Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

unclejessie    

no avatar Level 26 Comments: Peasant
Online
Send mail to unclejessie Block unclejessie Invite unclejessie to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:3/31/2012
Last Login:7/31/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Thumbs: 78 total,  153 ,  75
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/1)
Level 26 Comments: Peasant → Level 27 Comments: Peasant
Subscribers:0
Total Comments Made:115
FJ Points:76

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

user favorites

latest user's comments

#2967 - **unclejessie rolled image ** 06/05/2014 on What you got arrested for 0
#81 - I think you are avoiding acknowledging the inherent contradict…  [+] (1 new reply) 03/06/2014 on spoons make people fat. 0
#82 - facepalmftw (03/07/2014) [-]
I do. But I believe that overall restrictions should be as low as possible. Yes, I understand the potential damage a Stinger missile can cause. But I also understand the potential destruction an automobile, drunk person, or light airplane can cause.
#79 - So are you advocating there should be no regulation on the ava…  [+] (3 new replies) 03/06/2014 on spoons make people fat. 0
#80 - facepalmftw (03/06/2014) [-]
I'm saying that just because there's no rioting in the streets, doesn't make a law right. Likewise, just because some people riot in the streets doesn't mean a law is inherently evil.
#81 - unclejessie (03/06/2014) [-]
I think you are avoiding acknowledging the inherent contradiction that lies in the mainstream advocating for gun rights.

Let me try it a different way.

Do you support the concept that an individual's access to different weapons should have different levels of scrutiny ie: a pistol vs a stinger missile?
#82 - facepalmftw (03/07/2014) [-]
I do. But I believe that overall restrictions should be as low as possible. Yes, I understand the potential damage a Stinger missile can cause. But I also understand the potential destruction an automobile, drunk person, or light airplane can cause.
#77 - I did not know that and I agree 100% with you on all your poin…  [+] (5 new replies) 03/06/2014 on spoons make people fat. 0
#78 - facepalmftw (03/06/2014) [-]
There are many widely accepted concepts that are only that because of their existence. In the middle ages it was widely accepted that the earth was flat, before that it was widely accepted that the earth was the center of the universe. That never made them right. Slavery was a widely accepted concept in our nation's early history. For a long time noone was screaming for it's removal. Did these facts make slavery any more justified in the human rights sense?
#79 - unclejessie (03/06/2014) [-]
So are you advocating there should be no regulation on the availability of any weapon?
#80 - facepalmftw (03/06/2014) [-]
I'm saying that just because there's no rioting in the streets, doesn't make a law right. Likewise, just because some people riot in the streets doesn't mean a law is inherently evil.
#81 - unclejessie (03/06/2014) [-]
I think you are avoiding acknowledging the inherent contradiction that lies in the mainstream advocating for gun rights.

Let me try it a different way.

Do you support the concept that an individual's access to different weapons should have different levels of scrutiny ie: a pistol vs a stinger missile?
#82 - facepalmftw (03/07/2014) [-]
I do. But I believe that overall restrictions should be as low as possible. Yes, I understand the potential damage a Stinger missile can cause. But I also understand the potential destruction an automobile, drunk person, or light airplane can cause.
#75 - Again.....don't get all crazy with the slippery slope argument…  [+] (7 new replies) 03/04/2014 on spoons make people fat. 0
#76 - facepalmftw (03/05/2014) [-]
You can, in fact own claymores and grenades (and probably Stingers too), you just need the right approval. A class-3 license lets you have fully automatic weapons. I could legally own a 20mm autocannon if it is properly registered and I have a class-3 license.

Remember that the "arms" the founding fathers had in mind were the same weapons the military used. Pistols, muskets, even cannon were privately owned. MY argument is that if someone wants to buy an M1 Abrams tank, there should be nothing to stop them. If they proceed to kill someone, there should be nothing stopping the Air Force from dropping a paveway on said tank. In court, persons are assumed innocent of any crime until it is PROVEN that they committed any crime. Why should we deny our citizens anything on the basis that they COULD use it badly?
#77 - unclejessie (03/06/2014) [-]
I did not know that and I agree 100% with you on all your points. However, it does proves my point. The degree to which certain arms are allowed to be owned is something that should always be up for debate and discussion. This point is far too often misrepresented, purposely or not, by the gun rights advocates, as the wholesale banning of all arms. The fact that the masses aren't screaming that their second amendment rights are being violated when because they have to pass more strict and thorough background checks to own a claymore, grenade, tanks....etc tells me that this is a widely accepted concept.
#78 - facepalmftw (03/06/2014) [-]
There are many widely accepted concepts that are only that because of their existence. In the middle ages it was widely accepted that the earth was flat, before that it was widely accepted that the earth was the center of the universe. That never made them right. Slavery was a widely accepted concept in our nation's early history. For a long time noone was screaming for it's removal. Did these facts make slavery any more justified in the human rights sense?
#79 - unclejessie (03/06/2014) [-]
So are you advocating there should be no regulation on the availability of any weapon?
#80 - facepalmftw (03/06/2014) [-]
I'm saying that just because there's no rioting in the streets, doesn't make a law right. Likewise, just because some people riot in the streets doesn't mean a law is inherently evil.
#81 - unclejessie (03/06/2014) [-]
I think you are avoiding acknowledging the inherent contradiction that lies in the mainstream advocating for gun rights.

Let me try it a different way.

Do you support the concept that an individual's access to different weapons should have different levels of scrutiny ie: a pistol vs a stinger missile?
#82 - facepalmftw (03/07/2014) [-]
I do. But I believe that overall restrictions should be as low as possible. Yes, I understand the potential damage a Stinger missile can cause. But I also understand the potential destruction an automobile, drunk person, or light airplane can cause.
#73 - I am infact a gun owner. When I bought my gun, there was absol…  [+] (9 new replies) 03/02/2014 on spoons make people fat. 0
#74 - facepalmftw (03/03/2014) [-]
You misread "violent crime" as "gun crime" whit regard to England. Before we continue, can we agree that there is contention as to what the Second Amendment protects exactly? It involves weapons, but what weapons, and how they're used, is a point of dispute? Okay, good. Now, knowing that, why don't we start by banning something that has no Constitutional ground? Does the Bill of Rights mention swimming pools? What about personal transportation? Does the Constitution currently mention alcohol?
#75 - unclejessie (03/04/2014) [-]
Again.....don't get all crazy with the slippery slope argument. No one is banning swimming pool and no one is banning "guns" as a whole . The degree to which access, by law, is allowed is a valid discussion everyone should take seriously. Now, we arent allowed to own stinger missiles, claymore mines or grenades. Why aren't your constitutional rights being violated in those cases? My argument is that At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the cutting edge of weapons technology was a single-shot musket. Now, being that no one is making the ridiculous argument that you should only be allowed to own a single-shot musket because the founding fathers had no idea what a AR-15 was and therefore by "arms" they must have meant a single-shot musket and pistol. Logic leads me to believe that we all agree laws needed to be able to adapted as the technology changes. The degree by which "arms" are available and which ones aren't is, and should always be, up for debate, but not the wholesale banning of all arms.
#76 - facepalmftw (03/05/2014) [-]
You can, in fact own claymores and grenades (and probably Stingers too), you just need the right approval. A class-3 license lets you have fully automatic weapons. I could legally own a 20mm autocannon if it is properly registered and I have a class-3 license.

Remember that the "arms" the founding fathers had in mind were the same weapons the military used. Pistols, muskets, even cannon were privately owned. MY argument is that if someone wants to buy an M1 Abrams tank, there should be nothing to stop them. If they proceed to kill someone, there should be nothing stopping the Air Force from dropping a paveway on said tank. In court, persons are assumed innocent of any crime until it is PROVEN that they committed any crime. Why should we deny our citizens anything on the basis that they COULD use it badly?
#77 - unclejessie (03/06/2014) [-]
I did not know that and I agree 100% with you on all your points. However, it does proves my point. The degree to which certain arms are allowed to be owned is something that should always be up for debate and discussion. This point is far too often misrepresented, purposely or not, by the gun rights advocates, as the wholesale banning of all arms. The fact that the masses aren't screaming that their second amendment rights are being violated when because they have to pass more strict and thorough background checks to own a claymore, grenade, tanks....etc tells me that this is a widely accepted concept.
#78 - facepalmftw (03/06/2014) [-]
There are many widely accepted concepts that are only that because of their existence. In the middle ages it was widely accepted that the earth was flat, before that it was widely accepted that the earth was the center of the universe. That never made them right. Slavery was a widely accepted concept in our nation's early history. For a long time noone was screaming for it's removal. Did these facts make slavery any more justified in the human rights sense?
#79 - unclejessie (03/06/2014) [-]
So are you advocating there should be no regulation on the availability of any weapon?
#80 - facepalmftw (03/06/2014) [-]
I'm saying that just because there's no rioting in the streets, doesn't make a law right. Likewise, just because some people riot in the streets doesn't mean a law is inherently evil.
#81 - unclejessie (03/06/2014) [-]
I think you are avoiding acknowledging the inherent contradiction that lies in the mainstream advocating for gun rights.

Let me try it a different way.

Do you support the concept that an individual's access to different weapons should have different levels of scrutiny ie: a pistol vs a stinger missile?
#82 - facepalmftw (03/07/2014) [-]
I do. But I believe that overall restrictions should be as low as possible. Yes, I understand the potential damage a Stinger missile can cause. But I also understand the potential destruction an automobile, drunk person, or light airplane can cause.
#71 - 1) your "facts" are either purposely or ignorantly s…  [+] (11 new replies) 03/01/2014 on spoons make people fat. 0
#72 - facepalmftw (03/01/2014) [-]
It's a little old, but the points are still valid. You are obviously not a gun owner, because you have no idea what goes into background checks, or how many people actually want guns to be banned altogether, or the principle of media bias. When England put a ban on civilian0owned firearms, violent crime skyrocketed. When a U.S. newspaper printed the names and addresses of CCL holders in New York City, burglary rates skyrocketed. When a Georgia town required every head-of-household to own at least one firearm, burglary plummeted. During the Sandy Hook shooting, only handguns were used, and the AR-15 found at the scene was semi-automatic. In fact, nearly all of the mass shootings in the United States in the past decade have been totally within the "safety system" of gun control. Limited-capacity magazines, muzzle brakes, pistol grips. None of these make any real difference in the function of the firearm. And the fact that politicians are pushing so violently for hem shows that they do not, in fact, care about the victims. Also, all but one of the mass shootings in the past 65 years has been in a "gun-free-zone".
#73 - unclejessie (03/02/2014) [-]
I am infact a gun owner. When I bought my gun, there was absolutely zero__ background check involved. The only transaction of the sale was for tax purposes and, by PA state law, that is not required to be kept for more than 60 days.

To your point of no guns creating a vacuum of violence. England is a separate case and if you actually looked at the statistics you would see their gun crime has plummeted. But I admit, we are not England and what works there may/may not work here. I will say that it is a futile effort to "ban guns" as most places that have, you can just go 20 miles outside the ban to get multiple guns and bring them into the vacuum, which is exactly what is happening.

#74 - facepalmftw (03/03/2014) [-]
You misread "violent crime" as "gun crime" whit regard to England. Before we continue, can we agree that there is contention as to what the Second Amendment protects exactly? It involves weapons, but what weapons, and how they're used, is a point of dispute? Okay, good. Now, knowing that, why don't we start by banning something that has no Constitutional ground? Does the Bill of Rights mention swimming pools? What about personal transportation? Does the Constitution currently mention alcohol?
#75 - unclejessie (03/04/2014) [-]
Again.....don't get all crazy with the slippery slope argument. No one is banning swimming pool and no one is banning "guns" as a whole . The degree to which access, by law, is allowed is a valid discussion everyone should take seriously. Now, we arent allowed to own stinger missiles, claymore mines or grenades. Why aren't your constitutional rights being violated in those cases? My argument is that At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the cutting edge of weapons technology was a single-shot musket. Now, being that no one is making the ridiculous argument that you should only be allowed to own a single-shot musket because the founding fathers had no idea what a AR-15 was and therefore by "arms" they must have meant a single-shot musket and pistol. Logic leads me to believe that we all agree laws needed to be able to adapted as the technology changes. The degree by which "arms" are available and which ones aren't is, and should always be, up for debate, but not the wholesale banning of all arms.
#76 - facepalmftw (03/05/2014) [-]
You can, in fact own claymores and grenades (and probably Stingers too), you just need the right approval. A class-3 license lets you have fully automatic weapons. I could legally own a 20mm autocannon if it is properly registered and I have a class-3 license.

Remember that the "arms" the founding fathers had in mind were the same weapons the military used. Pistols, muskets, even cannon were privately owned. MY argument is that if someone wants to buy an M1 Abrams tank, there should be nothing to stop them. If they proceed to kill someone, there should be nothing stopping the Air Force from dropping a paveway on said tank. In court, persons are assumed innocent of any crime until it is PROVEN that they committed any crime. Why should we deny our citizens anything on the basis that they COULD use it badly?
#77 - unclejessie (03/06/2014) [-]
I did not know that and I agree 100% with you on all your points. However, it does proves my point. The degree to which certain arms are allowed to be owned is something that should always be up for debate and discussion. This point is far too often misrepresented, purposely or not, by the gun rights advocates, as the wholesale banning of all arms. The fact that the masses aren't screaming that their second amendment rights are being violated when because they have to pass more strict and thorough background checks to own a claymore, grenade, tanks....etc tells me that this is a widely accepted concept.
#78 - facepalmftw (03/06/2014) [-]
There are many widely accepted concepts that are only that because of their existence. In the middle ages it was widely accepted that the earth was flat, before that it was widely accepted that the earth was the center of the universe. That never made them right. Slavery was a widely accepted concept in our nation's early history. For a long time noone was screaming for it's removal. Did these facts make slavery any more justified in the human rights sense?
#79 - unclejessie (03/06/2014) [-]
So are you advocating there should be no regulation on the availability of any weapon?
#80 - facepalmftw (03/06/2014) [-]
I'm saying that just because there's no rioting in the streets, doesn't make a law right. Likewise, just because some people riot in the streets doesn't mean a law is inherently evil.
#81 - unclejessie (03/06/2014) [-]
I think you are avoiding acknowledging the inherent contradiction that lies in the mainstream advocating for gun rights.

Let me try it a different way.

Do you support the concept that an individual's access to different weapons should have different levels of scrutiny ie: a pistol vs a stinger missile?
#82 - facepalmftw (03/07/2014) [-]
I do. But I believe that overall restrictions should be as low as possible. Yes, I understand the potential damage a Stinger missile can cause. But I also understand the potential destruction an automobile, drunk person, or light airplane can cause.
#68 - So why do we need any guns if its so easy, and clearly commonp…  [+] (14 new replies) 02/28/2014 on spoons make people fat. 0
#69 - facepalmftw (02/28/2014) [-]
Everyone crying for more firearms regulation does so on the backs of "for the children" claims. Just a little research will prove two things: 1) Guns kill fewer people than many other things (cars, pools, hammers). 2) There is no conclusive evidence that removing guns from a populace will reduce the number of murders or violent crimes. There is no logical or factual reason to support the banning of firearms. None. Zero.
#71 - unclejessie (03/01/2014) [-]
1) your "facts" are either purposely or ignorantly subjectively. The difference between gun deaths and car deaths in 2013 was 2015 people.

Firearm Deaths: 31,672
Automobile Deaths: 33,687

www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

2) I could draw parallels to other countries where it does work, but they aren't America and things are different here. There never will be "conclusive" evidence as long as gun access is damn near unrestricted, Thats like saying we'll never know what the bottom of the ocean looks like when its dry.

3) Whos talking about banning firearms?? This is why the gun debate gets all crazy. People ignorantly equate common sense regulation like expanding background checks to include mental health as "banning firearms" (which a vast majority of the country supports) . If you're certifiably insane, I'd prefer you not be allowed to by a pistol as walmart. fucking nut. Seems pretty "common sense" to me. So, why is this not happening already. Its because people like you get all crazy and sidetrack meaningful conversation with straight up garbage like "they're tryin' take my guns!"...Read a fucking newspaper once in a while.
#72 - facepalmftw (03/01/2014) [-]
It's a little old, but the points are still valid. You are obviously not a gun owner, because you have no idea what goes into background checks, or how many people actually want guns to be banned altogether, or the principle of media bias. When England put a ban on civilian0owned firearms, violent crime skyrocketed. When a U.S. newspaper printed the names and addresses of CCL holders in New York City, burglary rates skyrocketed. When a Georgia town required every head-of-household to own at least one firearm, burglary plummeted. During the Sandy Hook shooting, only handguns were used, and the AR-15 found at the scene was semi-automatic. In fact, nearly all of the mass shootings in the United States in the past decade have been totally within the "safety system" of gun control. Limited-capacity magazines, muzzle brakes, pistol grips. None of these make any real difference in the function of the firearm. And the fact that politicians are pushing so violently for hem shows that they do not, in fact, care about the victims. Also, all but one of the mass shootings in the past 65 years has been in a "gun-free-zone".
#73 - unclejessie (03/02/2014) [-]
I am infact a gun owner. When I bought my gun, there was absolutely zero__ background check involved. The only transaction of the sale was for tax purposes and, by PA state law, that is not required to be kept for more than 60 days.

To your point of no guns creating a vacuum of violence. England is a separate case and if you actually looked at the statistics you would see their gun crime has plummeted. But I admit, we are not England and what works there may/may not work here. I will say that it is a futile effort to "ban guns" as most places that have, you can just go 20 miles outside the ban to get multiple guns and bring them into the vacuum, which is exactly what is happening.

#74 - facepalmftw (03/03/2014) [-]
You misread "violent crime" as "gun crime" whit regard to England. Before we continue, can we agree that there is contention as to what the Second Amendment protects exactly? It involves weapons, but what weapons, and how they're used, is a point of dispute? Okay, good. Now, knowing that, why don't we start by banning something that has no Constitutional ground? Does the Bill of Rights mention swimming pools? What about personal transportation? Does the Constitution currently mention alcohol?
#75 - unclejessie (03/04/2014) [-]
Again.....don't get all crazy with the slippery slope argument. No one is banning swimming pool and no one is banning "guns" as a whole . The degree to which access, by law, is allowed is a valid discussion everyone should take seriously. Now, we arent allowed to own stinger missiles, claymore mines or grenades. Why aren't your constitutional rights being violated in those cases? My argument is that At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the cutting edge of weapons technology was a single-shot musket. Now, being that no one is making the ridiculous argument that you should only be allowed to own a single-shot musket because the founding fathers had no idea what a AR-15 was and therefore by "arms" they must have meant a single-shot musket and pistol. Logic leads me to believe that we all agree laws needed to be able to adapted as the technology changes. The degree by which "arms" are available and which ones aren't is, and should always be, up for debate, but not the wholesale banning of all arms.
#76 - facepalmftw (03/05/2014) [-]
You can, in fact own claymores and grenades (and probably Stingers too), you just need the right approval. A class-3 license lets you have fully automatic weapons. I could legally own a 20mm autocannon if it is properly registered and I have a class-3 license.

Remember that the "arms" the founding fathers had in mind were the same weapons the military used. Pistols, muskets, even cannon were privately owned. MY argument is that if someone wants to buy an M1 Abrams tank, there should be nothing to stop them. If they proceed to kill someone, there should be nothing stopping the Air Force from dropping a paveway on said tank. In court, persons are assumed innocent of any crime until it is PROVEN that they committed any crime. Why should we deny our citizens anything on the basis that they COULD use it badly?
#77 - unclejessie (03/06/2014) [-]
I did not know that and I agree 100% with you on all your points. However, it does proves my point. The degree to which certain arms are allowed to be owned is something that should always be up for debate and discussion. This point is far too often misrepresented, purposely or not, by the gun rights advocates, as the wholesale banning of all arms. The fact that the masses aren't screaming that their second amendment rights are being violated when because they have to pass more strict and thorough background checks to own a claymore, grenade, tanks....etc tells me that this is a widely accepted concept.
#78 - facepalmftw (03/06/2014) [-]
There are many widely accepted concepts that are only that because of their existence. In the middle ages it was widely accepted that the earth was flat, before that it was widely accepted that the earth was the center of the universe. That never made them right. Slavery was a widely accepted concept in our nation's early history. For a long time noone was screaming for it's removal. Did these facts make slavery any more justified in the human rights sense?
#79 - unclejessie (03/06/2014) [-]
So are you advocating there should be no regulation on the availability of any weapon?
#80 - facepalmftw (03/06/2014) [-]
I'm saying that just because there's no rioting in the streets, doesn't make a law right. Likewise, just because some people riot in the streets doesn't mean a law is inherently evil.
#81 - unclejessie (03/06/2014) [-]
I think you are avoiding acknowledging the inherent contradiction that lies in the mainstream advocating for gun rights.

Let me try it a different way.

Do you support the concept that an individual's access to different weapons should have different levels of scrutiny ie: a pistol vs a stinger missile?
#82 - facepalmftw (03/07/2014) [-]
I do. But I believe that overall restrictions should be as low as possible. Yes, I understand the potential damage a Stinger missile can cause. But I also understand the potential destruction an automobile, drunk person, or light airplane can cause.
User avatar #70 - factual (03/01/2014) [-]
It's a fact
#66 - think about that for a min....just.....pause and think about that.  [+] (16 new replies) 02/28/2014 on spoons make people fat. 0
#68 - unclejessie (02/28/2014) [-]
So why do we need any guns if its so easy, and clearly commonplace, to commit mass murder with tractors?

Being contrary for the sake of being contrary is not an opinion.
#69 - facepalmftw (02/28/2014) [-]
Everyone crying for more firearms regulation does so on the backs of "for the children" claims. Just a little research will prove two things: 1) Guns kill fewer people than many other things (cars, pools, hammers). 2) There is no conclusive evidence that removing guns from a populace will reduce the number of murders or violent crimes. There is no logical or factual reason to support the banning of firearms. None. Zero.
#71 - unclejessie (03/01/2014) [-]
1) your "facts" are either purposely or ignorantly subjectively. The difference between gun deaths and car deaths in 2013 was 2015 people.

Firearm Deaths: 31,672
Automobile Deaths: 33,687

www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

2) I could draw parallels to other countries where it does work, but they aren't America and things are different here. There never will be "conclusive" evidence as long as gun access is damn near unrestricted, Thats like saying we'll never know what the bottom of the ocean looks like when its dry.

3) Whos talking about banning firearms?? This is why the gun debate gets all crazy. People ignorantly equate common sense regulation like expanding background checks to include mental health as "banning firearms" (which a vast majority of the country supports) . If you're certifiably insane, I'd prefer you not be allowed to by a pistol as walmart. fucking nut. Seems pretty "common sense" to me. So, why is this not happening already. Its because people like you get all crazy and sidetrack meaningful conversation with straight up garbage like "they're tryin' take my guns!"...Read a fucking newspaper once in a while.
#72 - facepalmftw (03/01/2014) [-]
It's a little old, but the points are still valid. You are obviously not a gun owner, because you have no idea what goes into background checks, or how many people actually want guns to be banned altogether, or the principle of media bias. When England put a ban on civilian0owned firearms, violent crime skyrocketed. When a U.S. newspaper printed the names and addresses of CCL holders in New York City, burglary rates skyrocketed. When a Georgia town required every head-of-household to own at least one firearm, burglary plummeted. During the Sandy Hook shooting, only handguns were used, and the AR-15 found at the scene was semi-automatic. In fact, nearly all of the mass shootings in the United States in the past decade have been totally within the "safety system" of gun control. Limited-capacity magazines, muzzle brakes, pistol grips. None of these make any real difference in the function of the firearm. And the fact that politicians are pushing so violently for hem shows that they do not, in fact, care about the victims. Also, all but one of the mass shootings in the past 65 years has been in a "gun-free-zone".
#73 - unclejessie (03/02/2014) [-]
I am infact a gun owner. When I bought my gun, there was absolutely zero__ background check involved. The only transaction of the sale was for tax purposes and, by PA state law, that is not required to be kept for more than 60 days.

To your point of no guns creating a vacuum of violence. England is a separate case and if you actually looked at the statistics you would see their gun crime has plummeted. But I admit, we are not England and what works there may/may not work here. I will say that it is a futile effort to "ban guns" as most places that have, you can just go 20 miles outside the ban to get multiple guns and bring them into the vacuum, which is exactly what is happening.

#74 - facepalmftw (03/03/2014) [-]
You misread "violent crime" as "gun crime" whit regard to England. Before we continue, can we agree that there is contention as to what the Second Amendment protects exactly? It involves weapons, but what weapons, and how they're used, is a point of dispute? Okay, good. Now, knowing that, why don't we start by banning something that has no Constitutional ground? Does the Bill of Rights mention swimming pools? What about personal transportation? Does the Constitution currently mention alcohol?
#75 - unclejessie (03/04/2014) [-]
Again.....don't get all crazy with the slippery slope argument. No one is banning swimming pool and no one is banning "guns" as a whole . The degree to which access, by law, is allowed is a valid discussion everyone should take seriously. Now, we arent allowed to own stinger missiles, claymore mines or grenades. Why aren't your constitutional rights being violated in those cases? My argument is that At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the cutting edge of weapons technology was a single-shot musket. Now, being that no one is making the ridiculous argument that you should only be allowed to own a single-shot musket because the founding fathers had no idea what a AR-15 was and therefore by "arms" they must have meant a single-shot musket and pistol. Logic leads me to believe that we all agree laws needed to be able to adapted as the technology changes. The degree by which "arms" are available and which ones aren't is, and should always be, up for debate, but not the wholesale banning of all arms.
#76 - facepalmftw (03/05/2014) [-]
You can, in fact own claymores and grenades (and probably Stingers too), you just need the right approval. A class-3 license lets you have fully automatic weapons. I could legally own a 20mm autocannon if it is properly registered and I have a class-3 license.

Remember that the "arms" the founding fathers had in mind were the same weapons the military used. Pistols, muskets, even cannon were privately owned. MY argument is that if someone wants to buy an M1 Abrams tank, there should be nothing to stop them. If they proceed to kill someone, there should be nothing stopping the Air Force from dropping a paveway on said tank. In court, persons are assumed innocent of any crime until it is PROVEN that they committed any crime. Why should we deny our citizens anything on the basis that they COULD use it badly?
#77 - unclejessie (03/06/2014) [-]
I did not know that and I agree 100% with you on all your points. However, it does proves my point. The degree to which certain arms are allowed to be owned is something that should always be up for debate and discussion. This point is far too often misrepresented, purposely or not, by the gun rights advocates, as the wholesale banning of all arms. The fact that the masses aren't screaming that their second amendment rights are being violated when because they have to pass more strict and thorough background checks to own a claymore, grenade, tanks....etc tells me that this is a widely accepted concept.
#78 - facepalmftw (03/06/2014) [-]
There are many widely accepted concepts that are only that because of their existence. In the middle ages it was widely accepted that the earth was flat, before that it was widely accepted that the earth was the center of the universe. That never made them right. Slavery was a widely accepted concept in our nation's early history. For a long time noone was screaming for it's removal. Did these facts make slavery any more justified in the human rights sense?
#79 - unclejessie (03/06/2014) [-]
So are you advocating there should be no regulation on the availability of any weapon?
#80 - facepalmftw (03/06/2014) [-]
I'm saying that just because there's no rioting in the streets, doesn't make a law right. Likewise, just because some people riot in the streets doesn't mean a law is inherently evil.
#81 - unclejessie (03/06/2014) [-]
I think you are avoiding acknowledging the inherent contradiction that lies in the mainstream advocating for gun rights.

Let me try it a different way.

Do you support the concept that an individual's access to different weapons should have different levels of scrutiny ie: a pistol vs a stinger missile?
#82 - facepalmftw (03/07/2014) [-]
I do. But I believe that overall restrictions should be as low as possible. Yes, I understand the potential damage a Stinger missile can cause. But I also understand the potential destruction an automobile, drunk person, or light airplane can cause.
User avatar #70 - factual (03/01/2014) [-]
It's a fact
#64 - 1. regulation is/has already taken place >.> -… 02/27/2014 on spoons make people fat. 0
[ 113 Total ]

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)