Political Crossfire Forums

[Otacon]

My United States History teacher yesterday decided to talk a little about politics. In class we discussed the Death Penalty, Abortion, Taxes, and then we got onto the subject of Gun Control. My teacher talked about why we should inforce gun control laws and regulate ammo to where anytime you buy any, each individual bullet is registered to you. I began by saying that this would be a bad thing seeing how someone could steal your ammo and kill someone, and it would appear that you did it. He shrugged it off and continued onto the subjects of assault weapons.

He said that assault weapons and fully automatic weapons should be banned because their only purpose is to kill people. He claimed that only murders buy assault weapons. I pointed out that only 2% of all crimes are commited with assault weapons and that many people buy them for hunting, home defence, and recreational shooting. He told me that my arguement was the most retarded thing he's ever heard. He acts as though the few criminals that actually own assault weapons buy them legally. He then goes on to say that Americans do not have the right to own a gun.

I call him on it, citing the Second Amendment. He takes out his pocket Constitution from his desk and reads the amendment and claims that means that only members of the police or military can own guns. I said that the word "people" does not change from amendment to amendment and that the Founding Fathers intended the militia to be the people. Confronted with this, he chooses to ignore me and said that the Founding Fathers couldn't imagine a weapon that could kill so many people in such a short time frame. I said that the gatling gun wasn't to far of from full production and that Ben Franklin owned cannons. However, he chose to ignore the facts and tell everyone that I was stupid and not to listen to me, and that gun control was the way to go.

Oh, and at the end of the conversation, another student asked who he is going to vote for in the next presidental election, and he said Hillary. :roll: Go figure. :lol:

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

I love the whole the Constitution gives rights argument, it makes me laugh my ass off.

[Wolverine]

:rofl:

You got a winner.


Give him the link to www.gunfacts.info, show him the assault weapons section.

Then, maybe, if you feel daring, give him a link to sites like CETMErifles.com, AR15.com, AK47.com, then challenge him to prove, that say the tens of thousands of members on AR15.com, are in fact murderers.
You should have fun with that one.
edit: this is the perfect topic for that.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=290310&page=40

Also, ask him why a WASR-10 (an evil AK semi-auto clone) is $350, while a full auto AK is $10,000. That should be fun too.

[lilwolf]

The teacher is frigging rediculous. It would never work on registering bullets, and it's not cost effective at all. :lol: :lol:

[The Comrade]

Otacon wrote: My United States History teacher yesterday decided to talk a little about politics. In class we discussed the Death Penalty, Abortion, Taxes, and then we got onto the subject of Gun Control. My teacher talked about why we should inforce gun control laws and regulate ammo to where anytime you buy any, each individual bullet is registered to you. I began by saying that this would be a bad thing seeing how someone could steal your ammo and kill someone, and it would appear that you did it. He shrugged it off and continued onto the subjects of assault weapons.

He said that assault weapons and fully automatic weapons should be banned because their only purpose is to kill people. He claimed that only murders buy assault weapons. I pointed out that only 2% of all crimes are commited with assault weapons and that many people buy them for hunting, home defence, and recreational shooting. He told me that my arguement was the most retarded thing he's ever heard. He acts as though the few criminals that actually own assault weapons buy them legally. He then goes on to say that Americans do not have the right to own a gun.

I call him on it, citing the Second Amendment. He takes out his pocket Constitution from his desk and reads the amendment and claims that means that only members of the police or military can own guns. I said that the word "people" does not change from amendment to amendment and that the Founding Fathers intended the militia to be the people. Confronted with this, he chooses to ignore me and said that the Founding Fathers couldn't imagine a weapon that could kill so many people in such a short time frame. I said that the gatling gun wasn't to far of from full production and that Ben Franklin owned cannons. However, he chose to ignore the facts and tell everyone that I was stupid and not to listen to me, and that gun control was the way to go.

Oh, and at the end of the conversation, another student asked who he is going to vote for in the next presidental election, and he said Hillary. :roll: Go figure. :lol:


trip your teacher down the stairs at your school( if you have them).


if that doesn't work you should challenge him to fisticuffs at 3:00 after school.

[evil muppet]

Don't argue with a fool, people might not be able to tell the difference.

This is high school, right? Your calling him a teacher instead of professor so I am assuming he is. Most teachers are not very bright. The people who go to college to become a teacher generally score the lowest on SATs and ACTs. He doesn't know enough to be an expert even in history let alone politics. I'd have to question the professionalism of a teacher who brings his personal politics into class. That often causes problems down the line.

Requiring the registration of all ammo would be a bureaucratic headache and would amount to a prohibition anyways. New York City has something like that where they require that gun stores keep a record of every box of ammo stored. To do what he suggests would be extremely difficult for a bureaucracy to do.
----

To the argument that the founding fathers couldn't have foreseen the firepower available to modern firearms.

1. they knew they couldn't foresee every circumstance, that is why they included an amendment process to the Constitution.

2. the Constitution is a limitation on government, not the people.

3. The second Amendment CANNOT be a reference to police and national guard forces. National guard didn't exist at that time and police was a power reserved to the states. Furthermore, Article 1 Section 8 already refers to a power raise and organize militias. A second amendment guaranteeing the government a right to arm itself simply makes no sense.

4. The founding fathers did think of changing circumstances. They didn't assume that the country would remain the same. While they didn't foresee modern firearms per se, they did recognize a simple fact that restrictions had to be made on government, otherwise they would take changing circumstances as an excuse to violate people's rights.
----------

[Winchester]

Otacon wrote: My United States History teacher yesterday decided to talk a little about politics. In class we discussed the Death Penalty, Abortion, Taxes, and then we got onto the subject of Gun Control. My teacher talked about why we should inforce gun control laws and regulate ammo to where anytime you buy any, each individual bullet is registered to you. I began by saying that this would be a bad thing seeing how someone could steal your ammo and kill someone, and it would appear that you did it. He shrugged it off and continued onto the subjects of assault weapons.

He said that assault weapons and fully automatic weapons should be banned because their only purpose is to kill people. He claimed that only murders buy assault weapons. I pointed out that only 2% of all crimes are commited with assault weapons and that many people buy them for hunting, home defence, and recreational shooting. He told me that my arguement was the most retarded thing he's ever heard. He acts as though the few criminals that actually own assault weapons buy them legally. He then goes on to say that Americans do not have the right to own a gun.

I call him on it, citing the Second Amendment. He takes out his pocket Constitution from his desk and reads the amendment and claims that means that only members of the police or military can own guns. I said that the word "people" does not change from amendment to amendment and that the Founding Fathers intended the militia to be the people. Confronted with this, he chooses to ignore me and said that the Founding Fathers couldn't imagine a weapon that could kill so many people in such a short time frame. I said that the gatling gun wasn't to far of from full production and that Ben Franklin owned cannons. However, he chose to ignore the facts and tell everyone that I was stupid and not to listen to me, and that gun control was the way to go.

Oh, and at the end of the conversation, another student asked who he is going to vote for in the next presidental election, and he said Hillary. :roll: Go figure. :lol:

Fricken moron shouldn't be allowed to teach US history.

[Lucky Luke]

Otacon wrote: My United States History teacher yesterday decided to talk a little about politics. In class we discussed the Death Penalty, Abortion, Taxes, and then we got onto the subject of Gun Control. My teacher talked about why we should inforce gun control laws and regulate ammo to where anytime you buy any, each individual bullet is registered to you. I began by saying that this would be a bad thing seeing how someone could steal your ammo and kill someone, and it would appear that you did it. He shrugged it off and continued onto the subjects of assault weapons.

He said that assault weapons and fully automatic weapons should be banned because their only purpose is to kill people. He claimed that only murders buy assault weapons. I pointed out that only 2% of all crimes are commited with assault weapons and that many people buy them for hunting, home defence, and recreational shooting. He told me that my arguement was the most retarded thing he's ever heard. He acts as though the few criminals that actually own assault weapons buy them legally. He then goes on to say that Americans do not have the right to own a gun.

I call him on it, citing the Second Amendment. He takes out his pocket Constitution from his desk and reads the amendment and claims that means that only members of the police or military can own guns. I said that the word "people" does not change from amendment to amendment and that the Founding Fathers intended the militia to be the people. Confronted with this, he chooses to ignore me and said that the Founding Fathers couldn't imagine a weapon that could kill so many people in such a short time frame. I said that the gatling gun wasn't to far of from full production and that Ben Franklin owned cannons. However, he chose to ignore the facts and tell everyone that I was stupid and not to listen to me, and that gun control was the way to go.

Oh, and at the end of the conversation, another student asked who he is going to vote for in the next presidental election, and he said Hillary. :roll: Go figure. :lol:

Ask your History teacher to come an post in this thread, I'll be happy to see some real debate here about gun control.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

The Comrade wrote: Otacon wrote: My United States History teacher yesterday decided to talk a little about politics. In class we discussed the Death Penalty, Abortion, Taxes, and then we got onto the subject of Gun Control. My teacher talked about why we should inforce gun control laws and regulate ammo to where anytime you buy any, each individual bullet is registered to you. I began by saying that this would be a bad thing seeing how someone could steal your ammo and kill someone, and it would appear that you did it. He shrugged it off and continued onto the subjects of assault weapons.

He said that assault weapons and fully automatic weapons should be banned because their only purpose is to kill people. He claimed that only murders buy assault weapons. I pointed out that only 2% of all crimes are commited with assault weapons and that many people buy them for hunting, home defence, and recreational shooting. He told me that my arguement was the most retarded thing he's ever heard. He acts as though the few criminals that actually own assault weapons buy them legally. He then goes on to say that Americans do not have the right to own a gun.

I call him on it, citing the Second Amendment. He takes out his pocket Constitution from his desk and reads the amendment and claims that means that only members of the police or military can own guns. I said that the word "people" does not change from amendment to amendment and that the Founding Fathers intended the militia to be the people. Confronted with this, he chooses to ignore me and said that the Founding Fathers couldn't imagine a weapon that could kill so many people in such a short time frame. I said that the gatling gun wasn't to far of from full production and that Ben Franklin owned cannons. However, he chose to ignore the facts and tell everyone that I was stupid and not to listen to me, and that gun control was the way to go.

Oh, and at the end of the conversation, another student asked who he is going to vote for in the next presidental election, and he said Hillary. :roll: Go figure. :lol:


trip your teacher down the stairs at your school( if you have them).


if that doesn't work you should challenge him to fisticuffs at 3:00 after school.

After what happened in Montreal, I found your post most disturbing The Comrade.

Otacon don't become a recluse who thinks he is misunderstood by his teachers, debate and accept that others can disagree with you outside the gun lovers club.

:-D
:-D

[lilwolf]

You might think its okay for your version of gun control LL. But then people who are scared of guns or idiots want to do ignorant things like registering bullets and fingerprinting guns (which does not work BTW).

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote: You might think its okay for your version of gun control LL. But then people who are scared of guns or idiots want to do ignorant things like registering bullets and fingerprinting guns (which does not work BTW).

It is okay to have different views, it is not okay to threaten people with harm just because they happen to disagree with you.

:-D
:-D

[lilwolf]

Lucky Luke wrote: lilwolf wrote: You might think its okay for your version of gun control LL. But then people who are scared of guns or idiots want to do ignorant things like registering bullets and fingerprinting guns (which does not work BTW).

It is okay to have different views, it is not okay to threaten people with harm just because they happen to disagree with you.

:-D
:-D

Funny..... I looked at my post and I see no threat in that nor is their one to do harm. Show me the threat. BTW DC is going to have RTC and CCW here real soon. Thank God.

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: lilwolf wrote: You might think its okay for your version of gun control LL. But then people who are scared of guns or idiots want to do ignorant things like registering bullets and fingerprinting guns (which does not work BTW).

It is okay to have different views, it is not okay to threaten people with harm just because they happen to disagree with you.

:-D
:-D

Funny..... I looked at my post and I see no threat in that nor is their one to do harm. Show me the threat. BTW DC is going to have RTC and CCW here real soon. Thank God.


The Comrade wrote: trip your teacher down the stairs at your school( if you have them).


if that doesn't work you should challenge him to fisticuffs at 3:00 after school.

Look at what post you are defending Lilwolf and tell me again that you see no threat.

:-D
:-D

[lilwolf]

Lucky Luke wrote: lilwolf wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: lilwolf wrote: You might think its okay for your version of gun control LL. But then people who are scared of guns or idiots want to do ignorant things like registering bullets and fingerprinting guns (which does not work BTW).

It is okay to have different views, it is not okay to threaten people with harm just because they happen to disagree with you.

:-D
:-D

Funny..... I looked at my post and I see no threat in that nor is their one to do harm. Show me the threat. BTW DC is going to have RTC and CCW here real soon. Thank God.


The Comrade wrote: trip your teacher down the stairs at your school( if you have them).


if that doesn't work you should challenge him to fisticuffs at 3:00 after school.

Look at what post you are defending Lilwolf and tell me again that you see no threat.

:-D
:-D


LL that's not my post so you have baltantly accused me wrongly again. This has gotten old and I am sick of it. Either it stops or I am going to report your butt. Stop slandering me and falsly accusing me you got it.

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: lilwolf wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: lilwolf wrote: You might think its okay for your version of gun control LL. But then people who are scared of guns or idiots want to do ignorant things like registering bullets and fingerprinting guns (which does not work BTW).

It is okay to have different views, it is not okay to threaten people with harm just because they happen to disagree with you.

:-D
:-D

Funny..... I looked at my post and I see no threat in that nor is their one to do harm. Show me the threat. BTW DC is going to have RTC and CCW here real soon. Thank God.


The Comrade wrote: trip your teacher down the stairs at your school( if you have them).


if that doesn't work you should challenge him to fisticuffs at 3:00 after school.

Look at what post you are defending Lilwolf and tell me again that you see no threat.

:-D
:-D


LL that's not my post so you have baltantly accused me wrongly again. This has gotten old and I am sick of it. Either it stops or I am going to report your butt. Stop slandering me and falsly accusing me you got it.

You intervened in the discussion on the side of The Comrade, nobody asked you to.

My original post was for The Comrade to read and to respond to Lilwolf, you decided to respond for him, enjoy the ride.

You haven't acknowledged yet that The Comrade made two clear threats.
:-D
:-D

[airo]

You smell that? It's the smell of political correctness.

[Wolverine]

Is it really necessary that every single thread here in GC gets hi-jacked by an irrelevant pro-gun vs. Lucky argument?

[Sixgun_Symphony]

Lucky Luke wrote:
It is okay to have different views, it is not okay to threaten people with harm just because they happen to disagree with you.


This is rich coming from a guy who is in love with terrorist groups like Hezboullah.

[lilwolf]

Lucky Luke wrote: lilwolf wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: lilwolf wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: lilwolf wrote: You might think its okay for your version of gun control LL. But then people who are scared of guns or idiots want to do ignorant things like registering bullets and fingerprinting guns (which does not work BTW).

It is okay to have different views, it is not okay to threaten people with harm just because they happen to disagree with you.

:-D
:-D

Funny..... I looked at my post and I see no threat in that nor is their one to do harm. Show me the threat. BTW DC is going to have RTC and CCW here real soon. Thank God.


The Comrade wrote: trip your teacher down the stairs at your school( if you have them).


if that doesn't work you should challenge him to fisticuffs at 3:00 after school.

Look at what post you are defending Lilwolf and tell me again that you see no threat.

:-D
:-D


LL that's not my post so you have baltantly accused me wrongly again. This has gotten old and I am sick of it. Either it stops or I am going to report your butt. Stop slandering me and falsly accusing me you got it.

You intervened in the discussion on the side of The Comrade, nobody asked you to.

My original post was for The Comrade to read and to respond to Lilwolf, you decided to respond for him, enjoy the ride.

You haven't acknowledged yet that The Comrade made two clear threats.
:-D
:-D

You clearly said look at the post you are defending. That was not my post and it is not my responsiblility to defend him or not. Beside PC stinks and if I had made a threat it would have been by me. I defend my post.
So as the old thing goes here LL. Look before you shoot and aim straight.

[Lucky Luke]

airo wrote: You smell that? It's the smell of political correctness.

Telling young people not to assault their teachers has nothing to do with political correctness Airo, not condemning such threats is encouraging youngsters to become violent criminals.
Tell us where you stand, not what you are smelling.
:-D
:-D