It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Should that right include military-style, automatic weapons that you only have to reload every 30 rounds?
I cannot say this enough. Gun bans DO NOT keep guns out of criminals' hands. If they are sick enough to kill, they are sick enough to steal a gun/ buy it illegally.
No it does not stop them from killing people. But it makes it harder for them to do it. I think it is very strange that it is actually legal with weapons in USA. If it is leagal, well of course people like this guy will find a weapon and kill someone! Weapons does not help, and the argument that someone feels secure with a weapon does not makes sense to me. Do as we in Europe and prohibit weapons once and for all and try to put a way the risk for letting those kind of things happen so often as they does!
If you go straight up to a gun and tell it to kill someone, do you think it will? NO. It is an inanimate object. Guns don't kill people. Evil, sick and twisted people do. They will do it no matter what it takes. Like I said above, if they are truly hellbent on killing someone, they will use any instrument that they can find.
Let's ban steak knifes. Hell, let's ban ice picks. Let's ban pointy sticks too! Let's ban anything that has even the slightest chance of harming anything!
God help us if the USA ever implements a full on ban of our 2nd amendment right.
I do understand. At least two of the victims escaped when the shooter had to stop to reload.
A knife or an ice pick or a pointy stick is different. They demand close hand-to-hand combat. People have a fair chance to get away from those weapons. Not an AK-15, which he used to mow people down.
There is no--repeat NO--conceivable civilian purpose for an assault weapon.
I understand your second amendment concerns. But they really should be balanced against the Declaration of Independence's "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness."
Make people reload. Ban assault weapons, as occurred in 1994-2004.
I suggest the title be changed to 12 victims as that seem to be the case and not 15
Would you still go watch Bond at midnight after this incident in October in London?
Like somebody else said, that's a pretty stupid argument. Murderers are sick enough to murder, so, may as well make it legal right? Rape is illegal but there are still rapists in the world, so let's just make it legal!
This.
"There's no such thing as heroes, John, and if there were I wouldn't be one."
ONCE MORE keep the 007 chatter out of here, discussions about what or who he is have no place. Unless you blame him for this bloodbath.
Make another thread on this subject it is unrespectfull considering the title of this thread to talk your BS/opinions about 007. There is plenty space somewhere else.
One of the reasons that guns are popular among a certain "type" of people is that they instantly confer an almost magical power that the person doesn't have to earn. As someone said above banning steak knives and ice picks is a ludicrous argument because you can't mow down 70 people with them.
In addition to that simple and very obvious fact is this - if someone comes at me with a steak knife - assuming that I can't get away - then he has to confront me directly and physically and I have a fighting chance (to be fair I'm better able to do that then, say, a 60 year old). If he tries to attack a 6 year old with the steak knife I can intervene - but if he has a gun he just shoots me and then the 6 year old.
The thing that makes guns so dangerously alluring is that you could be a very physically wimpy person who is angry at being picked on all your life (or under-employed, or ignored by women - really, it doesn't matter why) and then you have this magic ability to kill people from a distance away, and several of them at once to boot. To give a disturbed personality that level of wish-fulfillment to do violence is mind-boggling.
I was raised in an extremely right-wing, pro-gun family. I used to go hunting and quite enjoy it. My father, a cop, kept a loaded shotgun beside his bed in case of a break-in at night. But as I've gotten older the idea of handguns and assault rifles being available to the general public seems increasingly stupid to me. If you want to go hunting you use a rifle or shotgun. If you want to protect your home you should use a shotgun (the shot will take someone down but will be stopped by walls; even a .22 handgun or rifle can have the bullet pass through walls and injure another person in the house or even on the street!). To make assault rifles available to just anyone is unbelievable and those who have an almost mythical attachment to the 2nd amendment really can't see the forest for the trees. At what point should a certain type of weapon not be allowed? Should you be able to keep a flamethrower? A rocket propelled grenade launcher? A nuclear weapon?
Sometimes people become so attached to an idea that it becomes an integral part of their personal identity, such as blind adherence to the 2nd amendment. It sometimes helps to think if it had never existed, and we were debating creating it today - if we had never heard about it beforehand then what would our thoughts be about it? Would it seem like a good idea or bad idea?
Stupid bastard.
I would be happy to entertain him
....like THIS
The 2nd Amendmen begins "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The words "regulated" and "militia" are within the first sentence! And yet we've twisted this into a right to a free-for -all where the government has no role.
Secondly, this was written at time before there were streetlights, let alone AK-47's and other asault weapons.
Can we start by admiting that some parts of the Constitution are antiquated? And the founders, knowing that the times and technology would change, put in language that would insure the document would survive by allowing it to be interpreted differently and amended?
And please come back when you have thought a bit more about your reasoning concerning guncontrol. And not just come up with these old and unjustifiable goobledigook you call reasons for guns. O:-)
So you're for mental health checks for gun buyers? How about preventing people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns?
The NRA is against both of these checks on people who would buy guns.
Your tired cliche isn't a reason. It's a greeting card slogan.
The same reasoning can be used to argue for the legalization of so-called "dirty bombs" or even nuclear bombs. I can see the NRA's ad campain now: "Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people."
As I said earlier in this thread, if you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States.
We had 32,000 gun deaths last year. They had 112.
Why is that? Is it because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws?
In 2001: A Space Odyssey, mankind receives its first gift of increased intelligence from extraterrestrials in the form of the talent to put stones and sticks to good use. In a remarkable prelude to the many wars history will record in shame, the very first use of such a tool is to knock out a competitor near a pool of water.
Also, despite Star Trek's clear message of peace and order, the Enterprise is equipped with various forms of weaponry. And as for the Jedi in Star Wars, the keepers of peace in the galaxy, they seem well trained in the arts of fighting and their tool, the lightsaber, is one dangerous killing tool I dare say.
Obviously, problems occur when weapons fall into the wrong hands. We see it repeated time and again. In my country, Belgium, one doesn't obtain guns that easily, at least legally, and somehow I welcome that. However, I'm well aware that some people obtain guns illegally and thus have the ability to shoot me without any fear that I might draw a gun and shoot first. Also, fire arms can be made forbidden, but what about other weapons? Any gardening tool might do in close range combat. Presumably even the knowledge I present to my pupils during my chemistry classes might do. If they really wanted to and they put two and two together, they could build some nasty chemical weapons, ranging from explosives all the way to toxic gasses and whathaveyou. I am quite able to take home certain substances from our school lab and poison whomever I wanted to poison. I'm afraid any of us, one way or another, is familiar with tools, substances or other things that could be made into effective killing devices.
And so once again we can only hope that this loss of humans is compensated by an increase in humanity. We can only hope that folks feel so horrified after these dreadful events that they make it their business to never let it happen again. How? We each have our contributions to make. Parents need to teach their children. Teachers need to instruct their pupils. Politicians need to stimulate the good in all of us, and so on.
2.) No.
What he said. Finally someone with some sense on here.
A wise man once said "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." So if a maniac with a gun like the Joker from Colorado invades my house, am I just supposed to let him? I'm supposed to let him kill me? NO! I use my gun to defend myself. Eye for an eye, my friend.
The Bill of Rights uses the word militia, yes, but it doesn't mean military only. If lawfully minded citizens have guns, they can assemble to defend themselves against invaders or protect themselves. The Constitution isn't negotiable. It is set in stone and should never be changed. That's the way it was written, and that's the way it should/will stay.
Really? So if I put a gun down on the ground, it's going to kill? The gun's alone, not being touched by anyone or anything but the ground, so it's going to kill?
How so did I admit that guns kill? I clearly remember saying that the person with the gun kills. Does the hammer that you beat someone to death with kill the person, or do you do it? Are you suddenly not responsible just because you used a tool to kill?
Anybody who truly wants something can get their hands on anything. It doesn't matter how it got into his hands. It may be a valid question, but the answer ultimately doesn't matter.
You're going to have to explain to me when I said this. I've fired a gun, I know it doesn't take much skill. The only time I've fired a gun, I was almost dead center each time. No one - NO ONE - said it took a lot of skill.
Anybody who watches people drive knows that there are people who ignore the speed limits and get away with it every single day. Yes, regulations concerning guns should be improved upon.
I am for mental health checks for gun buyers, and don't see why that's a problem. Shouldn't I be concerned about the batsh*t psycho with the gun collection as large as a grocery store? Shouldn't I be?!
And... um... shouldn't we stop people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns? I kinda thought that was common sense. Why exactly is my tired cliche a "greeting card slogan"?
Explain to me how this was unjustifiable. Explain that. Right now.
At the moment, they aren't killing anyone. Besides, I'm very against nuclear weapons.
As has been mentioned before: gun control laws don't stop killers from getting guns.
Wow, where do I begin? So much ignorance, so little time.
How about the fact that you say the Constitution shouldn't be changed, yet you site the Bill of Rights, which was, in fact, a change to the Constitution. The "Bill of Rights", as it's commonly called, is in fact the first 10 amendments to the Constituion. Amendments, my friend, are changes or additions to the original document we call the Constitution. Your right to own a gun is actually not in the constitution and you would not have that right if the Constitution was not changed, or added to, to give you that right.
But the Constitution shouldn't be changed, so we better take away your gun.
And while we're at it, let's take away a women's right to vote (19th amendment).
And slavery - gotta bring that back 'cause it's clearly ok with the Constitution. Only the 13th amendment prohibits that and we can't go changing the Constitution!
Forget being protected against cruel and unusual punishment, or privacy, or a trial by a jury of your peers.
And president Obama can keep serving as president so long as he keeps winning elections, because it's only the 22nd amendment that prohibits someone from serving more than 2 terms.
You are also ok with african-americans and other "non-whites" only counting as 3/5 of a person, right? Because you're such a fan of the Constitution, you know that in Article One, Clause 3, it says: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
But that can't possibly be antiquated, can it?
Gimme a break.
The NRA is against both mental health checks and keeping terrorist watch listed people from buying guns. So you have a stricter stance (i.e. greater gun control) than the NRA?
We have police for a reason, to protect us. They were there within one minute of the psycho's attack in the theater. Think how many lives would have been saved if he had had to reload after five or ten shots instead of having an AK-15 in his hands.
Yes, I do feel we need better gun control than the NRA, but I do still think people deserve the right to defend themselves, within reason (If a guy's breaking into your house, and there's little other choice, shoot him; if a guy's walking down the street in front of your house - HE DOESN'T NEED TO DIE).
I am, however, trying to understand what his reload ratio has anything to do with anything at the moment. Yeah, if he'd had to reload after 5 or 10 shots instead of having an AR-15, far more lives would have been saved, I hope.
You said the Constitution is antiquated, right? Let me clarify what I meant by the above, as I now realize I wasn't specific enough for you to understand. The Constitution AS IT IS TODAY isn't antiquated. I do not feel that, AS IT STANDS NOW, in 2012, it should be changed. What is in the Constitution RIGHT NOW, IN 2012, I feel is the way it should be. If they want to add an amendment, good luck in doing so, as it is very hard to add one. The last one was #27 in 1992.
I love my guns and my right to bear arms. Going to the shooting range is one of my favorite pastimes. F*** me, I must be a homicidal maniac, amirite? Just because some Joker abuses his right, doesn't mean I should lose mine. All it means is that he loses his, and rightfully so. Rule number one of firearm safety is do not point a gun at anything you aren't prepared to rightfully harm. Anyone who breaks that rule doesn't deserve to keep their right.
What I am sick of is people like you, who want to take away freedom from the good people of the U.S.A. Did you hear about that idiot Mayor Bloomberg who wants to ban soft drinks? That pisses me off. It is not the government's job to tell us what we can and can't drink. If the government has the right to take away a simple little freedom like soda, what can't they do? At what point are people going to realize that all these stupid bans are taking away our freedom?
It's terrible what this Joker did to the people of Aurora, CO. People like him who abuse their right to bear arms deserve to rot in hell. People like him make us, good spirited gun owners who use guns for sports, hate people like him because people like you, Grinderman, will now look at "The Joker" and assume all gun owners are carbon copies of him. Anti- gun people see The Joker and assume all gun owners are maniacal and out for blood. THEY AREN'T.
Like I said some pages back, I usually try to avoid arguments here on MI6, but I am glad I was able to bring another perspective into this very heavily pro- gun control thread.
TGJB
P.S. I am done with this thread, as I feel it has gotten way out of hand.
In my opinion the USA gunlaws are totaly crazy, there are far too little regulations and gun posession is OTT. This is something that can never be turned back. That means that the total amount of weapons out there will remain a large risk for its own population. I do hope that some stuff will be changed for the future otherwise larger accidents are bound to happen and while tragic it will be unavoidable.