for things for which society is responsible, both for good and for bad.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Drunk driving is a victimless crime. Are you suggesting it be made legal simply because it isn't a crime against anyone? Thereare suchthingsas deterrence and prevention.

Click to expand...

Drunk driving is a victemless crime... until they run into another vehicle causing injury/deathor run over a pedestrian, or cause damage to another persons property.

imported post

Sound's an aweful lot like "we should take away all guns because they they could be used to shoot someone".

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

/users/1564.html/users/1564.html

Click to expand...

hsmith wrote:

:uhoh: The stupidity of this statement is mind boggling

There is good reason why murder and theft are illegal as they are crimes against others. But trolling is trolling I guess. Best to derail every thread you possibly can. Right?

Click to expand...

Let me explain this for the millionth time, because the trolling accusations only make the accusers sound like idiots (so you might be interested in this)...

Things get posted on the board to be DISCUSSED. That means more than one line of opinion needs to be present and argued. If you don't like having anyone disagree with you, ever, maybe try http://www.strokeeachotheralldaylongforums.com.



Drunk driving is a victimless crime. Are you suggesting it be made legal simply because it isn't a crime against anyone? Thereare suchthingsas deterrence and prevention.

Click to expand...

It is nothing about not disagreeing with you.

It is about making stupid statements equating the infringing of other peoples rights (murder, rape, theft) to lax firearm laws.

But, that wouldn't further the purpose of derailing every thread you post in, like this one.

So, keep up the good work of trying to destroy these forums with your inane comments, I am sure you find pleasure in it.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

...under the OC.org extremist logic,we should have a right to keep and to bear them, correct? If you trust ANYONE with a gun, why don't you trust anyone with a nuke? I guess it's all a matter of degree and you have to take it to that extreme degree to expose the hypocrisy of the whole thing. Letting any retard own and carry a gun wherever they want isn't likely to effect you (that it might effect others doesn't matter to you, I'm learning that more and more), so you're ok with that degree of"trading safety for freedom", but letting any old idiot own a nuclear bomb has a significant chance of effecting you, so that's where you draw the risk/reward freedom line.

Click to expand...

Y'all through with this one yet?

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

FogRider wrote:

Sound's an aweful lot like "we should take away all guns because they they could be used to shoot someone".

Click to expand...

Nope. People don't want guns readily available to anyone for the same reason you don't want nukes readily available to anyone. Nukes are an "arm", therefore, under the OC.org extremist logic,we should have a right to keep and to bear them, correct? If you trust ANYONE with a gun, why don't you trust anyone with a nuke? I guess it's all a matter of degree and you have to take it to that extreme degree to expose the hypocrisy of the whole thing. Letting any retard own and carry a gun wherever they want isn't likely to effect you (that it might effect others doesn't matter to you, I'm learning that more and more), so you're ok with that degree of"trading safety for freedom", but letting any old idiot own a nuclear bomb has a significant chance of effecting you, so that's where you draw the risk/reward freedom line.

Click to expand...

Mr. Stylez, What is it exactly that you are advocating? Aside from simply arguing with people that is.I can't really tell if you are in agreement with the National Park ban or not.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

buster81 wrote:

Click to expand...

I'm against the national park ban. We can agree on this.

Click to expand...

I'm so sick of hearing people talk about unlimited rights and completely unrestrictedweapon ownership Where would you draw this line? Handguns, rifles and shotguns?What about "assault rifles"? Are those on the banned side of the list of the ok side? What about anything over X caliber?

Click to expand...

Just trying to see what is ok to own and what is not.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

That's why I AM a supporter of licensing, training, and qualifications. You want to own an Abrams tank? That's fine with me, but first you need to be certified as being competent in it's practical and legal use, and obviously pass all the common sense background checks and such.

Click to expand...

I just want to own a few guns. Do I need to pass a test for those?