Gandhi quote apparently violates Facebook's community guidelines

[Aethix 129]

http://www.infowars.com/facebook-bans-gandhi-quote-as-part-of-revisionist-history-purge/

 

Basically Facebook had at least one account suspended for posting the Gandhi quote "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." It seems they're cracking down on anything pro-gun rights, even if it happens to come from one of history's most famous advocates of peace. But it's simply amazing and disgusting that such a large online community is so blatantly allowing their politics to rule their policies towards their users.

[SilverAlchemic 355]

I don't think anyone has a right to block out freedom of speech at all, let alone on puppying Facebook, where the only people who ever even see your opinions are your friends and people who don't care.

{this is coming from a guy whose whole family uses Facebook, even if he himself doesn't}

 

Also I'm pro-gun rights but for one thing that's only semi-related and for another it just means I'm pro-constitution/bill of rights.

[Chase 390]

Facebook is a private business. They can choose to do this.

Just like I can choose to delete my account.

I am absolutely an advocate of peace. And to keep that peace, every free man needs a gun.

[Sahaqiel 1232]

Sounds pretty sketchy to me, but I don't think there's really a "pro gun rights" side at all. Like, what does that even mean? More gun rights? Like, more than the already established right to bear arms? And see, I say this, because the opposite side of gun rights conservationism isn't "anti gun rights". It's pro gun control. As in, putting obstacles in the way of people who might abuse their weaponry. It's like saying feminism is a movement dedicated to degrading men, when plain and simple, feminism is only after putting the two groups on equal footing. The only reason I can think of someone saying they're "pro gun rights" is if they were in danger of having inalienable rights taken from them, and saying that the nation is at risk of having guns outlawed is just paranoia. Like saying you're pro home ownership or something. No one is after your house, so what makes you "pro home ownership"? You can't just say you're the opposite side of one extreme when we're not dealing in extremes.

 

Incidentally, the second amendment is just that. An amendment. Something they added in to our laws and can be revised or taken out completely. It says so in the Constitution. So saying you're pro Constitution means you support the possibility of removing the second amendment, as dictated by the foundations of the United States of America. The 18th Amendment outlawed alcohol. The 21st got rid of that amendment. They could put in an amendment that nerfs the second, and it should be okay in your book. So try to think things through before you choose which side to believe.

 

On the topic of Chase's comment, by the way, I've encountered a lot of people who are dumb about gun laws, and I will say it unflinchingly, thinking everyone on Earth needs to possess a firearm is stupid:

David: How come in the areas with teh strickest gun control, they have the most violent crimes, inner city america.
David: and dont compare america to england or any other country.
Allen: Why not?
David: one theyre societies are totally different then ours and they always depended on the police and military to protect them.

David: second a good chunk of the worlds weapons are made in europe, and third guns our a means of protection, i wish everyone had a gun the world would be safer cause everyone be packing heat.
Allen: That's a stupid way to view things. Like, point-blank. (No pun intended)
Allen: Okay, if you're trying to stave off the wildlife, sure, use guns. You don't live packed in a city full of all kinds of people, which include criminals. Making guns easily accessible in those kinds of areas causes more violence. We could debate about it, sure, that's a little gray of an area, but I mean, every single person on earth? Like, seriously? That means every single petty argument that escalates to violence escalates with the capability of easy murder, and there's not always a guaranteed third party present that is able to stop them. It just turns into inevitably harming one or more people in a potentially fatal way. Forget beatings, forget crowbars, everyone has a projectile weapon. Only an insane person would think that's a good idea.
David: there are far to many humans, so think of it as a possible solution to overpopulation.
Allen: So you admit you just want to breed more violence.

 

Remember, Chase. Every prisoner used to be a free man.

[Cirt 612]

I don't really have much to add to this except, guns don't kill people. People kill people. Those same people that have killed several other people could have used another means to do it.

like, you can google how to make a bomb. Guns aren't the problem.

[Cascade 741]

Guns certainly make it a hell of a lot easier to kill people, though.

[Chase 390]

Guns make it a hell of a lot easier to defend yourself.

Against, say, oh I don't know...an active shooter hell bent on killing as many people as possible.

I think Sahaqiel has just as cynical a view about people as we do. He's afraid that if everyone gets a gun then there will be mass shoot outs. I'm afraid that if only the bad guys have a gun, then there will be a lot of innocent shootings. Which is what's happening right now.

Remember, Chase. Every prisoner used to be a free man.

And yet not every free man deserves to be a prisoner. It's way too cynical to think everyone is just a heartbeat away from shooting everyone else. This is not The Walking Dead;  this is real life.

 

I absolutely believe that bad people will use guns for bad purposes, but I DO NOT believe good people will use guns for bad purposes. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9ZvwPmjJu4

[Sahaqiel 1232]

There was a man recently who was shot over an argument in a Pizza Hut, claiming it was a life-threatening situation.

It's funny you mention Walking Dead, because there was a shooting over an argument about that too.

And hey, here's more senseless violence, also pizza related.

 

What you just told me, Chase, is similar to what another girl said to me. She told me I think all gun owners are murderers. I don't think everyone is on the brink of killing each other, I'm saying that out of the seven billion people we have on the Earth, that giving everyone guns is just putting grease on the fire. There's no sense in it. There isn't a reason to wish that everyone was packing heat. I'd much rather no one was packing heat. That would pretty much eliminate gun murders, and it's just as realistic as giving every free person on earth guns, so why not want that instead?

 

On the topic of Guns vs. (improvised weapon), this is from an argument I had from the aforementioned girl in the prevous paragraph. She tried to tell me that improvised weapons (kitchen knives, rocks, light sabers, etc.) were just as capable of murder.

 

XXXXX: Make shift weapons are not hard to obtain.."look! A pointy rock! Omg is that a kitchen knife in the kitchen!!!!"

Allen: I've taken culinary. Kitchen knives are no joke, sure. But knives require that you be close to people, and they have a purpose outside destruction. I do not cook food with a gun.

XXXXX: By the way, you can get arrested for illegally owning those type of "advanced " guns ....criminals!!!! And you must go through a lot to own it legally!

Allen: Right. But a simple semi-automatic pistol with hollow points can kill one person per bullet from a gun using a relatively high capacity magazine. It's a little harder to kill someone than a higher caliber assault rifle with a higher capacity magazine, but it's still as simple as squeezing a trigger to steal a life away. My step brother was killed in a drive by in 2010 by a single bullet to the head, because of a pistol, put into the hands of a man with a violent history riddled with criminal activity. He wasn't even the intended target. The guy just opened fire on a bunch of kids walking the street after watching a movie at the theater because he thought one of the kids was a guy he hated. So don't start telling me that it would have played out the same way if he chucked rocks at them.

 

The difference between an improvised weapon and a gun is a lot of work, time, and expertise. You put a bunch of murder launchers in the hands of a bunch of people who, not cynically speaking, are inherently capable of being rash, impulsive, and at times, violent, then of course we're going to have higher murder rates if there are more of them with murder weapons. I'm not saying the people who've earned the right to carry them are about to go breaking through windows dual-wielding their bangers sideways while wearing shades and a grin that betrays the little humanity they have attached to the splinters of their decaying souls. Those people you mention with the clean records, sure. Those guys sound cool and useful in an emergency situation. But everyone does not need a gun.

 

I'm pretty anti-violence and stuff, and I acknowledge when something is necessary in an extreme situation or whatever else might help. I don't blame school shootings on the fact that the country allows us to purchase guns. The way the media portrays shootings seems to almost provoke the mentally unstable to top the last guy's high score, and it kind of disturbs me how fast the media puts each shooter into an almost celebrity-like standing. I don't think throwing more firearms at the problem will help it either. Do you think it would have played out differently if the mom owned a pistol or two? Oh wait! etc. etc. It would be nice to see some security at or near schools, though. An officer with training might have been able to stop him. A guy with a gun could definitely help, but it's really situational. It's like saying someone could have easily subdued the guy if he had the wits, and that's true too, but it's really unlikely that either of those people will be near the crime scene at the time.

[Sahaqiel 1232]

I sometimes walk the streets at night and am mindblown that we have specific devices and people who craft them for the sole purpose of keeping others out.

 

Door locks.

 

Our inherit lack of trust in other people is evident in just the fact that we all have something set in place to prevent others from stealing everything or sneaking in and killing us, and that even though the very existence of locks is proof of a paranoia like that, that we still wouldn't want to get rid of them. So think of an officer in a school as a door lock.

[Treemotan 201]

I don't feel like there's anything inherently wrong with owning a gun so long as it is legal, for security purposes only (or game hunting in the case of hunting rifles), and in the hands of a responsible individual. But of course, you can never tell who's responsible and who's a violent sociopath until after the fact. My main issue is that guns are so relatively easy to obtain, even with preexisting regulations. It's just too easy for people that can and will hurt or kill someone to get their hands on them. Lightening up current gun control legislation would only make it worse.

 

And even then, normally-rational or responsible individuals can end up killing or hurting someone when they likely didn't mean to. The fact of the matter is that humans are very emotionally-turbulent creatures, and things like grief, rage, fear, what have you can completely blow sense out the window and cause us to behave irrationally. Sometimes, this can end up in murder, gun or no. And, like is being discussed, we are also incredibly paranoid. If everyone owned firearms, the chances of death in these sort of situations  increases dramatically- they're made for hurting or killing others.

 

Now, of course, I understand if you have a good reason to own one and carry it on your person. Like someone else mentioned earlier, they keep a gun on them because they're making deliveries late at night in a dangerous neighborhood where he could realistically find himself in danger. I find this rather reasonable, you're just trying to stay safe. However, I feel like it should perhaps be a bit more difficult to obtain guns in the first place, or that some sort of record is kept on what people purchase. I'd be checking a fella out if he'd purchased a bunch of handguns and ammunition within the span of three days or something. I'm usually against too much government observation, but firearms... Yeah. They're something that needs to have an eye kept on them or something.

[Sahaqiel 1232]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uymMI_omik

 

Part 2

 

I think this Mr. Jones guy makes some excellent points.

[Cascade 741]

I started to watch that video then closed it immediately when it was seriously based on a petition to actually deport someone for having a different opinion.

 

even I don't like Piers Morgan at the best of times but seriously? isn't freedom of speech, like, a big thing in america??? it applies both ways??

[Aethix 129]

Hilariously enough, in the UK there's a petition to have us keep him.

[Cascade 741]

so I just watched the interview in full and wow. It's the perfect example of what you /shouldn't/ do in a debate. Yell repeatedly, talk over your opponent repeatedly, dodge questions, making blatant insults at your opponent's character/PoB instead of rebutting his points. Regardless of the points he made, the way he conducted himself didn't do any favours at all for his image and his side's opinion on the gun debate.

 

What an unbelievably rude man. Like, when you're sitting next to Piers Morgan and you manage to be the more rude of the two? there's definitely a problem lol

[pheonix561 2080]

AND IF YOU THINK YOU'RE SO TOUGH

 

WE'LL GET A BOXING RING IN HERE

 

AND I'LL WEAR RED WHITE AND BLUE

 

AND YOU CAN WEAR YOUR JOLLY ROGER