Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Reply To Thread

Hand gun vs Chemical WeaponFollow

#1 Dec 04 2012 at 9:15 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Serious question...... If the U.S. supports the right to own and bear arms and don't believe that guns kill people, that people kill people, then why does the U.S. have such an invested interest in the weapon ******* of other countries?
#2 Dec 04 2012 at 9:23 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
Hey if people kill people and you know that the people (read government) of another country hated your ***, would you want them owning any weapons that can be used against you? If the military strengths of the countries were reversed they would be doing the exact same thing to us.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#3 Dec 04 2012 at 9:27 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,720 posts
Individuals will always find a way to kill other individuals, and governments have an inherent right to defend their sovereignty. Using chemical weapons on your own citizens or the citizens of another country absolutely cannot be compared to individual gun ownership. That you would try to compare the two in the same discussion illustrates the totality of your ignorance.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#4 Dec 04 2012 at 9:35 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

Although notably, Syria is one of the few non-signatories.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#5 Dec 04 2012 at 9:52 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Individuals will always find a way to kill other individuals, and governments have an inherent right to defend their sovereignty. Using chemical weapons on your own citizens or the citizens of another country absolutely cannot be compared to individual gun ownership. That you would try to compare the two in the same discussion illustrates the totality of your ignorance.


You didn't answer the question. You are already assuming that possessing those weapons yields to using them in a malicious manner. Is it improbable to own those weapons for merely safety or science?

Don't confuse your lack of conceptual thinking with ignorance.
#6 Dec 04 2012 at 9:57 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
I was thinking something similar earlier when they were harping about Syria on the news. God forbid they have and use chemical weapons, but it's fine and dandy to mow each other down with guns like civilized folk, right?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#7 Dec 05 2012 at 12:35 AM Rating: Good
******
21,720 posts
Debalic wrote:
I was thinking something similar earlier when they were harping about Syria on the news. God forbid they have and use chemical weapons, but it's fine and dandy to mow each other down with guns like civilized folk, right?

It's not OK to mow down their own people either, but chemical warfare is a class above and beyond. I won't pretend to understand the intricacies of the Syrian conflict or the intentions of its government, but the use of chemical weapons on its own people (or others) would transform the Syrian government into a terrorist state in the eyes of many that do not already consider it so.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#8 Dec 05 2012 at 1:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,393 posts
Debalic wrote:
God forbid they have and use chemical weapons, but it's fine and dandy to mow each other down with guns like civilized folk, right?
With guns(and to some degree, even bombs), you can at least pretend you're trying to only kill enemy combatants. With chemical weapons, you're pretty much openly and unapologetically killing everyone who happens to be in an area.
#9 Dec 05 2012 at 1:11 AM Rating: Good
**
589 posts
With people coming with guns and you hear the fighting start you can at least try to get the **** out the way. Chem weapons by the time you notice them it's already to late.
____________________________
.
#10 Dec 05 2012 at 1:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Chem weapons stockpiles typically signals civilian cleansings rather than the more typical shooting dissidents, which means you catch a lot of more or less innocent people.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#11 Dec 05 2012 at 1:39 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
It just seems like splitting hairs to me. And chem is so much more efficient...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#12 Dec 05 2012 at 1:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Debalic wrote:
It just seems like splitting hairs to me. And chem is so much more efficient...


U731-DDBs are even more efficient. Roughly 4 times as efficient as a little boy.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#14 Dec 05 2012 at 6:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Serious question...... If the U.S. supports the right to own and bear arms and don't believe that guns kill people, that people kill people, then why does the U.S. have such an invested interest in the weapon ******* of other countries?

The US Constitution allows for the right to bear arms, the US doesn't believe anything. No where in any constitution, law, statute or ruling will you see any such statement about the US believing that guns don't kill people. Smiley: rolleyes

Furthermore, do you really need to ask why any government might have an interest in any other governments ********

Stupid statement, stupid question. What is the real point of discussion you're trying to get at?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#15 Dec 05 2012 at 6:30 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Almalieque wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Individuals will always find a way to kill other individuals, and governments have an inherent right to defend their sovereignty. Using chemical weapons on your own citizens or the citizens of another country absolutely cannot be compared to individual gun ownership. That you would try to compare the two in the same discussion illustrates the totality of your ignorance.


You didn't answer the question. You are already assuming that possessing those weapons yields to using them in a malicious manner. Is it improbable to own those weapons for merely safety or science?
It's certainly possible. Would you as a world leader risk your country on the possibility?

Quote:
Don't confuse your lack of conceptual thinking with ignorance.
But what do you mean?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#16 Dec 05 2012 at 6:33 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Oh wait our judges are already starting to do that.
Thanks to the more liberal portion of your political system, judges can NOT decide who has to have babies.

Quote:
Well at least we aren't being forced to place govn microchips in our bodies yet.
You sure?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#17 Dec 05 2012 at 6:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
I'll tell you what's going on in Syria Christians are being slaughtered by the ruling muslims. But because Christians are being mass murdered you aren't hearing about it.


Cite?

Quote:
We're living out 1984.


The only people I'm aware of that are burning books are Christians.

Quote:
Whats next do judge's start controlling reproductive rights? Oh wait our judges are already starting to do that.


Only people I'm aware of that want to restrict reproductive rights are Conservatives.

Quote:
Well at least we aren't being forced to place govn microchips in our bodies yet.


But much like the child leash, microchiping your children could be another way Americans take the lessons they've learned from pet care & apply it to lazy child rearing.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#19 Dec 05 2012 at 8:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Who in Syria is mass murdering Christians? The Rebals, whom we "support", or Assad? I do not know if it is happening & if it is, do not know who is perpetuating it. If you do know & would like to discuss it, please provide a cite.

Quote:
I suppose you prefer the muslim way of burning the infidel alive.


I don't support anyone being killed for their religious beliefs, regardless of how they are killed.

Quote:
We're living out 1984.


Have you read 1984? What's going on, & where, that you think is Orwellian? Be specific.

Quote:
Whats next do judge's start controlling reproductive rights? Oh wait our judges are already starting to do that.


Again, I inferred Roe v Wade is the precedent for reproductive rights, so anyone who wanted to change it was probably a conservative, which I think you identify as? If that is the case, i believe your outrage at judges "starting" to control reproductive rights is directed at liberal judges & I am aware of no liberal judges attempting to recently "control reproductive rights". If there are, I'd love a cite so I could read all about it.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#20 Dec 05 2012 at 8:28 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,887 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
A small dose of common sense couldn't hurt either.
Then why do you avoid it like the plague?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#21 Dec 05 2012 at 9:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Omegavegeta wrote:
Have you read 1984?

I saw the one Mac commercial with the girl and the hammer. That has to count for something.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#22 Dec 05 2012 at 9:18 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
I assumed ol crazy was just referencing the year 1984. Figured it was that ground-hog time he keeps replaying in his head as the year his illustrious basketball career crashed...or something equally traunmatic.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#23 Dec 05 2012 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Individuals will always find a way to kill other individuals, and governments have an inherent right to defend their sovereignty. Using chemical weapons on your own citizens or the citizens of another country absolutely cannot be compared to individual gun ownership.

Of course it can. There is nothing "magic" about chemical weapons. They aren't outlawed because of the horror of them, they're outlawed because they are cheap and can level the playing field for poorer countries in conflict with richer ones. The idea that it's "worse" to die from mustard gas or whatever than to die from a bomb firing robot is an idiotic self serving construct of the powerful.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#24 Dec 05 2012 at 9:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,431 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Serious question...... If the U.S. supports the right to own and bear arms and don't believe that guns kill people, that people kill people, then why does the U.S. have such an invested interest in the weapon ******* of other countries?


It's a political excuse to take over more of the middle east.

Smiley: tinfoilhat
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#25 Dec 05 2012 at 6:13 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Elinda wrote:
The US Constitution allows for the right to bear arms,


and? You do realize that we can amend the constitution, kinda like we've done in the past? Given the fact this was created during a time where the US firepower consisted of a militia, it kind of made sense to allow all persons to bear arms. Since we have the most powerful military in the world, that reasoning is no longer valid.

Elinda wrote:
the US doesn't believe anything.


Soooooo. the constitution wrote itself? It wasn't composed by personnel who BELIEVED that everyone should be able to bear arms?

Elinda wrote:
No where in any constitution, law, statute or ruling will you see any such statement about the US believing that guns don't kill people


I understand that you're intentionally trying to be obtuse, but unless you want to argue that isn't what gun supporters believe, you have no point.

Elinda wrote:
Stupid statement, stupid question. What is the real point of discussion you're trying to get at?


I guess a concept that you can't grasp. The concept against hand guns is the same exact argument used against chemical weapons. I'm not arguing that the two are the same, but you have to be consistent in your arguments. Just like with SSM, it's not the end result that I care about, but how you get there.

Elinda wrote:
It's certainly possible. Would you as a world leader risk your country on the possibility?


What risk? You are assuming that just because a person has a tool that can kill more effectively, that they will use it. How is that logic wrong with hand guns but ok with chemical weapons?

Elinda wrote:
But what do you mean?


Read above
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 42 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (42)