# Obama and Biden very anti Gun owner, and Gun Rights .



## 52ndStreet (Aug 25, 2008)

I hear Barack Obama and Joe Biden are very anti Gun rights. This combination in the White house will be bad news for Gun and Rifle owners.Their Sen   voting records indicate that they voted for many Gun control laws.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 25, 2008)

They've always been anti-gun, and anti-gun rights. They're pretty much anti-anything American. Including the idea of a republic, individual freedom and the right to keep what you earn.


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 25, 2008)

52ndStreet said:


> I hear Barack Obama and Joe Biden are very anti Gun rights. This combination in the White house will be bad news for Gun and Rifle owners.Their Sen   voting records indicate that they voted for many Gun control laws.



the ussc has affirmed our 2nd right again and again.  i owe 3....i live in the middle of nowhere it would take leo's at least 20 minutes to get here....i will take my guns over 20 minutes of waiting.  So far, in 55 years, I have determined to kill a man, once.  I was home alone with my 2 yr old son when a man tryed to break in.  I hid my son, loaded my gun and waited for my bedroom door to open.  I would have blown him to pieces with one shot.  My father taught me well.  all guns are loaded...never pull a gun on a man unless you are going to kill him, identify your target and empty your gun...no wounding shots allowed.    I shook like a dog passing a peach pit while hiding my son, when i loaded the shotgun, my hands were steady and my nerves were calm.  I have no use for people telling me I should not own guns.  Let them be the one raped or worse watch their child hurt, it wont be me. I will hold my fathers words forever, cause he teaching me about guns, i truly believe is what saved me that day.


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 25, 2008)

o, one more thing he taught me...determine when you are going to take a stand and hold to it.   I took my stand in my bedroom the last house in the room he could reach.  I was lucky he couldnt get in.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 25, 2008)

This is where some ignorant twerp tells us that more people are killed by their own guns than are saved by them every day.

It's untrue, but that won't keep them from spouting off.


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 25, 2008)

Not anti gun or anti gun owner anti stupidity - there is a difference. Guns are a non issue in my mind. If you vote against yourself because of this single issue you are a fool and you deserve the likes of Cheney/Bush. 


*A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.*


----------



## CharlestonChad (Aug 25, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> o, one more thing he taught me...determine when you are going to take a stand and hold to it.   I took my stand in my bedroom the last house in the room he could reach.  HE was lucky he couldnt get in.



fixed that for ya


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 25, 2008)

I've had guns trained a couple of times on people. Once was when we lived out in the middle of nowhere and a couple of complete strangers parked down at the highway, then started walking up the 1/8 mile driveway to the house, which looked deserted. I was up in my bedroom with our 30-06 trained on them...this isn't a country where people just walk up to your house unless you're expecting them...particularly after parking down on the highway. And these guys were scoping the place.

They got close to the house, one of them looked up at my window and I heard him say "Somebody's here, let's go". They trotted back to their car and took off.


----------



## 52ndStreet (Aug 25, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> the ussc has affirmed our 2nd right again and again.  i owe 3....i live in the middle of nowhere it would take leo's at least 20 minutes to get here....i will take my guns over 20 minutes of waiting.  So far, in 55 years, I have determined to kill a man, once.  I was home alone with my 2 yr old son when a man tryed to break in.  I hid my son, loaded my gun and waited for my bedroom door to open.  I would have blown him to pieces with one shot.  My father taught me well.  all guns are loaded...never pull a gun on a man unless you are going to kill him, identify your target and empty your gun...no wounding shots allowed.    I shook like a dog passing a peach pit while hiding my son, when i loaded the shotgun, my hands were steady and my nerves were calm.  I have no use for people telling me I should not own guns.  Let them be the one raped or worse watch their child hurt, it wont be me. I will hold my fathers words forever, cause he teaching me about guns, i truly believe is what saved me that day.



And Barack Obama , Joe Biden and other Democrats want to ban all our Hand Guns and Rifles.Read what happened to this poster all you anti gun nuts.!
Vote Republican for Gods Sake!!


----------



## jillian (Aug 25, 2008)

52ndStreet said:


> And Barack Obama , Joe Biden and other Democrats want to ban all our Hand Guns and Rifles.Read what happened to this poster all you anti gun nuts.!
> Vote Republican for Gods Sake!!



non issue... the Court already ruled. you guys really need to grow up and stop whining because you're afraid someone is going to take away your toys.


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 25, 2008)

jillain had you bothered to read what was said instead of going for the typical chant of anti gunners you would see that i said the ussc has reaffirmed our rights time and time again.....did saying 2 adm confuse you?


----------



## jillian (Aug 25, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> jillain had you bothered to read what was said instead of going for the typical chant of anti gunners you would see that i said the ussc has reaffirmed our rights time and time again.....did saying 2 adm confuse you?



i'm not anti-gun. but thanks anyway. i'm anti-whining on the subject because i really think the attachment some of the loonies have to their guns is pathologic.

the ussc has done nothing of the sort, btw. The only case that addressed the issue with detail at all before Heller was the Miller case.... and that case pretty much said nothing.

my point, if you're having trouble following, was that the court has NOW ruled... in Heller... so what anyone may WANT to do on the issue is irrelevant.


----------



## editec (Aug 25, 2008)

52ndStreet said:


> I hear Barack Obama and Joe Biden are very anti Gun rights. This combination in the White house will be bad news for Gun and Rifle owners.Their Sen voting records indicate that they voted for many Gun control laws.


 
I hear they're planning on making us all carry guns wherever we go..._even into the shower._

I also heard that McCain, not to be outgun-righted, is going to make us all carry flamethrowers.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 25, 2008)

Yeah, our founding fathers certainly considered it a non-issue, and the ownership of guns as nothing more than child's play.

"Clinging to their guns and religion". If you're going to dive into Obama's shit head first and mouth open, Jillian, at least go ahead and spout the rest. Elitist asshole.


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

One million Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.

Let's go for two million!


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 25, 2008)

Link please.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 25, 2008)

Here's one:

ABC News: Surprising Fact: Half of Gun Deaths Are Suicides

More than  half of gun related deaths are suicides. Hmmmm.....suppose they wouldn't kill themselves if they didn't have guns?


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Here's one:
> 
> ABC News: Surprising Fact: Half of Gun Deaths Are Suicides
> 
> More than  half of gun related deaths are suicides. Hmmmm.....suppose they wouldn't kill themselves if they didn't have guns?



We need to make it as easy as possible for people to kill themselves. 

It's the American way!


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 25, 2008)

Oh, and here...

Kindly explain why there are more gun related deaths in places with gun ownership restrictions? Haven't I asked you before to explain why crime goes up in direct correlation with gun control?

Definitions for WISQARS Fatal - NCIPC


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 25, 2008)

And if you knew anything about suicide you would know that eliminating one method of suicide will not keep a suicide from being committed.

Suicides are determined, and they will have their way.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 25, 2008)

And I have yet to see any number near 1 million. Can you provide a link, PLEASE?

Here are the unintentional firearm deaths (789)

Broker Version 8.1 (Build 1366)


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 25, 2008)

And legal intervention: 330
And all intents (murder, suicide, accidental, all age groups):30,694

Still not seeing one million. Where'd that number come from? Your ass, once again, I presume?


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 25, 2008)

Here's motorvehicle:45,520


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 25, 2008)

And here are the numbers of ALL injury deaths in the US in 2000. Including firearms, intentional, homicide, accidental, defense, bicyclist, traffic, AIR, etc:
173,753

Still not a million. Go figure.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 25, 2008)

Gosh, suffocation has unintentional firearms death beat all to hell:
13,920
It's even comparable to ALL forms of firearm deaths, 30,694. Almost half.

I've always hated plastic bags myself, and the people who use them. I vote we take plastic away from the world before more people cling senselessly to those bags than already do. They have enough toys.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 25, 2008)

jillian said:


> non issue... the Court already ruled. you guys really need to grow up and stop whining because you're afraid someone is going to take away your toys.




The same whining and fearmongering YOU do about Republicans wanting to overturn a 40+ years old Supreme Court ruling regarding abortion and I tell you the same damned thing?

Why does it only count when it's to your advantage?


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Oh, and here...
> 
> Kindly explain why there are more gun related deaths in places with gun ownership restrictions? Haven't I asked you before to explain why crime goes up in direct correlation with gun control?
> 
> Definitions for WISQARS Fatal - NCIPC



We lead the Western democracies in gun deaths because of our easy gun laws. Since 1960 more than one million Americans have been killed by guns, while only a few thousand Japanese have been killed. States that restrict guns like Mass. have fewer gun deaths than states that don't like Nevada. I don't make things up, like you do.

NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 25, 2008)

Kirk said:


> We need to make it as easy as possible for people to kill themselves.
> 
> It's the American way!



Far, far more have been killed in car accidents.  

Let's ban cars!


----------



## Ravi (Aug 25, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Gosh, suffocation has unintentional firearms death beat all to hell:
> 13,920
> It's even comparable to ALL forms of firearm deaths, 30,694. Almost half.
> 
> I've always hated plastic bags myself, and the people who use them. I vote we take plastic away from the world before more people cling senselessly to those bags than already do. They have enough toys.


Don't take pillows away from us.


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

Here is an interesting footnoted stat sheet on handgun violence...

VPC - Handgun Ban Fact Sheet


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Far, far more have been killed in car accidents.
> 
> Let's ban cars!



The ridiculous argument that gun nuts always use.

The purpose of a gun is to kill. 

The purpose of a car is to transport. 

Big difference.


----------



## hjmick (Aug 25, 2008)

Kirk said:


> One million Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.
> 
> Let's go for two million!



Approximately 2,160,000 people have died as the result of car accidents since 1960. Should we ban travel by automobiles? Perhaps banning the internal combustion engine is the answer? I haven't been on a horse in years, but I imagine it's much like riding a bicycle...



_(My number is based on an average of 45,000 deaths by automobile per year)_


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 25, 2008)

Hey look! ... a worthless "wedgie" issue ... you fools will get to keep your guns ... and your bibles ... nobody is going force your son to marry a dude ... or your daughter to kill a fetus.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 25, 2008)

Guns aren't going anywhere, Kirk, you are very much on the wrong side of this issue.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 25, 2008)

Yes, the purpose of a gun is to kill. So what? Who are you to tell me what I can and can't be interested in? People enjoy chemistry, and biology, and atomic fusion as well. Do you castigate them for being ignorant when they declare they enjoy the study of such, and evince a desire to learn more?

The ignorant and the tyrants are the ones who believe in limiting the freedom of the people, not the other way around. Communist countries are not happy havens of learning and contentment, believe me.


----------



## Denny Crane (Aug 25, 2008)

I don't feel threatened that my right to own a gun is in jeopardy. If I owned an AK-47  or any automatic rifle I suppose I would be concerned, but the reality is the government isn't looking to remove all guns, just the most dangerous ones posing the greatest threat, especially to law enforcement.


----------



## hjmick (Aug 25, 2008)

Kirk said:


> The ridiculous argument that gun nuts always use.
> 
> The purpose of a gun is to kill.
> 
> ...



A gun is a tool. If used properly and skillfully, like any tool it will perform it's function. Can a gun kill? Absolutely. Can a gun save a life? Absolutely. Can a gun prevent a crime? Absolutely. Can a gun provide food? Absolutely.

A car is a tool. If used properly and skillfully, like any tool it will perform it's function. Can a car kill? Absolutely. Can a car save a life? Absolutely. Can a car prevent a crime? Absolutely. Can a car provide food? Absolutely.

How many people each year are bludgeoned to death? Strangled? Stabbed? Should we ban bats and hammers? rope? Knives?

I've got news for you, Kirk, anyone who obtains a gun for the purpose of killing another human being is willing to get the gun any way possible, most often not legally. This means that banning guns will not have the effect you desire, unless your desire is to prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns. The truth is, and anti-gun rights groups often fail to mention this, the number of law abiding, gun owning citizens who commit a gun crime in minuscule.

Why is it that those who fear guns, gun rights, and people who own guns wish to impose their beliefs on everyone else? Perhaps those who favor gun ownership should start working to force every citizen to own a gun. 

Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, but also one of the lowest firearm related crime rates in the world. Cause and effect?


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 25, 2008)

Denny Crane said:


> I don't feel threatened that my right to own a gun is in jeopardy. If I owned an AK-47  or any automatic rifle I suppose I would be concerned, but the reality is the government isn't looking to remove all guns, just the most dangerous ones posing the greatest threat, especially to law enforcement.



I do however get sick of being labeled as stupid, ignorant, twisted and backwards by people who want to limit my personal freedom based on their own lack of information and exposure to the world around them.


----------



## busara (Aug 25, 2008)

hjmick said:


> A gun is a tool. If used properly and skillfully, like any tool it will perform it's function. Can a gun kill? Absolutely. Can a gun save a life? Absolutely. Can a gun prevent a crime? Absolutely. Can a gun provide food? Absolutely.
> 
> A car is a tool. If used properly and skillfully, like any tool it will perform it's function. Can a car kill? Absolutely. Can a car save a life? Absolutely. Can a car prevent a crime? Absolutely. Can a car provide food? Absolutely.
> 
> ...



kirk's right on this, hjmick. a car isnt made to kill people. neither is a bat, nor most (kitchen) knives. but a gun? the primary use of a gun is to kill a person or an animal. youre trying to paint a gun as being a typical household item, which it isnt. it is made to inflict damage. not to get around town, hit a ball, or cut vegetables and meat.


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

Friday, April 17, 1998
U.S. Leads Richest Nations In Gun Deaths

BY CHELSEA J. CARTER
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

    ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found. 
    The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000. 
    The study, done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the first comprehensive international look at gun-related deaths. It was published Thursday in the International Journal of Epidemiology. 
    The CDC would not speculate why the death rates varied, but other researchers said easy access to guns and society's acceptance of violence are part of the problem in the United States. 
    ``If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used more often,'' said Rebecca Peters, a Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence. ``This has to be treated as a public health emergency.'' 
    The National Rifle Association called the study shoddy because it failed to examine all causes of violent deaths. 
    ``What this shows is the CDC is after guns. They aren't concerned with violence. It's pretending that no homicide exists unless it's related to guns,'' said Paul Blackman, a research coordinator for the NRA in Fairfax, Va. 
    The 36 countries chosen were listed as the richest in the World Bank's 1994 World Development Report, with the highest GNP per capita income. 
    The study used 1994 statistics supplied by the 36 countries. Of the 88,649 gun deaths reported by all the countries, the United States accounted for 45 percent, said Etienne Krug, a CDC researcher and co-author of the article. 
    Japan, where very few people own guns, averages 124 gun-related attacks a year, and less than 1 percent end in death. Police often raid the homes of those suspected of having weapons. 
    The study found that gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia. 
    Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05. 


http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 25, 2008)

busara said:


> kirk's right on this, hjmick. a car isnt made to kill people. neither is a bat, nor most (kitchen) knives. but a gun? the primary use of a gun is to kill a person or an animal. youre trying to paint a gun as being a typical household item, which it isnt. it is made to inflict damage. not to get around town, hit a ball, or cut vegetables and meat.



And again..so what? Who are you to decide what people should be interested in, and be allowed to pursue? Shall we ban education so men can't develop weapons? Because I mean, really, molecular science really has no practical application, does it? 

People in this country do not get to dictate to others what they can or should be interested in, or what they may do with their free time, so long as nobody is having their rights violated. A gun is made for killing, and we have guns in my family. How exactly does that violate your rights? It doesn't. I'll bet you have a cell phone and a land line. I currently have neither...and I don't like land lines. SHall I dictate that you get rid of yours? AFter all, they're useless to me, and I just don't like them.

Likewise 4-wheelers. I hate them. They're dangerous. They're useless, at least in the capacity that most of them are used. What say we get rid of all of them?

In a republic, this is not the way things work. You do not get to dictate the way I live my life. You do not get to decide for me whether my pastimes are valid or worthwhile. It's none of your business.


----------



## busara (Aug 25, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> And again..so what? Who are you to decide what people should be interested in, and be allowed to pursue? Shall we ban education so men can't develop weapons? Because I mean, really, molecular science really has no practical application, does it?
> 
> People in this country do not get to dictate to others what they can or should be interested in, or what they may do with their free time, so long as nobody is having their rights violated. A gun is made for killing, and we have guns in my family. How exactly does that violate your rights? It doesn't. I'll bet you have a cell phone and a land line. I currently have neither...and I don't like land lines. SHall I dictate that you get rid of yours? AFter all, they're useless to me, and I just don't like them.
> 
> ...



did i say guns should be taken away? sorry, you just wasted your time, but i was merely showing the flaws in hjmicks argument


----------



## Eightball (Aug 25, 2008)

Kirk said:


> One million Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.
> 
> Let's go for two million!



Your point?


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

Eightball said:


> Your point?



Post of the year!


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

How many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky? 
Yes, n how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry? 
Yes, n how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died? 
The answer, my friend, is blowin in the wind,
The answer is blowin in the wind.


----------



## Denny Crane (Aug 25, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> I do however get sick of being labeled as stupid, ignorant, twisted and backwards by people who want to limit my personal freedom based on their own lack of information and exposure to the world around them.



I can understand that but it's not me saying those things. Other than the pro-gun advocates saying the governments wants to take our guns I don't see any government agencies actually pulling guns from anyones cold dead hands. I do see them making it harder for criminals to buy them, and there are some laws looking to close loopholes where laws are concerned.

Other than that I don't see what the fuss is. If we enforce the gun laws in place I see no need to enact more. 

This is a wedge issues that comes up every election cycle but I haven't seen many arms being taken from law abiding citizens.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 25, 2008)

It's because every election has some yahoo who wants to eliminate private gun ownership....this time it's Obama.


----------



## hjmick (Aug 25, 2008)

busara said:


> kirk's right on this, hjmick. a car isnt made to kill people. neither is a bat, nor most (kitchen) knives. but a gun? the primary use of a gun is to kill a person or an animal. youre trying to paint a gun as being a typical household item, which it isnt. it is made to inflict damage. not to get around town, hit a ball, or cut vegetables and meat.



While this is true, I know of no one who legally owns a gun with the intent to kill another person. I know that I have no desire to kill anyone, yet I currently own two guns. Though I am perfectly willing to defend my family and myself, it is only as a last resort that I would consider taking a life.

The idea that banning a person's right to own guns is going to solve the problems Kirk, and most who would deny us the right, seek to cure in naive at best. Address the criminal element, not the law abiding gun owners. We are a threat to no one. Use the numerous laws that are currently on the books, do not pass new ones. A gun is a tool. A tool that can kill. Just like a car, a knife, a hammer, your hands, or a bat. It's how the tool is used that makes the difference.


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> It's because every election has some yahoo who wants to eliminate private gun ownership....this time it's Obama.



More lies...is that all you have is lies and bullsh*t?

Show a link where Obama wants to eliminate private gun ownership.


----------



## busara (Aug 25, 2008)

hjmick said:


> While this is true, I know of no one who legally owns a gun with the intent to kill another person. I know that I have no desire to kill anyone, yet I currently own two guns. Though I am perfectly willing to defend my family and myself, it is only as a last resort that I would consider taking a life.
> 
> The idea that banning a person's right to own guns is going to solve the problems Kirk, and most who would deny us the right, seek to cure in naive at best. Address the criminal element, not the law abiding gun owners. We are a threat to no one. Use the numerous laws that are currently on the books, do not pass new ones. A gun is a tool. A tool that can kill. Just like a car, a knife, a hammer, your hands, or a bat. It's how the tool is used that makes the difference.



i agree that the problem is with people, not the gun itself. but you saying that a gun is no different than a car or a hammer is plain wrong, because the sole use for a gun is to inflict damage. whether you intend to do so is irrelevant. picture this: someone owns a breadmaker. they dont intend to use it to make bread. you can make bread without it. that doesnt change the fact that it's purpose is to make bread. 

heres a question i have. you are so adament about keeping guns, why isnt there a push for other weapons? rpg's, land mines, tanks. do citizens have a right to that equipment as well? (i am all for upholding the constitution, im just curious as to response)


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 25, 2008)

Kirk said:


> More lies...is that all you have is lies and bullsh*t?
> 
> Show a link where Obama wants to eliminate private gun ownership.



I heard him say it.
I'll find a link, dumbass.
Ever find a link to verify that 1 million killed a year by guns, and that explains away the correlation between more stringent gun laws and higher crime rates?


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 25, 2008)

busara said:


> i agree that the problem is with people, not the gun itself. but you saying that a gun is no different than a car or a hammer is plain wrong, because the sole use for a gun is to inflict damage. whether you intend to do so is irrelevant. picture this: someone owns a breadmaker. they dont intend to use it to make bread. you can make bread without it. that doesnt change the fact that it's purpose is to make bread.
> 
> heres a question i have. you are so adament about keeping guns, why isnt there a push for other weapons? rpg's, land mines, tanks. do citizens have a right to that equipment as well? (i am all for upholding the constitution, im just curious as to response)



Because people don't want guns to invade. They want guns to protect themselves, and as a hobby.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 25, 2008)

Yet while in the Illinois Legislature, he endorsed a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in that state, he favored denying gun ownership to anyone under age 21, and he supported banning ammunition sales.

Missoulian: Obama no friend of guns or the NRA
"Obama has explicitly stated he views Washington, D.C.&#8217;s handgun ban as consistent with the Second Amendment&#8217;s right for the individual to keep and bear arms, saying &#8220;just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can&#8217;t constrain the exercise of that right.&#8221; 


Obama linked to gun control efforts - Kenneth P. Vogel - Politico.com
"But before he became a national political figure, he sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions. 

The foundation funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners&#8217; rights, as well as two groups that advocated handgun bans. And it paid to support a book called &#8220;Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.&#8221;


----------



## hjmick (Aug 25, 2008)

Denny Crane said:


> ...but I haven't seen many arms being taken from law abiding citizens.



With all due respect...

How then do you explain the Federal Government initiating the total gun confiscation of law abiding citizens and forcibly removing them from their property in New Orleans during Katrina?

Mao and Hitler both banned guns. It is usually one of the first acts of dictators and communists, remove the ability of the populace to mount an effective revolt. Fear the government that fears your guns. Gun control makes the job of a dictator or corrupt government much easier.

Rome existed and flourished for centuries. Then, those in charge banned private ownership of weapons. This allowed tyranny and incompetence in government so bad that the nation fell in a generation. Granted this was not the sole reason for the collapse of Rome, but it certainly contributed the the decline. Fear the government that fears your guns.

Passing laws against robbery murder has not stopped people from robbing and murdering. Passing laws against guns will prevent law-abiding citizens from having them. This means you are more distrustful of law-abiding citizens than you are fearful of people whose career goal is to rob and murder. The police are not our private 24-hour personal bodyguards. There are not enough police to go around to each home. There are more criminals than police now, and the job of the police is normally after the fact. The responsibility to protect yourself and your family falls on your shoulders first and foremost. The right of a living creature to defend itself is a right granted by nature. It is not a privilege granted by law.


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 25, 2008)

editec said:


> I hear they're planning on making us all carry guns wherever we go..._even into the shower._
> 
> I also heard that McCain, not to be outgun-righted, is going to make us all carry flamethrowers.



you can get the recipe off the net...diseal and liquid dawn......and use a super soaker to make a flamethrower or go to the grassy creek gun show in oct..they have vendors who rents everything


----------



## hjmick (Aug 25, 2008)

busara said:


> i agree that the problem is with people, not the gun itself. but you saying that a gun is no different than a car or a hammer is plain wrong, because the sole use for a gun is to inflict damage. whether you intend to do so is irrelevant. picture this: someone owns a breadmaker. they dont intend to use it to make bread. you can make bread without it. that doesnt change the fact that it's purpose is to make bread.



It's purpose is to make bread... or crush someone's skull!! LOL 

I'm not saying a gun is no different than those things, I am simply saying that a gun is a tool in much the same way. How a tool is used and by whom determines what that tool does.

Look, don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to all the hoops I have to jump through in order to legally own a gun, and believe me when I say that those hoops are many here in California. I am opposed to revoking a right I consider to be at the foundation of our nation. I am no legal expert, not even close, but in much of my reading on the subject of the 2nd amendment I have come to believe that at least a portion of the intent was to serve as a reminder to the government about whom they serve. In a manner of speaking, it was meant, among other things, as a way for American citizens to prevent the rise of the type of tyranny they had just thrown off.



> heres a question i have. you are so adament about keeping guns, why isnt there a push for other weapons? rpg's, land mines, tanks. do citizens have a right to that equipment as well? (i am all for upholding the constitution, im just curious as to response)



Those are weapons I have no desire to see in the hands of private citizens. Same goes for fully automatic weapons, at least in my book. I can see an argument for collectors, maybe. No one needs an AK-47 to hunt dear and I see no reason to mine my lawn.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 25, 2008)

Once again, just because you don't understand doesn't give you the right to deny it to others.

I'm not for mining lawns either. But just sayin.


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

Kirk said:


> One million Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.
> 
> Let's go for two million!



Honestly, do you read the posts here at all?


----------



## Denny Crane (Aug 25, 2008)

hjmick said:


> With all due respect...
> 
> How then do you explain the Federal Government initiating the total gun confiscation of law abiding citizens and forcibly removing them from their property in New Orleans during Katrina?



I'm not familiar with what took place but I'll look into it then comment on it.


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

hjmick said:


> With all due respect...
> 
> How then do you explain the Federal Government initiating the total gun confiscation of law abiding citizens and forcibly removing them from their property in New Orleans during Katrina?
> 
> ...



"Law abiding citizens" are the ones providing criminals with guns. 250,000 guns are stolen in the United States each year.


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 25, 2008)

Article 15 said:


> Hey look! ... a worthless "wedgie" issue ... you fools will get to keep your guns ... and your bibles ... nobody is going force your son to marry a dude ... or your daughter to kill a fetus.



fools will get to keep your guns?   why are we fools?  and what in the world are you saying about the bible.. i am a witch....i do not ahere to the book of myths.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 25, 2008)

He thinks anyone who believes in personal liberty, God, and the sanctity of life is a fool.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 25, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> fools will get to keep your guns?   why are we fools?  and what in the world are you saying about the bible.. i am a witch....i do not ahere to the book of myths.



You are a fool if you think the gov't is coming to your door to take your gun away ... guns, bibles, gays ... the classic wedges ... that's why I included them ... personally, I don't care what religion you practice.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 25, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> He thinks anyone who believes in personal liberty, God, and the sanctity of life is a fool.



Incorrect.


----------



## hjmick (Aug 25, 2008)

Kirk said:


> "Law abiding citizens" are the ones providing criminals with guns. 250,000 guns are stolen in the United States each year.




I could only find numbers for 1996 which put the number closer to 600,000 firearms stolen from households. And of those 600,000, I'm betting the majority were stolen when no one was home. To me, these people are irresponsible when it comes to the storage of their firearms. As a result, they should be forced to show that they properly store their guns before they are allowed to purchase more. But you don't punish everyone for the failings of a few.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 25, 2008)

Article 15 said:


> You are a fool if you think the gov't is coming to your door to take your gun away ... guns, bibles, gays ... the classic wedges ... that's why I included them ... personally, I don't care what religion you practice.



I believe the government is coming to my door to take away my guns, my bibles and my gays?

Do I have gays? Is it PC to imply ownership of them?


----------



## Eightball (Aug 25, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Honestly, do you read the posts here at all?



Kirk:  You go ahead and protect yourself and your signifcant loved one's using the dialogue technique ala Barack Obama,

When faced with someone in my house who is intent on physical harm to me or my family,

I will rely on my 357 magnum Ruger double action revolver, and 38 calibre Black Talon ammo.
For those in the "know", they "know" Black Talon means business.  This American citizen not in the business of putting smooth air holes in a killer or those committing physical mayhem to me or family, but stopping them, "NOW!".  They mean business, so will I.  
Kirk........You call 911, and fend off the armed guy in your house with a cup of coffee.  Also ask him to wait for the cops to arrive before making Swiss cheese of you.

More and more police departments are changing their public statements about armed homeowners or private citizens.

Just in Oakland, California a month ago, an armed intruder was killed by a home owner that was armed legally with his own pistol.

The Oakland Police department credited the homeowner on how the situation turned out.

In Ohio, and many states the right to use deadly force to stop an intruder in your home/apartment/etc.. is being welcomed...........Thankfully.

Never the less, there still are a few "Kirks" lobbying in all the governmental branches who think their Mensa quality thought processes, will out smart a knife or gun weilding criminal intent on not being caught.

Kirk........As long as criminals get guns illegally anyway, do you have an answer to give to all the relative's of victims of armed assault in their homes?

So your heart goes out to them...........How sweet........

Just wonder how many of those relatives or even if you could bring back those departed victims, and tell them that they could do without a gun to defend themselves........

Use the old "stupid" people defense.............when using a gun.

You'll find that 99% of legal gun owners are probably of very high intelligence.  At least they are smart enough to know that you don't dialogue with a armed "nut-case" whose entered your home with intent to do a crime with no witnesses.  

You go ahead and fight them off with words, or a 911 call, and hide in a room and hope they don't find you.

I wanted to make a Darwinian joke right now, but my conscience stops me.  Suffice to say, I want to survive, and I want my family to survive too.

You go and throw rocks at the bad guys.  Keep a nice pile of them by your bed and each room of your house.

Ooh.......maybe rocks are to assertive?  How about bean bags?


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 25, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> I believe the government is coming to my door to take away my guns, my bibles and my gays?



Are you trying to tell me that you are a fool?



> Do I have gays?



I don't know ... I've never met your children.



> Is it PC to imply ownership of them?



You can imply whatever you want about your gay children.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 25, 2008)

Gosh, you're almost as classy as the other slavering libs on this board.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 25, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Gosh, you're almost as classy as the other slavering libs on this board.



Heh ... someone can dish it out ... but they sure as hell can't take it ... let's see ... so somehow it's different when I play on your words, eh ... hypocrite.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 25, 2008)

Prove me a hypocrite.

And no, you won't see me "dishing it out" if dishing it out includes saying rude things about children and completely deviating from any sense....


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 25, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Prove me a hypocrite.
> 
> And no, you won't see me "dishing it out" if dishing it out includes saying rude things about children and completely deviating from any sense....



You played on my words and I played back ... you cried foul ... therefor you are a hypocrite.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 25, 2008)

I'm off to work ... you are going to have to settle for chasing your own tail for a lil' while, Allie.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 25, 2008)

Article 15 said:


> You played on my words and I played back ... you cried foul ... therefor you are a hypocrite.



Don't be ridiculous. Having a little fun with your bad English is not the same as completely deserting the topic to poke fun at children.

But that's okay. I can't believe you have a job. I hope it doesn't involve using the language or heaven forbid, dealing with the public in any but a most superficial manner.....


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

Eightball said:


> Kirk:  You go ahead and protect yourself and your signifcant loved one's using the dialogue technique ala Barack Obama,
> 
> When faced with someone in my house who is intent on physical harm to me or my family,
> 
> ...



If you own a gun you or a member of your family is 3-5 times more likely to die of a gun death. Guns are a threat to the people that own them and their families.


----------



## hjmick (Aug 25, 2008)

Kirk said:


> If you own a gun you or a member of your family is 3-5 times more likely to die of a gun death. Guns are a threat to the people that own them and their families.



This statistic is greatly reduced when the members of the household are properly trained and familiar with the guns in the house. I did not have guns in my house from the time my children were born until about two years ago when I decided my youngest was old enough to go to the range. I get the impression, Kirk, that you view all gun owners with arather myopic point of view. There is a difference between "gun owners" and "*resonsibile* gun owners."


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 25, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Don't be ridiculous. Having a little fun with your bad English is not the same as completely deserting the topic to poke fun at children.



Pfft ... I was having fun with your bad English, too ... it's not my fault that your lead-ins forced me to make fun of your children ... next time don't tee them up like that ...



> But that's okay. I can't believe you have a job. I hope it doesn't involve using the language or heaven forbid, dealing with the public in any but a most superficial manner.......



I do!  After doing the whole supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic thing I moved on to a nice cush job working for a private investment bank that specializes in overseas markets and clients ... the best part is their English sucks more than mine so they would have no idea I have warrants out from the Message Board Grammar Police.


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

hjmick said:


> This statistic is greatly reduced when the members of the household are properly trained and familiar with the guns in the house. I did not have guns in my house from the time my children were born until about two years ago when I decided my youngest was old enough to go to the range. I get the impression, Kirk, that you view all gun owners with arather myopic point of view. There is a difference between "gun owners" and "*resonsibile* gun owners."



Guns are a danger to the people that own them because guns make it easy to kill, and Americans are all about convienence. Here is the best overview I have found on the subject.

Death by the Barrel  (September-October 2004)


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 25, 2008)

Article 15 said:


> You are a fool if you think the gov't is coming to your door to take your gun away ... guns, bibles, gays ... the classic wedges ... that's why I included them ... personally, I don't care what religion you practice.




the classic wedges are simply people not realize we all have the same goals....safe secure places for our families.

then dont inclued the reference to the bible when talking to me.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 26, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> the classic wedges are simply people not realize we all have the same goals....safe secure places for our families.



I'm confused ... I thought wedge issues were meant *to split* people who otherwise would have the same goal ... upon further reflection I get what you are saying ... that people don't realize they have the same goals _is_ the wedge ... an interesting point.



> then dont inclued the reference to the bible when talking to me.



Ok ... I wasn't directly addressing you when I made my first remark ... but I did broad brush ... in the future I will refrain from discussing the bible with you or directly painting you as a bible thumper.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 26, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Guns are a danger to the people that own them because guns make it easy to kill, and Americans are all about convienence. Here is the best overview I have found on the subject.
> 
> Death by the Barrel**(September-October*2004)



"I'm taking your gun away from you because Im' worried you might get hurt "

YA right !


----------



## uoood (Aug 26, 2008)

Hello Americans,
your government will take your guns, and then, when you are defenseless, you'll get shafted bigtime. Isn't it interesting that Mr. Obama belongs to a think tank called the CFR aka Council on Foreign Relations whose goal is the end of the United States as an independent nation.
Already plans are afoot to roll up the US, Canada and Mexico into one big North American Union under a single currency "the Amero". That's after they've completely screwed you with the depression they've got planned. 
So there'll be no middle class, and no guns for your defense. Just droves of mindless brainwashed idiots who still think that they are under threat from foreign "terrorists". These same clowns will be the ones who enforce the tyranny your masters have planned for you.
Then, if you disagree with any of this, it's off to the FEMA Concentration Camps where you'll have time to re-adjust. 
Godbless America and God Bless Democracy.

Better wake up before it's too late.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 26, 2008)

uoood said:


> Hello Americans,
> your government will take your guns, and then, when you are defenseless, you'll get shafted bigtime. Isn't it interesting that Mr. Obama belongs to a think tank called the CFR aka Council on Foreign Relations whose goal is the end of the United States as an independent nation.
> Already plans are afoot to roll up the US, Canada and Mexico into one big North American Union under a single currency "the Amero". That's after they've completely screwed you with the depression they've got planned.
> So there'll be no middle class, and no guns for your defense. Just droves of mindless brainwashed idiots who still think that they are under threat from foreign "terrorists". These same clowns will be the ones who enforce the tyranny your masters have planned for you.
> ...




Uh---McCain is CFR too.


----------



## Ninja (Aug 26, 2008)

jillian said:


> non issue... the Court already ruled. you guys really need to grow up and stop whining because you're afraid someone is going to take away your toys.



Yeah, kinda like you guys stopped whining after _Roe_


----------



## Dr Grump (Aug 26, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Yeah, kinda like you guys stopped whining after _Roe_



Roe is not set in stone. Your second is....


----------



## Ninja (Aug 26, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Roe is not set in stone. Your second is....



It's as "set in stone" as _Heller_, dipshit.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 26, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Roe is not set in stone. Your second is....



We can only hope--God knows enough of them have been "interpreted" away.


----------



## Ninja (Aug 26, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Here is an interesting footnoted stat sheet on handgun violence...
> 
> VPC - Handgun Ban Fact Sheet



An even more interesting fact that the VPC doesn't mention:

DC's murder rate skyrocketed after the handgun ban went into effect.

Doh!


----------



## Ninja (Aug 26, 2008)

busara said:


> kirk's right on this, hjmick. a car isnt made to kill people. neither is a bat, nor most (kitchen) knives. but a gun? the primary use of a gun is to kill a person or an animal. youre trying to paint a gun as being a typical household item, which it isnt. it is made to inflict damage. not to get around town, hit a ball, or cut vegetables and meat.



A gun is an inert piece of metal. It is neither good nor bad. There are places in the country, far far away from the Starbucks where milquetoast urban liberals like you and Kirk drink your lattes every morning, where guns ARE household items. And these places by and large have a far lower crime rate than the shitholes where the gun snatchers reside. There is nothing you and your pathetic appeal to emotion argument can do to change this.

And if guns are made to kill:

Assault Weapons

Why does that one just sit in the corner?


----------



## Chris (Aug 26, 2008)

Ninja said:


> An even more interesting fact that the VPC doesn't mention:
> 
> DC's murder rate skyrocketed after the handgun ban went into effect.
> 
> Doh!



More lies....

D.C.'s murder rate has shrunk to half what it was.

Don't bullsh*t here. I know the facts.


----------



## Chris (Aug 26, 2008)

Ninja said:


> A gun is an inert piece of metal. It is neither good nor bad. There are places in the country, far far away from the Starbucks where milquetoast urban liberals like you and Kirk drink your lattes every morning, where guns ARE household items. And these places by and large have a far lower crime rate than the shitholes where the gun snatchers reside. There is nothing you and your pathetic appeal to emotion argument can do to change this.
> 
> And if guns are made to kill:
> 
> ...



No one said anything about the crime rate. Gun deaths come in two main forms, suicide and people killing people they know. Usually these suicides and killings are acts of passion. Having a gun around makes it easy for an angry spouse or a depressed teenager to kill themselves or others.


----------



## Ninja (Aug 26, 2008)

Kirk said:


> More lies....
> 
> D.C.'s murder rate has shrunk to half what it was.
> 
> Don't bullsh*t here. I know the facts.



Liar. 

The ban went into effect in 1975. 

Murders exceeded 1975 numbers as recently as 2003. 

Check out the early 1990's numbers if you really wanna get a feel for the ban's ineffectiveness. 

District of Columbia Crime Rates 1960 - 2006

Give it up, Kirk. I'm embarrassed for you.


----------



## Dr Grump (Aug 26, 2008)

Ninja said:


> It's as "set in stone" as _Heller_, dipshit.



Look at the bigger picture Moron....


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 26, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Liar.
> 
> The ban went into effect in 1975.
> 
> ...



Kirk has been through the transporter one too many times.
( Cue the sparkly shit and eerie music )


----------



## Chris (Aug 26, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Liar.
> 
> The ban went into effect in 1975.
> 
> ...




On the link you provided murders went from 482 in 1990 to 169 in 2006, so murders dropped by more than half. One of the reasons for this is that Virginia, which used to have the loosest gun laws in the nation, tightened up their gun laws because criminals were buying their guns here and shipping them to the Northeast and D.C.

Your own link proved you wrong. So sorry....


----------



## Ninja (Aug 26, 2008)

Kirk said:


> On the link you provided murders went from 482 in 1990 to 169 in 2006, so murders dropped by more than half. One of the reasons for this is that Virginia, which used to have the loosest gun laws in the nation, tightened up their gun laws because criminals were buying their guns here and shipping them to the Northeast and D.C.
> 
> Your own link proved you wrong. So sorry....



Well golly gee willikers, Korky, using that brilliant logic:

In 1975 there were 235 murders.

In 1990 there were 482 murders. 

Your own logic (or lack thereof) proved you wrong. So sorry...


----------



## Chris (Aug 26, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Well golly gee willikers, Korky, using that brilliant logic:
> 
> In 1975 there were 235 murders.
> 
> ...



I explained it to you, but you lack reading comprehension.

How far is it from Virginia to D.C.?


----------



## Ninja (Aug 26, 2008)

Kirk said:


> I explained it to you, but you lack reading comprehension.
> 
> How far is it from Virginia to D.C.?



I explained it to you, but you lack reading comprehension... And 1st grade-level math skills as well.

Is 482 greater than or less than 235?


----------



## Chris (Aug 26, 2008)

Ninja said:


> I explained it to you, but you lack reading comprehension... And 1st grade-level math skills as well.
> 
> Is 482 greater than or less than 235?



They bought their guns in Virginia. 

How many gun deaths are there in Japan each year?


----------



## Chris (Aug 26, 2008)

The state with the lowest gun death rate has the strictest laws...

Credit gun controls for lowest firearm death rate | starbulletin.com | Editorial | /2008/04/26/


----------



## Chris (Aug 26, 2008)

Nevada leads the nation in gun deaths and gun ownership....

Nevada leads in gun deaths, ownership With more guns sold and registered per capita than anywhere in the U.S., Nevada is a gun state - always has been.It also is the gun-death state. Accordi | NevadaAppeal.com

With more guns sold and registered per capita than anywhere in the U.S., Nevada is a gun state - always has been.

It also is the gun-death state. According to the Center for Disease Control, since 2000, Nevada has led the nation with an average of 26 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people. 

War-torn Iraq averaged 32 gun deaths per 100,000 people last year, according to the same study. 

At least once a year, an accidental gun death here makes national headlines.



Lives cut short

Northern Nevada's latest gun tragedy came Oct. 28.

Charles Coogan Kelly, 21, of Truckee, Derek Jensen, 23, of Reno, and Nathan Viljoen, 23, of Fallon, were all fatally shot after an argument erupted at the party in a quiet, neighborhood in southwest Reno.

Two 19-year-old Reno men, Samisone Taukitoku and Saili Manu, were arrested the next day on suspicion of robbery, assault with a deadly weapon and brandishing a firearm. Their bail was set at $500,000 each.

During his arraignment, Taukitoku was charged on three counts of murder with the use of a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon and coercion. He is being held without bail. Saili Manu also was arraigned on charges of coercion and assault with a deadly weapon. 

Manu remained in custody in lieu of $500,000 cash bail. Taukitoku is accused of using a .380 semi-automatic pistol to shoot world-class snowboarder Kelly, University of Nevada, Reno student Jensen, and former UNR student Viljoen. 



Police said Taukitoku, Manu and two teen relatives crashed a party at a Heatheridge Lane home rented by UNR students. 

Robert Bell, Manu's attorney, said the pair went to the party to have fun, but when they arrived at the party, fights had broken out.

"Then, shots rang out, and three boys were dead," Bell said. "He's in shock, that's the best way to put it. The public needs to see where the real fault lies. He was not charged with murder."

Three dead from a Halloween party is just the latest case of guns cutting young lives short here.

On June 15, 2006, Zack Warren, 18, was accidentally shot and killed by friend Donald Davis at a house on River Road.


----------



## Ninja (Aug 26, 2008)

Kirk said:


> The state with the lowest gun death rate has the strictest laws...
> 
> Credit gun controls for lowest firearm death rate | starbulletin.com | Editorial | /2008/04/26/



That's funny.

All of the states given D's and F's by the Brady Campaign are far safer than the states that receive A's and B's. 

Korky owned again!


----------



## Chris (Aug 26, 2008)

Ninja said:


> That's funny.
> 
> All of the states given D's and F's by the Brady Campaign are far safer than the states that receive A's and B's.
> 
> Korky owned again!



Lies, more lies...

I think you should move to Nevada. You have the best chance of dying a gun death there.


----------



## chapstic (Aug 26, 2008)

Kirk said:


> They bought their guns in Virginia.
> 
> How many gun deaths are there in Japan each year?



you are so fixed on other countries, why don't you just leave the u.s.a.?  you seem so unhappy here.

regarding guns, make guns illegal, people are still going to get them, they will just *all* be underground instead of just a small amount.  i know plenty of people who own guns(legally), and they have no problems.  i wish you luck stealing any gun from me.  i have a a 700lbs gun safe with a combination lock.  not everyone that owns a gun leaves it on their coffee table cocked and loaded(safety off) for the 6 year old neighbor kid to play with.


----------



## Ninja (Aug 26, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Lies, more lies...
> 
> I think you should move to Nevada. You have the best chance of dying a gun death there.



I'm sure you'd love that 

I'd be sure to come back from the dead and expose your deceitful posts.


----------



## Chris (Aug 26, 2008)

chapstic said:


> you are so fixed on other countries, why don't you just leave the u.s.a.?  you seem so unhappy here.
> 
> regarding guns, make guns illegal, people are still going to get them, they will just *all* be underground instead of just a small amount.  i know plenty of people who own guns(legally), and they have no problems.  i wish you luck stealing any gun from me.  i have a a 700lbs gun safe with a combination lock.  not everyone that owns a gun leaves it on their coffee table cocked and loaded(safety off) for the 6 year old neighbor kid to play with.



Most of the other Western democracies do healthcare and gun control better than we do. It's just a fact.

We're Number One in gun deaths, however!


----------



## Ninja (Aug 26, 2008)

Kirk said:


> We're Number One in gun deaths, however!



At least there's _something_ that makes you proud to live here


----------



## chapstic (Aug 26, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Most of the other Western democracies do healthcare and gun control better than we do. It's just a fact.
> 
> We're Number One in gun deaths, however!



you maybe right on gun control, either way i don't care, i handle my guns safely and they will never affect any other american.

healthcare, you are very confused. you should look up some negatives of universal healthcare.  like why canadians come to the states for mri's, cat scans, major surgerys because they have to wait for months to receive those treatments and many other special procedures.  why do canadians come to the states to have their babys?  could it quite possibly be our healthcare quality is far above theirs and you don't have to wait in line for months?

Don?t destroy American health system for Canadians | The News is NowPublic.com


----------



## Ninja (Aug 26, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Look at the bigger picture Moron....



 I am ya fuckin' Kiwi.


----------



## editec (Aug 26, 2008)

The desperation of the right wing is so damned obvious.

_"I hear Barack Obama and Joe Biden are very anti Gun rights."_

My God, how pathetic is that?


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 26, 2008)

Article 15 said:


> I'm confused ... I thought wedge issues were meant *to split* people who otherwise would have the same goal ... upon further reflection I get what you are saying ... that people don't realize they have the same goals _is_ the wedge ... an interesting point.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok ... I wasn't directly addressing you when I made my first remark ... but I did broad brush ... in the future I will refrain from discussing the bible with you or directly painting you as a bible thumper.



thank  you.

since you are agaisnt guns...you ever stabbed someone to death with a spoon? its hard work.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 26, 2008)

editec said:


> The desperation of the right wing is so damned obvious.
> 
> _"I hear Barack Obama and Joe Biden are very anti Gun rights."_
> 
> My God, how pathetic is that?



Watch both conventions and you will see pathetic at its finest.


----------



## editec (Aug 26, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Watch both conventions and you will see pathetic at its finest.


 
Possibly, but hardly more pathetic than the flailing of the right wingers on this board who presume that we are dumb enough not to see through their transparent complaints about Obama.

At the top levels of the Republican party, I see some truly brilliant minds -- minds capable of manipulating the people, minds capable of planning long range schemes which serve their (clandestine) purposes beautifully.

But down here in the trenches where we average Americans debate the issues?

The Republican loyals seem dumber than posts.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 26, 2008)

Will anyone actually attend the RNC con?


----------



## Chris (Aug 26, 2008)

chapstic said:


> you maybe right on gun control, either way i don't care, i handle my guns safely and they will never affect any other american.
> 
> healthcare, you are very confused. you should look up some negatives of universal healthcare.  like why canadians come to the states for mri's, cat scans, major surgerys because they have to wait for months to receive those treatments and many other special procedures.  why do canadians come to the states to have their babys?  could it quite possibly be our healthcare quality is far above theirs and you don't have to wait in line for months?
> 
> Don?t destroy American health system for Canadians | The News is NowPublic.com



When Canadians were asked in a poll to name the greatest Canadian in history, they chose the man who developed their healthcare system. Every system has is a compromise of sorts, but most of the criticism of the single payer system is bogus. You still get to choose your doctor, and your doctor is still in business for himself, but the government acts as the insurance company. As a result the government can negotiate from strength with the drug companies to lower prices. There is less litigation because if mistakes are made they don't cost as much to fix, and there are inherent savings from lower administrative costs. Click the link below to read a very good overview of the Canadian system.

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org


----------



## busara (Aug 26, 2008)

> I'm not saying a gun is no different than those things, I am simply saying that a gun is a tool in much the same way. How a tool is used and by whom determines what that tool does.



the only problem with this is that all a gun does is shoot. it wont kill anyone if it isnt shot, just like a bat wont hit a ball if it isnt swung, but the only use for a gun is to inflict damage. there isnt a question of how it is used, as it has only the one use. it isnt like it is being used in a way it wasnt intended, like a bat or a rope or a candlestick. it is being used in the way it was designed to be used. 



hjmick said:


> Those are weapons I have no desire to see in the hands of private citizens. Same goes for fully automatic weapons, at least in my book. I can see an argument for collectors, maybe. No one needs an AK-47 to hunt dear and I see no reason to mine my lawn.



and here we agree (shake hands). i support the right to own guns, mainly because it is the second amendment. but for the purpose of protection you dont need an assault rifle. a shotgun will scare people from your home just fine.


----------



## busara (Aug 26, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Because people don't want guns to invade. They want guns to protect themselves, and as a hobby.



an rpg wont protect you?


----------



## jillian (Aug 26, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Yeah, kinda like you guys stopped whining after _Roe_



Actually, we're not the ones whining... that would be the ridiculous right.


----------



## 52ndStreet (Aug 26, 2008)

All I know is that Barack Obama and Joe Biden Senate records indicate an anti Gun
bias.Joe Biden signed authored legislation that put 200,000 more cops on our streets.!
We don't need more Cops, America needs Jobs.


----------



## jillian (Aug 26, 2008)

52ndStreet said:


> All I know is that Barack Obama and Joe Biden Senate records indicate an anti Gun
> bias.Joe Biden signed authored legislation that put 200,000 more cops on our streets.!
> We don't need more Cops, America needs Jobs.



America DOES need jobs... how'd your guys do with that one for the last 7 1/2 years?


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 26, 2008)

jillian said:


> America DOES need jobs... how'd your guys do with that one for the last 7 1/2 years?



Awesome deflection there, Jillian!


----------



## jillian (Aug 26, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Awesome deflection there, Jillian!



I wasn't the one who raised the jobs issue, he was... and that was yet another thing your guys screwed up on.


----------



## busara (Aug 26, 2008)

52ndStreet said:


> All I know is that Barack Obama and Joe Biden Senate records indicate an anti Gun
> bias.Joe Biden signed authored legislation that put 200,000 more cops on our streets.!
> We don't need more Cops, America needs Jobs.



if there are 200,000 more cops, that is 200,000 more jobs


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 26, 2008)

Open up the forests to logging. More jobs.
Start drilling for oil. More jobs.
Allow people to develop their rural land. More jobs. And homes.
Lower or eliminate the "minimum wage". More jobs...and lower prices for product made in the US.
Lower taxes. More money.


These are all things lefties refuse to do. Well, if you block the opportunity for growth at every turn, you can't really expect more jobs.

So instead of whining about how the Republicans haven't provided more jobs, why don't you provide some actual ideas on what jobs YOU think could be created? Or do you think that nobody should be required to work at all and we should just be supported by the government? (Which would of course be bankrupt promptly).

Never mind. I know the answer. You seek the collapse of the American economy and America as a whole, and this is the best way to achieve it.


----------



## editec (Aug 26, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Open up the forests to logging. More jobs.


 
The forests are wide open up here in Maine since the vast majority of these land here is privately owned.

So cut away...woodsman

Oh wait, there's still fewer and fewer jobs up there in our woods every year.

You're going to blame this on the liberals?

Truly, get a _clue._


----------



## jillian (Aug 26, 2008)

editec said:


> The forests are wide open up here in Maine since the vast majority of these land here is privately owned.
> 
> So cut away...woodsman
> 
> ...



yah... couldn't possibly have a thing to do with outsourcing our tech jobs and having all our manufacturing being done in china..


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 26, 2008)

MAINE...hmmm...let's talk about the Pacific Northwest which has millions and millions of acres of forests which were effectively shut down by Jimmy Carter, and even further by Bill Clinton in his infinite wisdom. The economy of Oregon, Washington, Montana, Idaho were DEVASTATED.

That's the problem with elitists and easterners. You think the world ends at the end of your street.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 26, 2008)

jillian said:


> yah... couldn't possibly have a thing to do with outsourcing our tech jobs and having all our manufacturing being done in china..



Or importing huge amounts of lumber from overseas and Canada.


----------



## Chris (Aug 26, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> MAINE...hmmm...let's talk about the Pacific Northwest which has millions and millions of acres of forests which were effectively shut down by Jimmy Carter, and even further by Bill Clinton in his infinite wisdom. The economy of Oregon, Washington, Montana, Idaho were DEVASTATED.
> 
> That's the problem with elitists and easterners. You think the world ends at the end of your street.



More lies......

MPR: Plummeting lumber prices good for consumers, bad for timber industry


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 26, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> thank  you.
> 
> since you are agaisnt guns...you ever stabbed someone to death with a spoon? its hard work.



I'm not against guns ... I'm pro-2nd.


----------



## DiamondDave (Aug 26, 2008)

Kirk said:


> More lies......
> 
> MPR: Plummeting lumber prices good for consumers, bad for timber industry



Funny, asshole... how about a link to an article that actually deals with the statement made.... not one about lumber prices being down currently... as in less demand with less houses being built... nothing to do with areas of lumber in the northwest that were put off limits by Carter, that has hurt the economy in that area over a long period of time, per allie's statement


----------



## Silence (Aug 26, 2008)

we don't live in the wild wild west anymore where pouchers come and steal your land and your cattle and in order to protect it you need a gun.  Guns don't have a place in modern, peaceful communities.  More gun owners are hurt and killed with their own guns than they ever kill and intruder.  

I'm for gun control because Dick Cheney proved that idiots with guns are dangerous.


----------



## Eightball (Aug 26, 2008)

Silence said:


> we don't live in the wild wild west anymore where pouchers come and steal your land and your cattle and in order to protect it you need a gun.  Guns don't have a place in modern, peaceful communities.  More gun owners are hurt and killed with their own guns than they ever kill and intruder.
> 
> I'm for gun control because Dick Cheney proved that idiots with guns are dangerous.



I've never heard such absurd reasoning!

So we don't have cattle stealing anymore, therefore, we live in a utopian society, free of danger from robbers, rapists, nut cases on PCP, and just general mayhem.

Do you live in a protective bubble?

I would assume that you are also in the same league as Cheney.............Right?  As you don't think any of us are any more capable than him?  Right?

Or are you above all of this human stupidity, looking down from your safe, knowledgeable, sane, and sanitary world of safety?

As mentioned before...........You call 911, wait for the cops, and offer the Perp that breaks into your home/abode a cup of coffee, I'll off the Perp with a Smith and Wesson........We'll see if Mensa quality logic works or assertive lead, at 1,400 ft. per second. 
*******
Again, I wanted to mention a Darwinian joke.........but, my conscience stopped me from being unChristian.


----------



## Chris (Aug 26, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Funny, asshole... how about a link to an article that actually deals with the statement made.... not one about lumber prices being down currently... as in less demand with less houses being built... nothing to do with areas of lumber in the northwest that were put off limits by Carter, that has hurt the economy in that area over a long period of time, per allie's statement



How about a link from allie to start with?


----------



## DiamondDave (Aug 26, 2008)

Now THAT would have been a legit way to engage her on that..... not trying to provide some pseudo-proof from an article dealing NOTHING AT ALL with the issue she mentioned....


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 26, 2008)

Silence said:


> we don't live in the wild wild west anymore where pouchers come and steal your land and your cattle and in order to protect it you need a gun.  Guns don't have a place in modern, peaceful communities.  More gun owners are hurt and killed with their own guns than they ever kill and intruder.
> 
> I'm for gun control because Dick Cheney proved that idiots with guns are dangerous.



And you know this how? Do you live in a rural area?

I live in a place where poachers do exist, and people still die over fence lines, dumb shit. And where everyone has a gun, and..imagine this...the crime rate is very, VERY fucking low!

What modern, peaceful communities don't need guns? Washington DC? NYC?

Please, your idiocy is showing.


----------



## Chris (Aug 26, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> And you know this how? Do you live in a rural area?
> 
> I live in a place where poachers do exist, and people still die over fence lines, dumb shit. And where everyone has a gun, and..imagine this...the crime rate is very, VERY fucking low!
> 
> ...



Of course the crime rate is low. You'd have to drive 20 miles to get in a fight.


----------



## Eightball (Aug 26, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Of course the crime rate is low. You'd have to drive 20 miles to get in a fight.



Some people do pretty good with half their brain tied behind their back.........Some........well......

Deflection, deflection, deflection.........i.e. will not rebuttal in succincty and convincing way......

Just stuck in neutral.............Gun bad........People stupid..........Duh.......

Remember your part of that humanity that is incompetent to own a gun.............so for ever finger you point, a bunch point back at you...........your kettle is black too.

Otherwise I'll assume you live on the lofty heights of egoism, and super-mensa intelligence that is next to God.

You seem to be judge and jury on mankind, and those that want to protect themselves, but

here's the corker........you haven't given an alternative to the situations that happen in home town America*.....what do you do if you are faced with an intruder bent on hurting you or your loved ones?

Kirk: Instead of ridiculing those that have guns......for self protection..........Please give an alternative.........

If it's 911 only and nothing else......you and I know that's not an instantaneous response-thing.......Police aren't their the minute you put the phone down.  What do you do Kirk?  Just ridicule us, or throw statistics at us?  

Kirk, you've got a crazed PCP pumped person that's broke into your place and is looking for money, who know's.....He's got a knife...........He's coming at you.....What do you do?*

Answer us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *Don't deflect anymore!!*


----------



## rayboyusmc (Aug 26, 2008)

> And Barack Obama , Joe Biden and other Democrats want to ban all our Hand Guns and Rifles.



Bullshit, but let's throw this one against the wall and see if it sticks.

Is he the NRA, no.  But he isn't what this thread is portraying.

Get a real issue and debate that.


----------



## greenpartyaz (Aug 27, 2008)

Silence said:


> we don't live in the wild wild west anymore where pouchers come and steal your land and your cattle and in order to protect it you need a gun.  Guns don't have a place in modern, peaceful communities.  More gun owners are hurt and killed with their own guns than they ever kill and intruder.
> 
> I'm for gun control because Dick Cheney proved that idiots with guns are dangerous.



Quick hide the beer!!! Cheney's going hunting again!


----------



## Silence (Aug 27, 2008)

Eightball said:


> I've never heard such absurd reasoning!
> 
> So we don't have cattle stealing anymore, therefore, we live in a utopian society, free of danger from robbers, rapists, nut cases on PCP, and just general mayhem.
> 
> ...



Actually it's perfect logic if you look at gun statistics.  

How many citizens do you think actually use their guns to protect themselves?  not many.  statistics show that you are much more likely to have your own gun used against you than you are to actually fend off an intruder in your home.  

I don't equate Dick with regular Americans and certainly not myself that's for sure.  If you recognize yourself in that behavior then sorry for your luck I guess.  Dick shot a man in the face who he knew was there, who he obviously could see at the time and he acted like he didn't understand what the big deal was.  

As for my protective bubble?  no such bubble here my friend but I certainly don't ascribe to the notion that I have the skills necessary to actually pull a gun and use it on another person, especially in a high stress situation.   I also don't think the world is full of evil people looking to do me in in spite of what the Repugs would have me believe 

My best reason for believing in gun control is I have a child and no home with a child should have a gun in it IMO.


----------



## Ninja (Aug 27, 2008)

Silence said:


> How many citizens do you think actually use their guns to protect themselves?  not many.



Oh, somewhere between 600,000 to 1 million per year:

Kleck's "Guns and Violence: Summary"







Were the Kerry trolls this collectively dense in 2004?


----------



## editec (Aug 27, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> MAINE...hmmm...let's talk about the Pacific Northwest which has millions and millions of acres of forests which were effectively shut down by Jimmy Carter, and even further by Bill Clinton in his infinite wisdom. The economy of Oregon, Washington, Montana, Idaho were DEVASTATED.
> 
> That's the problem with elitists and easterners. You think the world ends at the end of your street.


 
Oh, please... are you really trying to support your case based on some goofy appeal to regional chavinism?

No, I'm just pointing out the falicy of your argument that the environmentalists are the root source of the problem, sport.

Plenty of trees here... all to legal to cut and everything...nobody's spiking them. The federal and state government doesn't control our forests here since most of them are privately owned.

But the number of woodmen in Maine is about 10% what it was twenty or thirty years back.

And it's not just because of increased efficiency, either. 

Less timber is being cut because the paper industry is faltering.


----------



## Silence (Aug 27, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Oh, somewhere between 600,000 to 1 million per year:



It's so cute how you use an article from 1994  

I'm not against gun ownership at all.  Hey if you want to own a gun more power to ya.  But there should be background checks, waiting periods and there should be a ban on assault rifles and other weapons that serve no purpose except to "hunt" people.

The following statistics should also be noted:

Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993, then slightly increased in 2005

Nonfatal firearm crime rates have declined since 1994, before increasing in 2005.

After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearm.

THe Brady Bill went into effect Feb 28, 1994 - coincidence?  I think not


----------



## Ninja (Aug 27, 2008)

I chose the 1994 article because you don't have access to the same peer-reviewed scholarly journals that I do, so I can't post links. 

You made the claim that "not many" citizens use guns is self-defense. 

The burden of proof therefore lies with you, yet you've provided none. 

Most estimates are far higher than your pious recitation of conventional wisdom states. 

BTW I don't care what your personal views of guns are. I care that you spread misinformation and think that you can get away with it.


----------



## Ninja (Aug 27, 2008)

Silence said:


> I'm not against gun ownership at all.



Of course you aren't 




Silence said:


> But there should be background checks



There are.




Silence said:


> waiting periods



There are. 




Silence said:


> and there should be a ban on assault rifles and other weapons that serve no purpose except to "hunt" people.



Yep. Gotta keep bayonet lugs off of our streets - what with the recent rash of drive-by bayonettings and all 




Silence said:


> The following statistics should also be noted:
> 
> Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993, then slightly increased in 2005
> 
> ...



The decrease in crime you're referencing started before the AWB and The Brady Bill were signed by President Clinton.

But since you don't think the connection you're making is a "coincidence" go ahead and explain how restrictions on collapsible buttstocks, $0.99 plastic pistol grips, and flash hiders caused the crime rate to *retroactively* drop in the '90s.

I won't hold my breath


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 27, 2008)

greenpartyaz said:


> Quick hide the beer!!! Cheney's going hunting again!




i am like kirk out in the country....i need my gun for self protestion or would you rather i wait the 20 minutes it takes leo's to get here....nope i will take my rights of self protection over your paranoia....have you ever held or fired a weapon?  other than your mouth?


----------



## Silence (Aug 27, 2008)

The decrease could also be attributed to the healthy economy.  Not as many people desparate and miserable in the 90s under Clinton.  Increase in 2005 under Bush...hmmmm


----------



## Ninja (Aug 27, 2008)

Silence said:


> The decrease could also be attributed to the healthy economy.



Bingo. 

You'll have a much easier time tying the crime rate to the economy than to restrictions on bayonet lugs, collapsible buttstocks, $0.99 pieces of plastic, flash hiders, and barrel shrouds.


----------



## busara (Aug 27, 2008)

Silence said:


> The decrease could also be attributed to the healthy economy.  Not as many people desparate and miserable in the 90s under Clinton.  Increase in 2005 under Bush...hmmmm



actually, it isnt certain that crime and economic health are related.



> "There's no iron law linking [the economy and crime]," said UCLA criminal justice professor Eric Monkkonen. "This recession could see a crime wave or could not see a crime wave. It could promote crime, but it could be 15 years from now."
> 
> 
> Indeed, crime experts are cautious about blaming the recent increase in homicides in some major cities on the economic downturn or any other specific factor.
> ...



ABC News: Will Recession Make Cities Dangerous Again?


----------



## editec (Aug 27, 2008)

The most obvious correlation to crime and poverty is when you have entrenched poverty among young men.

Failing to find anything truly productive they can do with themselves, far too many of them turn to activities sociopathic to fill that void in their lives and their pocketbooks.


Human nature being what it is, when society breaks down, it's usually the young with no avenues of escaping that poverty who start breaking down the society around them. A society  which is working okay for the rest of us, but not for them is one they will prey upon.

_Hey_, why do you all think living in ghettos is such a nightmare for everyone concerned? High unemployment...an idle hand is the devils's plaything and all that.

When things get especially really bad, as it appears to be in now many places in America, even kids who'd might otherwise escape that trap of povety find they have to join the sociopthic gangs that dominate their neighborhoods.

Hence many otherwise decent kids inevitably end up ruining their slim chance to get out and improve themselves, too, because they end up with records.

Poverty is a vicious cycle which reinforces itself and expands that circle of poverty to include even the productive if it is left unchecked, folks.

While there is no absolute solution to poverty, there are certainly steps we can take to mitigate its toxic effect on our society.

Or we can just say, to hell with them and build more prisons.

And the fact that we spend enough on every prisoner as it would cost us to send them to college can just be ignored until we simply cannot afford them anymore.



We've got 2,000,000 men in prison now, and that's not solving things.

Given that prisons make people even more angry and sociopathic, that fact is probably just making it worse for us in the future.


----------



## busara (Aug 27, 2008)

hey editec, you ever read the report about how legalized abortion helped lower crime?


----------



## 52ndStreet (Aug 27, 2008)

Silence said:


> Actually it's perfect logic if you look at gun statistics.
> 
> How many citizens do you think actually use their guns to protect themselves?  not many.  statistics show that you are much more likely to have your own gun used against you than you are to actually fend off an intruder in your home.
> 
> ...



What about when a Rapist,homo,child molester,murderer psychopath,criminally insane, invades your home with a Gun to attacks you, your wife and your child.And you as the man
of the house is unarmed without a Gun, because of your insane illogical Gun control logic, is killed and victimized by this crazed Armed person.How will you feel about Gun control after being victimized by a armed criminal?.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 27, 2008)

52ndStreet said:


> What about when a Rapist,homo,child molester,murderer psychopath, invades your home with a Gun to attacks you, your wife and your child.And you as the man
> of the house is unarmed without a Gun, because of your insane illogical Gun control logic, is killed and victimized by this crazed Armed person.How will you feel about Gun control after being victimized by a armed criminal?.


I thought you were in prison, my bad.

Funny to note that you fear homos.


----------



## busara (Aug 27, 2008)

52ndStreet said:


> What about when a Rapist,homo,child molester,murderer psychopath, invades your home with a Gun to attacks you, your wife and your child.And you as the man
> of the house is unarmed without a Gun, because of your insane illogical Gun control logic, is killed and victimized by this crazed Armed person.How will you feel about Gun control after being victimized by a armed criminal?.



you hear the man enter downstairs, so you jump out of bed to get your gun from small safe in your room. as you fumble with the combination, you wonder why you kept it in the safe in the first place, and you realize it is to keep it away from your 4 year old son. the killer breaks into your room as you get the safe open, but it is too late. he sees you lifting your gun, and he fires his.

scary stories arent an effective means of proving your point


----------



## Chris (Aug 27, 2008)

52ndStreet said:


> What about when a Rapist,homo,child molester,murderer psychopath,criminally insane, invades your home with a Gun to attacks you, your wife and your child.And you as the man
> of the house is unarmed without a Gun, because of your insane illogical Gun control logic, is killed and victimized by this crazed Armed person.How will you feel about Gun control after being victimized by a armed criminal?.



Your wife and child are much more likely to be attacked by you than a criminal, and there are other ways of securing your home other than owning a gun.


----------



## 52ndStreet (Aug 27, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Your wife and child are much more likely to be attacked by you than a criminal, and there are other ways of securing your home other than owning a gun.



Well, I never attacked my wife, and I do prefer to own a Gun, or a fully automatic assault Rifle, and I don't want any Democrats denying me of that right.! or telling what I can or can not Have !!


----------



## Chris (Aug 27, 2008)

52ndStreet said:


> Well, I never attacked my wife, and I do prefer to own a Gun, or a fully automatic assault Rifle, and I don't want any Democrats denying me of that right.! or telling what I can or can not Have !!



Most gun deaths occur when people kill themselves or a member of their family, so your gun is more of a threat to your loved ones than to any criminal.

But no one is going to take your gun away. We lead the developed world in gun deaths, one million since 1960, so we could use more sensible gun control laws. It won't happen though, mainly because of ignorant people like you.


----------



## Eightball (Aug 27, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Your wife and child are much more likely to be attacked by you than a criminal, and there are other ways of securing your home other than owning a gun.



By the way, that above reply is totally showing disrespect for your fellow forum member.  To infer or give in response that he would be the more likely perpetrator is mean-spirited answer, devoid of any common respect.  In essence your just playing around toying with those that seriously rebuttal your stance.

To the board, your replies are constant deflection.

Folks here ask you what you would do under these circumstances, and you quote statistics, and won't answer how you would face this possible life/death scenario.

Please, give us a good alternative.......as you and I know that criminals aren't going to give up their guns/knives or mental behaviour because you and me give up our weapons of defense.

Your side or cause or whatever is looking pretty lame, as you won't "own up" and just give a good alternative to a life and death situation where one must defend oneself from impending danger to one's life in their home/abode.


----------



## Inferno (Aug 27, 2008)

I don't own a gun. I won't own a gu. I don't think anyone should own a gun. I think they should be melted down and made into something useful. A gun means what it says. It is about death or injury. In a life or death situation I wouldn't use a gun anyway. I don't think that guns do that much in life or death situations anyway. I don't think that they acually prevent that many crimes. I know that legally purchased guns fall into the hands of criminals all the time. Then they are illegal guns used in crime. Then the bad people have even more guns. 

I like the way Obama and Biden feel about guns.


----------



## Chris (Aug 27, 2008)

Eightball said:


> To the board, your replies are constant deflection.
> 
> Folks here ask you what you would do under these circumstances, and you quote statistics, and won't answer how you would face this possible life/death scenario.
> 
> ...



No you are deflecting, eightball.

The quesiton is, which society is better, one awash in guns or one with sensible gun control laws?

We lead the world in gun deaths. We make it easy for a angry spouse or a depressed teenager to kill themselves or others. One million American gun deaths since 1960. More Americans killed than in World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War combined. 

Home invasions are very rare. Suicides and family murders are much more common. Which is a greater threat?


----------



## Eightball (Aug 27, 2008)

Kirk said:


> No you are deflecting, eightball.
> 
> The quesiton is, which society is better, one awash in guns or one with sensible gun control laws?
> 
> ...



You still won't answer the many folks on the forum, what you'd do if confronted with imminent danger in your home?

Done with yah guy.........your a broken record.  You have your anti-gun owner mantra down to a fine art.

You won't answer the basic question of your personal danger situation.  

That's because you "know" that you'd need to be weaponized to save your life, and I doubt you'd stand their and let someone take it.........?

I'm tired of repeating the same request to all of you folks in here that keep on throwing out all kinds of non-connective stats about guns and deaths, as means to deflect the basica question of what "you" would do in a life or death situation in your home.

From thence onward I will just observe from the stands on this thread.  

I've never heard of such illogical banter about guns and their private ownership of fellow citizens.

No one here that is anti-gun will tell the rest of us what they would do when faced with physical/life danger.  Why?  Cause they don't have an answer.  Just statistics, statistics......How weak, an argument, and how obviously deflective.


----------



## Inferno (Aug 27, 2008)

Eightball said:


> You still won't answer the many folks on the forum, what you'd do if confronted with imminent danger in your home? ....



I would not be defending the homefront with a gun. I don't really think many people do. I think the guns at home are locked or or the victims are asleep when the home is invaded. 

On the street most places do not allow you to carry concealed weapons. Most places won't let you walk around with a gun in your hand. I don't think that much crime is stopped by a gun.


----------



## Eightball (Aug 27, 2008)

Inferno said:


> I would not be defending the homefront with a gun. I don't really think many people do. I think the guns at home are locked or or the victims are asleep when the home is invaded.
> 
> On the street most places do not allow you to carry concealed weapons. Most places won't let you walk around with a gun in your hand. I don't think that much crime is stopped by a gun.




No where in my post did I ask about concealed-carry on the street, nor did I ask about how many folks own guns in their homes or how they store them.

You folks are incredible.  Just want to know how you anti-gun folks would defend your lives if you were confronted with someone breaking in and with the potential to hurt you?  

Instead I get........well, most guns are locked up ......and most folks wouldn't know theirs someone in their house.......Whats that have to do with the scenario that I presented that is and does happen all over our country, both in rural settings and in urban settings?

You folks just skip around my question, and won't face the reality of it.  You don't have an adequate answer do you?  You going to Karate chop this armed, deranged person?  You going to talk them out of killing you?

Sure the odds that you will have an armed dangerous intruder in your home is statistically low in some areas of the country and statistically higher in others.

Never the less, it happens.........Just read the papers, and watch your local TV news........

You folks act like a bunch of Lemmons.........You just head for the cliff, jump off, and don't think of an alternative.

I really feel sorry for so many of you.  All that intelligence, brain power, gone to waste, cause one won't lift a finger to defend themselves.  If you think your mimicking Jesus', "Turn the other cheek." then you don't know biblical scripture contextually. 

This packing a gun down the street reply is totally off-subject, and another deflection.

Why do I keep trying to reply.........I said I had enough of this useless banter.  

Make love, not war........All criminals abide by that code.


----------



## Inferno (Aug 27, 2008)

Eightball said:


> You still won't answer the many folks on the forum, what you'd do if confronted with imminent danger in your home?



I will answer this again but will keep it very simple for you.

The first line in my reply said: I would not be defending the home front with a gun. Is that easy enough. That is what you asked. 

I would do what I could to avoid the danger but if I died i would be dead but I would not use a gun.


----------



## Eightball (Aug 27, 2008)

Inferno said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> > You still won't answer the many folks on the forum, what you'd do if confronted with imminent danger in your home?
> ...



Well, you indeed fullfill the "Lemmon" prophecy.  Lie down and die.......How sad and how pitiful.  What a tragic waste of human life..........for the sake of.........Gun=bad

"I wouldn't defend the home with a gun".........?  Ok, with what would you defend the home.  Dialogue, a stick, threatening words, just a 911 call and wait minutes for police help?.....  Very sad indeed.  Just as I thought; no answer to adequate self defense.

Guns=bad  bullets=bad  American people=stupid.  Gun ownership= unnecessary.........Why........statistics on bad folks killing good folks with stolen guns........


----------



## Roethlesberger (Aug 27, 2008)

editec said:


> I hear they're planning on making us all carry guns wherever we go..._even into the shower._
> 
> I also heard that McCain, not to be outgun-righted, is going to make us all carry flamethrowers.



Why not SHOULDER MOUNTED MISSLE LAUNCHERS ????


----------



## 52ndStreet (Aug 27, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Most gun deaths occur when people kill themselves or a member of their family, so your gun is more of a threat to your loved ones than to any criminal.
> 
> But no one is going to take your gun away. We lead the developed world in gun deaths, one million since 1960, so we could use more sensible gun control laws. It won't happen though, mainly because of ignorant people like you.



Well if people are getting killed by other people.Then America has a problem
with people who are Violent, and who kill.The Gun and or Assault rifle is an
inanimate object.If people kill themselves or a family member.Then America
has a Suicide and Family violence problem.That requires more Psychologists,
and or Psychiatrists. We need not enact any more Gun control laws,which is just a knee jerk response to a problem, not the real solution to the problem.

Now, the ignorance lies with people like you Kirk, who feel that more "Gun control" laws will some how reduce those kinds of deaths. What we need is more People control laws,not Gun control. The Gun does not kill, it is the Human being that uses the Gun to Kill.This is what all you Gun control advocates fail to understand. Separate the object from the act and the person
initiating the action.Then find out what made this person act, or what led up to the act. Look at the entire event.Then you will see the Gun is not the issue
in all of these incidents.!


----------



## mightypeon (Aug 27, 2008)

Hi there, 
while you may consider the usual armament of the USA to be unique among developed countries, its not. Switzerland has about as many assault rifles per person as the US does, however the crime rate is very low. (Suicide rate is quite high though). What is the case for Switzerland is, while Assault rifles are actually issued(side effect of conscription) to the population, possesion of easily hideable handguns is strongly monitored/prohibited. 
Apart from Amokrunners, a Criminal will usually not use an assault rifle to commit crimes, as they are big, unwieldy and very difficult to hide.
Last but not least, they tend to be fairly expensive. 

So, allow assault rifles, ban pistols.
This should satisfy your second amendment and may reduce homicide rates by quite a bit.

Cheers,

Mightypeon

P.S. What about Bullet control? If each Bullet would cost 5000 bucks, couldnt that really reduce homicide? What about a huge tax on bullets which is used to found social services for crime victims?

Murderer:"I would kill you, but I did not get a credit for the Bullets!" 


P.P.S. I personally do not believe that a "all guns banned" approach would work in the US as way to many guns are in circulation. However, if Germany would have had a lax gun control I would likely be dead.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 27, 2008)

There's a thought. Make it difficult to stash a weapon on your person, but let it be obvious that everyone has a weapon.

Which is why rural areas have such light crime. Everyone knows everyone else has a gun stashed in their house, and everybody knows we know how to use it. Hence very little robbery/burglary. No mugging, period, ever.


----------



## Eightball (Aug 27, 2008)

mightypeon said:


> Hi there,
> while you may consider the usual armament of the USA to be unique among developed countries, its not. Switzerland has about as many assault rifles per person as the US does, however the crime rate is very low. (Suicide rate is quite high though). What is the case for Switzerland is, while Assault rifles are actually issued(side effect of conscription) to the population, possesion of easily hideable handguns is strongly monitored/prohibited.
> Apart from Amokrunners, a Criminal will usually not use an assault rifle to commit crimes, as they are big, unwieldy and very difficult to hide.
> Last but not least, they tend to be fairly expensive.
> ...



Oh yeah;  the criminals have nice easy to carry and swing- -around and use pistols and Joe citizen has to fumble around defending himself with a heavier gun, of much more length........Yeah, that makes sense.  Criminals get pistols, we have 30" long guns......?

Everyone knows an assault rifle is real easy to manuever in the middle of the night in the dark........in one's house/abode.


----------



## greenpartyaz (Aug 27, 2008)

By Cory Nealon, Times Staff
Published: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 10:32 PM EDT
MILLSTONE TWP.  A 3-year-old Freedom boy accidentally shot and killed himself Monday in Elk County.

Trey M. Rosenberger Gordon died from a single gunshot to the head around 11 a.m., according to Louis Radkowski, Elk County coroner.

State police released few details about the incident in a press release Tuesday. It said that a handgun was negligently left within reach of the child, and the investigation was ongoing.

Cpl. Robert P. Cogley, the investigating officer, did not return a phone call seeking additional information.

The boy had been at a Millstone Township camp with his mother, Jessica A. Rosenberger of Monaca, according to Radkowski.

Harold Rosenberger of New Sewickley, the boys maternal grandfather, said the family is still coming to terms with Treys death. He declined to provide details about how the youngster obtained the gun.

Someone had a gun there, it was loaded, the rest is self-explanatory, he said.

Radkowski said an autopsy was to be performed Tuesday in Erie. The results were not available Tuesday night.

In addition to his mother, Trey is survived by his father, David Gordon of Freedom.

Cory Nealon can be reached online at 

Exercise your 2nd ammendment right, keep them loaded!


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 27, 2008)

Oh my GOD! And that singer's 16 year old son backed over their daughter, and I don't know how many kids drown each year because their parents are stupid enough to take them to the water and not watch them.

We still get to drive, we still get to swim, and we still get to have guns, dumbass.


----------



## greenpartyaz (Aug 27, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Oh my GOD! And that singer's 16 year old son backed over their daughter, and I don't know how many kids drown each year because their parents are stupid enough to take them to the water and not watch them.
> 
> We still get to drive, we still get to swim, and we still get to have guns, dumbass.



Guns are fun until your son or daughter gets shot in the face!

Exercise your second ammendment right keep em loaded!


----------



## Eightball (Aug 27, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Oh my GOD! And that singer's 16 year old son backed over their daughter, and I don't know how many kids drown each year because their parents are stupid enough to take them to the water and not watch them.
> 
> We still get to drive, we still get to swim, and we still get to have guns, dumbass.



Outlaw automobiles!!!!!!!!!  They maybe neutral like guns, but in the wrong hands (Stupid Americans) their killers.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 27, 2008)

greenpartyaz said:


> Guns are fun until your son or daughter gets shot in the face!
> 
> Exercise your second ammendment right keep em loaded!



You're an idiot. My son almost killed himself with a pair of scissors when he decided to cut an electric cord.

The only time he's been near a gun is when his 22  year old brothers were with him, probably the safest he's ever been in his life.


----------



## Eightball (Aug 27, 2008)

greenpartyaz said:


> Guns are fun until your son or daughter gets shot in the face!
> 
> Exercise your second ammendment right keep em loaded!



Cars are fun to drive too.........But to drive them in the U.S. is a priviledge.  So is gun ownership.  

Folks do stupid things with cars, guns, knives, BB guns, bow and arrows, tasers, drugs, ........But guns.......they have a mind of their own.......They just might shoot you or your kids even if your a responsible person/owner.  Cuckoo.........


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 27, 2008)

Guns have a mind of their own?

You are joking, right?


----------



## Eightball (Aug 27, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Guns have a mind of their own?
> 
> You are joking, right?



Didn't catch the sarcasm?

Folks have such a phobic fear of firearms,  from being brainwashed in school, and from the media how they should only be in the hands of police, and soldiers, that their reactions are exaggerated to the hilt.

The roots of this anti-gun movement has it's beginnings and strong roots in your basic liberal, anti-military, anti-authority mentality/movements.

You'll find that the prominent politicians that abhor private gun ownership will covertly and sometimes overtly show their anti-military beliefs.

Libs giver lip service to the military to look like their for them, but in reality, they'd love it if we had no military at all.  They believe that dialogue will trump any confrontation with an armed enemy, whether on the private home level or on the large scale national level.

We all know that Prime Minister Chamberlain blessed us with peace in our time back in the late 1930's.  He was hailed a hero when he gave Hitler a nice hunk of Europe if he'd just quit being so assertive militarily.  Hitler agreed to the pact, with his fingers crossed behind his back and Chamberlains legacy, and stupid trust of an insanely mad enemy resulted in the death of millions of civilians and soldiers worldwide.

All the anti-gun advocated do in this forum is state stats about those that have mishandled or abused their gun ownership, or how guns in the hands of criminals do mayhem.  

They want private citizens disarmed, but have no rational answer how we will disarm the criminally minded person.

They/anti-gun folks are confronted with real life scenarios that put them in a dangerous situation in their own home, with a person intent on hurting/killing them, and not one here has given us a simple explanation as to how they will stop this intruder and adequately protect their loved ones and self.

Do these people have scales on their mind's eyes.....or are the afraid to answer this simple question, because they know that they don't have an answer except to lay down and take it from the "perp", and only call 911.

B.O. thinks we should dialogue with our enemies........Well, this administration does, but does draw the line when it comes to dealing with irrational dictators bent on annihilating anyone that isn't of their religious persuasion.

The liberal mentality is talk it out.  Something in this logic reveals a missing thought track here folks.  

Again, these group fears guns, nuclear power plants, crude oil/fossil fuels, with fuzzy logic that won't allow them to be pinned down and give you a straight coherent answer that is based on objective reality.


----------



## greenpartyaz (Aug 27, 2008)

Eightball said:


> Didn't catch the sarcasm?
> 
> Folks have such a phobic fear of firearms,  from being brainwashed in school, and from the media how they should only be in the hands of police, and soldiers, that their reactions are exaggerated to the hilt.
> 
> ...



Maybe Lapierre will show up and have another rally?


----------



## necritan (Aug 28, 2008)

Kirk said:


> States that restrict guns like Mass. have fewer gun deaths than states that don't like Nevada. I don't make things up, like you do.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Ninja (Aug 28, 2008)

Kirk's our resident douchebag.

Ask the dumb motherfucker why I'm safer the second I leave the shithole MA and enter New Hampshire.


----------



## greenpartyaz (Aug 28, 2008)

necritan said:


> Kirk said:
> 
> 
> > States that restrict guns like Mass. have fewer gun deaths than states that don't like Nevada. I don't make things up, like you do.
> ...


----------



## necritan (Aug 28, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Here is an interesting footnoted stat sheet on handgun violence...
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## greenpartyaz (Aug 28, 2008)

necritan said:


> Kirk said:
> 
> 
> > Here is an interesting footnoted stat sheet on handgun violence...
> ...


----------



## necritan (Aug 28, 2008)

greenpartyaz said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> > My beef is, you can still exercise your rights, by keeping them locked up and unloaded. Especially away from small children.
> ...


----------



## necritan (Aug 28, 2008)

Denny Crane said:


> but the reality is the government isn't looking to remove all guns, just the most dangerous ones posing the greatest threat, especially to law enforcement.



The same guns that would help to protect one from their own government???


"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson


"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago. -Thomas Jefferson


----------



## necritan (Aug 28, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Friday, April 17, 1998
> U.S. Leads Richest Nations In Gun Deaths
> 
> BY CHELSEA J. CARTER
> ...



Pretty sure they're stabbin the hell outta each other in Japan.

Hows Australia now that they have tightened their gun laws??? I'll let you tell me what I already know.


----------



## necritan (Aug 28, 2008)

busara said:


> i agree that the problem is with people, not the gun itself. but you saying that a gun is no different than a car or a hammer is plain wrong, because the sole use for a gun is to inflict damage. whether you intend to do so is irrelevant. picture this: someone owns a breadmaker. they dont intend to use it to make bread. you can make bread without it. that doesnt change the fact that it's purpose is to make bread.
> 
> heres a question i have. you are so adament about keeping guns, why isnt there a push for other weapons? rpg's, land mines, tanks. do citizens have a right to that equipment as well? (i am all for upholding the constitution, im just curious as to response)



If someone gets into your house and means you or your family harm.....feel free to use a bread maker to inflict damage.......I'll use my gun.


----------



## necritan (Aug 28, 2008)

Kirk said:


> If you own a gun you or a member of your family is 3-5 times more likely to die of a gun death. Guns are a threat to the people that own them and their families.



Accidental death must be your referance.....I assume. I guarantee if kept properly.....there is a 1000000000% improbability of AD by gun. However......if unarmed........the whole 3-5 times thing may apply.


----------



## necritan (Aug 28, 2008)

Kirk said:


> More lies....
> 
> D.C.'s murder rate has shrunk to half what it was.
> 
> Don't bullsh*t here. I know the facts.



It didnt change at all.....thats the facts.


----------



## Inferno (Aug 28, 2008)

I wouldn't my home and belongings are that unimportant. My wife/partner would find our way out if possible. The rest is meaningless. 
There are a number of causes for which I would die, but the is no cause for which I would kill. M.k. Gandhi.


----------



## Red Dawn (Aug 28, 2008)

52ndStreet said:


> I hear Barack Obama and Joe Biden are very anti Gun rights.
> 
> This combination in the White house will be bad news for Gun and Rifle owners.Their Sen   voting records indicate that they voted for many Gun control laws.



*"Concern Troll"* - _definition_ (Urban dictionary):   A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of "concern," to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don't really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending.

For example, in 2006 Tad Furtado, a top staffer for then-Congressman Charlie Bass (R-NH), was caught posing as a "concerned" supporter of Bass's opponent, Democrat Paul Hodes, on several liberal New Hampshire blogs, using the pseudonyms "IndieNH" or "IndyNH." "IndyNH" expressed concern that Democrats might just be wasting their time or money on Hodes, because Bass was unbeatable.[


----------



## necritan (Aug 28, 2008)

mightypeon said:


> Hi there,
> while you may consider the usual armament of the USA to be unique among developed countries, its not. Switzerland has about as many assault rifles per person as the US does, however the crime rate is very low. (Suicide rate is quite high though). What is the case for Switzerland is, while Assault rifles are actually issued(side effect of conscription) to the population, possesion of easily hideable handguns is strongly monitored/prohibited.
> Apart from Amokrunners, a Criminal will usually not use an assault rifle to commit crimes, as they are big, unwieldy and very difficult to hide.
> Last but not least, they tend to be fairly expensive.
> ...



Nice steal from Chris Rock by the way.....how original. As soon as you can give me some statistics of how many legal CCW holders are out commiting crime....I call BS on your statement. 

And why would I want an unwieldy weapon for self-defense?????


----------



## necritan (Aug 28, 2008)

Inferno said:


> I wouldn't my home and belongings are that unimportant. My wife/partner would find our way out if possible. The rest is meaningless.
> There are a number of causes for which I would die, but the is no cause for which I would kill. M.k. Gandhi.



My wife and I and children would try to find a way out too.....after that....how is death meaningless???? How is mine and my families life being lost meaningless??? 

If life is meaningless in your opinion......then I understand your empty words.

However.....I believe in LIFE...liberty...and the pursuit of happiness.....and I will protect it at all costs.


----------



## necritan (Aug 28, 2008)

Inferno said:


> I wouldn't my home and belongings are that unimportant. My wife/partner would find our way out if possible. The rest is meaningless.
> There are a number of causes for which I would die, but the is no cause for which I would kill. M.k. Gandhi.



You and Kirt kinda remind me of that dumbass that let himself get mauled by those Grizzly's. 

Its kill or be killed when dealing with a killer......end of story.....if you choose to be a Martyr....so be it.....one less weak link. Just dont vote away everyone elses God given "right" to self-preservation.


----------



## Chris (Aug 28, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Kirk's our resident douchebag.
> 
> Ask the dumb motherfucker why I'm safer the second I leave the shithole MA and enter New Hampshire.



Why are you safer in Japan than the United States, motherfucker?


----------



## Chris (Aug 28, 2008)

necritan said:


> You and Kirt kinda remind me of that dumbass that let himself get mauled by those Grizzly's.
> 
> Its kill or be killed when dealing with a killer......end of story.....if you choose to be a Martyr....so be it.....one less weak link. Just dont vote away everyone elses God given "right" to self-preservation.



Guns are more of a threat to their owners and their families than they are to criminals, so owning a gun is a greater threat to your "self preservation" than criminals are.

Tougher sentencing laws will deter crime. There are no theives in Saudi Arabia.


----------



## necritan (Aug 28, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Guns are more of a threat to their owners and their families than they are to criminals, so owning a gun is a greater threat to your "self preservation" than criminals are.
> 
> Tougher sentencing laws will deter crime. There are no theives in Saudi Arabia.



So what concern is it of yours if I accidently shoot myself??? What makes your statistics apply to me??

As far as you Saudi comment.....I have to agree....but until then....I'm keepin my guns.

Lets get basic.....

Do you always where a seatbelt.....if so....why???

Do you wear condoms????

Do you wear a life jacket in a boat????

Do you take anti-biotics when you get ill?????

Do you have prescription drugs in your home??? If so......are they all locked up????

Do you own knives?????

Where is the nearest police officer??? Can you see one from your front door???How far away are they????

Does Dianne Fienstien have a concealed carry permit...yet abhores gun ownership?????

Is that elitism???

Have you ever gambled???? Whether cards.....slots...scratchers...etc.????

Are you better than me?????

Are you really trying to protect me????

If you had a gun......would you shoot yourself or let it sit about the house unattended for thieves and children to do with it as they please??????


----------



## Chris (Aug 28, 2008)

necritan said:


> So what concern is it of yours if I accidently shoot myself??? What makes your statistics apply to me??
> 
> As far as you Saudi comment.....I have to agree....but until then....I'm keepin my guns.
> 
> ...



The gun statistics apply to every gun owner. People get drunk, people get angry, people get depressed, and there is a gun in the house. What happens? Somebody gets killed, and there is regret all around. It happens over and over and over again in America. One million gun deaths since 1960.


----------



## necritan (Aug 28, 2008)

Kirk said:


> The gun statistics apply to every gun owner. People get drunk, people get angry, people get depressed, and there is a gun in the house. What happens? Somebody gets killed, and there is regret all around. It happens over and over and over again in America. One million gun deaths since 1960.



People get drunk and drive....stab....bludgeon....strangle...etc.

People get depressed and take pills.....slice wrists....jump off bridges....walk into traffic....step in front of trains.

People get angry and kill.......people can kill.....thats why I own guns. 

You sir are being the judge and jury......you are convicting me and every legal...."right"full gunowner of un-commited crimes and atrocitys.

Since you didnt answer any of my questions from before.....I will "CONVICT" you. 


You will get AIDS , syphillis , etc due to having sex......

You will drown in a boating accident......

You will die in a car crash whether you are seat-belted or not.....

You will get sad.....and you will kill yourself by taking pills or slicing your wrists in your kitchen............

You will do all these things which have certain risk.....and the worst will happen. Its bound to happen. Its been happening for a long time....and its never going to stop.


These horrible things are never going to cease....so long as people have the "Right" to do anything with any risk....they will fail and die......we need to take that away to protect them.

There are sheep.....and there are the shepards.  Some need help from others......some do not. 

I hope......for your sake.....if the situation came that you and your family were in mortal danger......that a "Shepard" were near by.


Why are you so afraid????............Hoplophobia


----------



## necritan (Aug 28, 2008)

In 2006, there were 13,470 fatalities in crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver (BAC of .08 or higher)  32 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year.

Which one do we ban.......???? Alcohol??? Or cars??? That is 646,560 deaths in 48 years.......and thats only the .08 and higher batch. Get where I'm going with this???? That doesnt include the driving to fast cuzz they're young batch....the elderly batch....the stoned batch....the asleep batch....the angry batch....the depressed batch.


With these numbers.....you would have to pick one to ban based on the numbers. Which one will you pick???? If you dont pick one....you are a hypocrite......based on the stats of course.


----------



## mightypeon (Aug 28, 2008)

Eightball said:


> Oh yeah;  the criminals have nice easy to carry and swing- -around and use pistols and Joe citizen has to fumble around defending himself with a heavier gun, of much more length........Yeah, that makes sense.  Criminals get pistols, we have 30" long guns......?
> 
> Everyone knows an assault rifle is real easy to manuever in the middle of the night in the dark........in one's house/abode.



Are you arguing that, in a "someone sneeks into your house situation", youd rather have a pistol than an assault rifle?


----------



## mightypeon (Aug 28, 2008)

necritan said:


> People get drunk and drive....stab....bludgeon....strangle...etc.
> 
> People get depressed and take pills.....slice wrists....jump off bridges....walk into traffic....step in front of trains.
> 
> ...



As a rule of thumb, you can do much more about beeing Stabbed, Strangled or drowned than about beeing shot.
I did fight off a knife attack aimed at my life (close enough though, lost half of my blood), if the attacker would have had a gun I would have been dead. 
This was not in my house or near it, so even with lax gun laws, I was unlikely to wear a gun in this situation.


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 28, 2008)

mightypeon said:


> Are you arguing that, in a "someone sneeks into your house situation", youd rather have a pistol than an assault rifle?



i will take one or the other....but my point..your churchill quote has driven me to the point of doing this:

"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities." -
  --  Winston Churchill  

Please correct your misquote....


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 28, 2008)

Kirk said:


> The gun statistics apply to every gun owner. People get drunk, people get angry, people get depressed, and there is a gun in the house. What happens? Somebody gets killed, and there is regret all around. It happens over and over and over again in America. One million gun deaths since 1960.



I assume that is the article you pulled this little tidbit out of?

Guns and Violence: A Summary of the Field

In 1985, about 31,600 persons were killed with guns, and perhaps another 130,000 people suffered nonfatal gunshot wounds. The majority of the deaths, 55%, were suicides, rather than criminal homicides. Only 37% were homicides, 5% were fatal gun accidents, and 1.5% each were due to legal intervention (police officers killing suspects in the line of duty) and to death where it was undetermined whether injury was intentionally or accidentally inflicted. Among all deaths due to "external cause," i.e. accident, suicide or homicide, guns were involved in 22% of them, handguns in about 13% of them. The majority of all gun deaths involve handguns, mainly because 79% of the gun homicide deaths involved handguns. Guns were involved in 1.5% of all deaths, from all causes, in 1985. They were involved in 59% of suicides, 60% of homicides, and 1.8% of accidental deaths in 1985. 

There were also over 650,000 violent crimes involving guns in some way in 1985, over 540,000 of them (82%) involving handguns. Guns were involved in about 12% of all violent crime, and handguns in about 10%. The majority of the gun crimes were assaults, mostly threats without any injury or any element of theft or rape.

Probably fewer than 2% of handguns and well under 1% of all guns will ever be involved in a violent crime. Thus, the problem of criminal gun violence is concentrated within a very small subset of gun owners, indicating that gun control aimed at the general population faces a serious needle-in-the-haystack problem


----------



## editec (Aug 28, 2008)

We will not solve the problem of violence by outlawing guns.

We might mitigate the violence by gun if we did that, though.

I say we outlaw hand guns and allow people to keep their long arms.

It won't elimiate all problems, but it sure as hell will make it harder for criminals to walk among us armed.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 28, 2008)

necritan said:


> You and Kirt kinda remind me of that dumbass that let himself get mauled by those Grizzly's.
> 
> Its kill or be killed when dealing with a killer......end of story.....if you choose to be a Martyr....so be it.....one less weak link. Just dont vote away everyone elses God given "right" to self-preservation.




You have it all wrong ... the police will protect you.

You got that "weak" exactly right.  I don't NEED anyone to protect me, and I damned sure ain't waiting around for them to investigate my murder when they show up hours after the fact.

People that believe they will be protected from a violent crime by the police are pretty damned dumb in that regard, IMO.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 28, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Why are you safer in Japan than the United States, motherfucker?




Because Japanese society is different than American society.  The island is pretty-much small, isolated and self-contained -- meaning there's nowhere to run to.  And, criminals there just cut your throat from ear to ear, so you aren't safer.  Just less likely to get shot.

And comparing the US to Japan is just intellectually dishonest.  Period.  Two completely different cultures.  Our society is derived directly from the use of firearms by private citizens.  Had King Edward outlawed firearms in the colonies and enforced it, we would not have had the means to revolt.

Yet you would do that very thing to us.


----------



## busara (Aug 28, 2008)

necritan said:


> If someone gets into your house and means you or your family harm.....feel free to use a bread maker to inflict damage.......I'll use my gun.



wow, way to completely twist what i said. 

and did you miss the part where i said i support the 2nd amendment?


----------



## busara (Aug 28, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Kirk's our resident douchebag.
> 
> Ask the dumb motherfucker why I'm safer the second I leave the shithole MA and enter New Hampshire.



ive lived in both states. so please tell me how you feel much safer in NH than in MA (driving excluded)


----------



## busara (Aug 28, 2008)

Gunny said:


> You have it all wrong ... the police will protect you.
> 
> You got that "weak" exactly right.  I don't NEED anyone to protect me, and I damned sure ain't waiting around for them to investigate my murder when they show up hours after the fact.
> 
> People that believe they will be protected from a violent crime by the police are pretty damned dumb in that regard, IMO.



but then theyll go all CSI on your death


----------



## Silence (Aug 28, 2008)

52ndStreet said:


> What about when a Rapist,homo,child molester,murderer psychopath,criminally insane, invades your home with a Gun to attacks you, your wife and your child.And you as the man
> of the house is unarmed without a Gun, because of your insane illogical Gun control logic, is killed and victimized by this crazed Armed person.How will you feel about Gun control after being victimized by a armed criminal?.




 first of all, I AM a woman......so....yeah there's that....no "man of the house" bullshit to toss around here 

Second of all, statistically speaking the chances of some rapist, child molester, murder, et al breaking into my are pretty slim.  Crimes against strangers such as rape and murder aren't as common as the nightly news would have the public believe.  

I did notice you included "homos" into the raping and murdering psychopath group though, that was cute 

As for how I would protect myself or my family well I don't live in daily fear of being attacked by some armed criminal.  It's not that I don't think it could happen, it's that I take precautions to prevent it in the first place.  Locks on my doors and windows, security lights around my home, a BIG Dog, paying attention to my surroundings, not coasting through life on auto-pilot like so many people do, etc.  

I would fight for my life if I needed to but I wouldn't feel any safer knowing I had a gun in the house so why add the risk to myself and my family?


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 28, 2008)

Silence said:


> first of all, I AM a woman......so....yeah there's that....no "man of the house" bullshit to toss around here
> 
> Second of all, statistically speaking the chances of some rapist, child molester, murder, et al breaking into my are pretty slim.  Crimes against strangers such as rape and murder aren't as common as the nightly news would have the public believe.
> 
> ...




as one of them stats....you keep talking about...go back and read my story....had he made it into the house...the only thing between him and my son was me....and i was armed.  if you want to take your chances so be it, but dont force your fear of guns on me.  I am well trained as are the other family members.  When we had a young child in the house we used trigger locks.   my right to self protection trumps your right to tell me what i can and cant have inside my house, car or purse.

stats show that states with concealed carry have lower crime rates, I wonder why?


----------



## mightypeon (Aug 28, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> i will take one or the other....but my point..your churchill quote has driven me to the point of doing this:
> 
> "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities." -
> --  Winston Churchill
> ...



I have seen it in the form posted by me more often than in the other one. If you can digg up the original content I would gladly change mine.
I could propably add some quotes about other Empires too though.

Cheers, Mightypeon


----------



## Silence (Aug 28, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> as one of them stats....you keep talking about...go back and read my story....had he made it into the house...the only thing between him and my son was me....and i was armed.  if you want to take your chances so be it, but dont force your fear of guns on me.  I am well trained as are the other family members.  When we had a young child in the house we used trigger locks.   my right to self protection trumps your right to tell me what i can and cant have inside my house, car or purse.
> 
> stats show that states with concealed carry have lower crime rates, I wonder why?



see that is part of the problem with wingnuts...they see what they want to see... I never said you didn't have the RIGHT to own a gun, I said I believe in GUN CONTROL!  waiting periods, locks on guns in homes with children, background checks for gun owners, certifications and training for gun owners, a ban on assualt weapons, etc.  

IF you want to own a gun, and yes, it's your right to do so, then do it in a way that is responsible and not like you think your Wyatt Erp.


----------



## 52ndStreet (Aug 28, 2008)

What we have here, are people like Kirk, and Ms. Silence who would rather leave themselves unarmed to be victimized by criminals. Because, they feel that owning a gun,
would leave them in more danger,than being attacked by a armed criminal with a Gun.
What kind of insane backward logic do we have with these two?!.


----------



## Silence (Aug 28, 2008)

52ndStreet said:


> What we have here, are people like Kirk, and Ms. Silence who would rather leave themselves unarmed to be victimized by criminals. Because, they feel that owning a gun,
> would leave them in more danger,than being attacked by a armed criminal with a Gun.
> What kind of insane backward logic do we have with these two?!.



 is that what I said?  really?  so I should buy a gun because YOU think I should feel safer owning one and because I know I wouldn't I'm illogical?  

I've been the victim of a crime, it was committed against me by a member of my own family thank you.  If I had a gun I guess I could've shot him.  

The sad fact is, IF you are going to be the victim of a crime you are much more likely to know the person committing the crime against you, would you be able to shoot someone you knew? 

I want to be clear...I am NOT against guns.  I understand why people own them, why people have the right to own them, I'm just for precautions to make sure that the wrong people don't own them, such as people with mental instability issues and history of violence.


----------



## Eightball (Aug 28, 2008)

busara said:


> wow, way to completely twist what i said.
> 
> and did you miss the part where i said i support the 2nd amendment?



Maybe the response is because you're waffle-ing on private citizen gun rights, even though you say your pro 
2nd Amendment? 

Please straighten me out or correct me if I'm misunderstanding your position.


----------



## busara (Aug 28, 2008)

Eightball said:


> Maybe the response is because you're waffle-ing on private citizen gun rights, even though you say your pro
> 2nd Amendment?
> 
> Please straighten me out or correct me if I'm misunderstanding your position.



how have i waffled? i said that a gun shouldnt be considered just another object like a bat. is that saying people cant own guns?


----------



## Shogun (Aug 28, 2008)

"statistically speaking" doesn't mean shit when you happen to be that minimal statistic.  "STATISTICALLY SPEAKING" you'll never be raped...  Now tell me how stupid it is to pretend that rape doesn't occur.


The gun issue is a losing battle for my side.  I wish we had more Jim Webbs than caracature pussy bitches who think crime only happens in fictional newspapers and epic greek poetry.  


Millions of gun owners are not wrong.


----------



## Shogun (Aug 28, 2008)

busara said:


> how have i waffled? i said that a gun shouldnt be considered just another object like a bat. is that saying people cant own guns?



can a bat kill you if wielded by hands that want to murder?


----------



## editec (Aug 28, 2008)

Yeah, that's right americans.

Keep worrying about your precious guns, or alternatively, keep worrying about those who have guns. They are the most important issue on your political plates.

_Sleep, sleeeeep!  _


----------



## Eightball (Aug 28, 2008)

Silence said:


> is that what I said?  really?  so I should buy a gun because YOU think I should feel safer owning one and because I know I wouldn't I'm illogical?
> 
> I've been the victim of a crime, it was committed against me by a member of my own family thank you.  If I had a gun I guess I could've shot him.
> 
> ...



You just can't make the mental bridge or connection between being a helpless victim, and an assertive victim that has some means to defend themselves.  A gun is a viable option, yet you string out all kinds of deflective stories about being attacked or assaulted by a family member.........What does that have to do with defending one's self?

For instance.........Should I use an example of helplessness as a child victim of........possibly molestation to say that guns are bad?  Now there's something very unconnective in my scenario......isn't there?

Let's be very adult about this, shall we?  Let's not let subjective past experience as a helpless victim taint, an objective scenario that can happen to anyone of any economic class, race, sex, religion, nationality, or age.

Many of us have been victims of violent personal crime, many have blessedly not been.  I hope they never will.

The statistics say that many of us who have been safe up to now in our lives will have some violent encounter that will be very traumatic.  Societal-wise there is a very large element in our populous that don't abide by ethics, morals, or laws.  They live like self-seeking animals, doing what they want, when they want, how they want, and they have seared consciences, which negates trying to dialogue them out of killing, or hurting you to cover their tracks from the law.

One person here mentioned........"Me and the wife will just escape"............I.E. we won't have to worry about a gun defense........take the furniture, we can jump out the back door or window.  I agree, furniture isn't worth a life, nor any inanimate objects, but to say that "we can escape" is a subjective argument, and a type of mental "escapism" in and of itself.  I pity that person.  I really do.  A gun will most likely be a last resort, and in most cases of a break-in by persons intent on physically harming whoever they encounter, it will be the only "escape"(a firearm) from harm.

I used to laugh when radio pundits would say that liberal suffer from brain damage..........Yet, not one anti-gun person on this thread has given a specific, rational anwser to fending off a dangerous intruder in one's home.

I've heard folks say, they've been mugged in public......OK......We are talking about one's private abode, home, apartment, townhouse, condo, ranchette, tent, cave....etc....  where you live.

Here's what we have up to date:  I'll escape out of the house, call the police, think gun death statistics in the U.S.A., do the Swiss method....outlaw handguns, and have an assault rifle for protection.

Someone here even had the nonsensical gall to say that if we outlaw handguns, then we don't have to worry, cause the bad guys don't have handguns anymore.......

I don't even want to answer that one........Seems like we trust the bad or criminal element more than we trust ourselves to obey the law.  

Only in liberal run cities do we have dumb old, "Turn in your guns anonymously for a $50.00 coupon,  all you criminals, and we'll look the other way."  Ironically, Oakland, California did this a few years ago, and their murder rate is still running higher than previous years.  When you have anti-gun mayors like Willie Brown, and Jerry Brown, your doomed.  

Know, what?.........The only guns turned in are by pro-active sheeple.......oops, meant, anti-gun folks who's over active consciences, pushes them ridiculously over the precipice of logic and self preservation.


----------



## Shogun (Aug 28, 2008)

editec said:


> Yeah, that's right americans.
> 
> Keep worrying about your precious guns, or alternatively, keep worrying about those who have guns. They are the most important issue on your political plates.
> 
> _Sleep, sleeeeep!  _



yea, i'd say preserving the fucking constition IS a pretty worthy issue to pay attention to.  your snarky fucking comments don't erase the second Amendment.  I bet you are not this casual with the application of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,  and Seventh, eh?


----------



## busara (Aug 28, 2008)

Shogun said:


> can a bat kill you if wielded by hands that want to murder?



and a tank is just a car, right? 

is a bat designed with the purpose of killing someone? look, i already covered this. it is made to be a weapon, not a common tool. that doesnt mean americans cant own them, as they clearly can due to the second amendment.


----------



## Eightball (Aug 28, 2008)

editec said:


> Yeah, that's right americans.
> 
> Keep worrying about your precious guns, or alternatively, keep worrying about those who have guns. They are the most important issue on your political plates.
> 
> _Sleep, sleeeeep!  _



Interestingly, you and a famous dictator back in the 1930's worried about private citizens owning firearms......His last name started with H, and ended with an "r".  He disarmed the populous, and the populous was at his mercy.

Every despotic leader in modern age, starts out their power move by eliminating firearms from the citizenry.  

Why:  Thats a no-brainer.  This is how you maintain your power base.  Hitler did it........and more despots than we can count with our fingers and toes since then have utilized the same methods.  Dis-arm the citizenry, and they are now helpless, but must accept any unethical, or undemocratic, unprincipled rule of the government.

Actually the underlying reasons for gun control are just that.  Less chance of protest from the citizenry.  That's the covert and accurate agenda.  Outwardly or publically, it's to protect us from ourselves...........Yeah, sure.  Big Bro, wants to take good care of us......Yeah, sure.


----------



## Shogun (Aug 28, 2008)

busara said:


> is a bat designed with the purpose of killing someone? look, i already covered this. it is made to be a weapon, not a common tool. that doesnt mean americans cant own them, as they clearly can due to the second amendment.



I guess that depends on the person wielding the fucking bat.  Do you realize that the very FIRST weapon that a human ever picked up was likely a club?  


And, define "common" tool, dude...  I have a plastic knife used to chop lettuce in my kitchen.. is that common enough?  Is there a "too sharp to be common" point that I should be aware of?  You are goddamn right "due to the second amendment".  If you can bitch about gun rights despite that then, please, don't get your panties in a bunch over violations of the Fourth when you hear about wiretapping.  Or The first when The Ginsbergs and Bruce's go on trial.  YOU don't want a gun?  fine. dont have one.  But, your bullshit hardon over guns doesn't erase the fact that millions of people EVERY DAY manage to own guns, and use them, without killing other human beings.


----------



## Shogun (Aug 28, 2008)

busara said:


> and a tank is just a car, right?
> 
> is a bat designed with the purpose of killing someone? look, i already covered this. it is made to be a weapon, not a common tool. that doesnt mean americans cant own them, as they clearly can due to the second amendment.



no, a tank is not a car.  Thats pretty fucking stupid to say on your part.  Just like a fucking submarine is not a fishing boat.  Not to mention, that you don't even have the RIGHT TO DRIVE ON PUBLIC STREETS.  


did you have anything else you need answered?


----------



## busara (Aug 28, 2008)

Shogun said:


> no, a tank is not a car.  Thats pretty fucking stupid to say on your part.  Just like a fucking submarine is not a fishing boat.  Not to mention, that you don't even have the RIGHT TO DRIVE ON PUBLIC STREETS.
> 
> 
> did you have anything else you need answered?



oh, so there are differences between weapons and non weapons? the fact that almost anything can be used as a weapon doesnt mean it was designed as such. someone can choke to death on a piece of steak. so the steak is a weapon!

if you would actually listen to what i said, it is that a gun is designed to kill. a bat is not. therefore, a gun shouldnt be treated the same as a bat. just like a tank shouldnt be treated the same as a car. 

im not saying anything radical here. just that a gun isnt just another 'tool'


and much anger you have, young shogun. watch your blood pressure


----------



## Shogun (Aug 28, 2008)

busara said:


> oh, so there are differences between weapons and non weapons? the fact that almost anything can be used as a weapon doesnt mean it was designed as such. someone can choke to death on a piece of steak. so the steak is a weapon!
> 
> if you would actually listen to what i said, it is that a gun is designed to kill. a bat is not. therefore, a gun shouldnt be treated the same as a bat. just like a tank shouldnt be treated the same as a car.
> 
> ...



yes.. there is.  It's all about the intent of the person using the tool.  I could kill you with a screwdriver.  a claw hammer.  laundry detergent.  antifreeze.  ANYTHING I wanted to use to kill you is but a reach away.

Again, DESIGNED AS SUCH?  what the hell do you think Neanderthals were using to kill each other with before discovering how to chip stones?  Clubs.  What is a baseball bat?  a club.


and, again with the stupid comparisons, eh?  STEAK?  Does a cook murder someone if a customer chokes on a steak?  Is that the same answer if the cook puts antifreeze, just a tool, in the bbq sauce?

yes, you are trying to mold the definition of tool around your opinion.  I think it's pretty radical to ignore the fact of how many homo sapiens have ever been CLUBBED to death just because you don't like black powder machines.



A CLUB IS DESIGNED TO KILL.  HITTING A BALL WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL USE FOR A FUCKING CLUB.



and, a tank is NOT a car.  I've already stated this.  Not that you have the right to drive a car anyway.


You have much ignorance in you, basura..  go read a book.

































HAMMER!  JUST A TOOL!


----------



## busara (Aug 28, 2008)

a baseball bat is designed to hit a ball. it isnt made with the purpose of beating someone with it. the clubs you posted werent designed to hit a baseball, they were designed to beat someone to death with. see the difference? 
"It's all about the intent of the person using the tool."
so if we have someone who drives a tank without the intent to kill, it is no longer a weapon? when someone drives a riding mower without the blades turned on, is it suddenly no longer a mower? like it or not, there is a difference between a bat and a gun. for some reason you cant grasp that. if a gun were no different than a kitchen knife or a baseball bat, there would be no restrictions on them. 

"theres a waiting period on to buy that gun."
"oh, but i dont intend to use it to hurt someone."
"well in that case, here ya go."

a gun is designed as a weapon. a baseball bat is not. why the hell are you arguing that?

and taking a shot at my age with the driving remark? how immature. anyone who must result to insults is pathetic


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 28, 2008)

I have a part time job at a brew thur...we dont keep a gun on the premises.....we keep a baseball bat.  a gun will trump a baseball bat but you can inflict a lot of damage with a baseball bat.  skull fractures are no joke.
check out a lot of stores, look in the corner in back of the cashier....see what you find.


----------



## Shogun (Aug 28, 2008)

busara said:


> a baseball bat is designed to hit a ball. it isnt made with the purpose of beating someone with it. the clubs you posted werent designed to hit a baseball, they were designed to beat someone to death with. see the difference?
> "It's all about the intent of the person using the tool."
> so if we have someone who drives a tank without the intent to kill, it is no longer a weapon? when someone drives a riding mower without the blades turned on, is it suddenly no longer a mower? like it or not, there is a difference between a bat and a gun. for some reason you cant grasp that. if a gun were no different than a kitchen knife or a baseball bat, there would be no restrictions on them.
> 
> ...



no, a baseball bat is taken from a design meant to shatter a human skull.  I've posted my evidence.  where is yours?

uh, you DO realize that baseball bats ARE used as weapons, right?  just checking.


and yes, if I drive a tank down the street and use it for transportation it is no more a weapon than a CLAW HAMMER used to drive in a nail.. DESPITE



























and no.. if it is not used for mowing grass then it is not a LAWN MOWER.  Is the knife used to stab a mugging victim STILL just a steak knife?  Is a prison shank STILL just a toothbrush?


and, there are restrictions because jackasses with fuzzy logic about the application of selective amendments have had their way in government.  trigger locks wont keep criminals from killing people with guns.  Bckground checks won't keep criminals from getting a handgun.  Your retarded justification of selective amendment importance HINGES on ignoring the WEAPONS turned tools above.

again, I"VE POSTED my evidence that a club (bat) was originally a weapon.  I hate to break it to you.. but that design wans't invented for the sake of baseball.

a shot at your age?  what the fuck are you even talking about?  You DO REALIZE THAT DRIVING IS A PRIVILEGE, right brainiac?  NOT A RIGHT?  Can you hear me now?  Can you READ the letters on line fuck you?


----------



## Shogun (Aug 28, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> I have a part time job at a brew thur...we dont keep a gun on the premises.....we keep a baseball bat.  a gun will trump a baseball bat but you can inflict a lot of damage with a baseball bat.  skull fractures are no joke.
> check out a lot of stores, look in the corner in back of the cashier....see what you find.



that is EXACTLY it.  a fucking baseball bat is in the design of a club..


----------



## Shogun (Aug 28, 2008)

Club (weapon)

Baseball and T-ball bats - The baseball bat is often used as an improvised weapon, much like the pickaxe handle. In countries where baseball is not commonly played, baseball bats are often first thought of as weapons, and in Poland, baseball bats have been made illegal to possess without a license[citation needed]. Tee ball bats are also used in this manner. Their smaller size and lighter weight make the bat easier to handle in one hand than a baseball bat.

Club (weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


----------



## busara (Aug 28, 2008)

Shogun said:


> that is EXACTLY it.  a fucking baseball bat is in the design of a club.. the FIRST fucking weapon!



you like posting pictures eh? you are posting information which has nothing to do with what i'm stating. a baseball bat is not made to be a weapon. a yo-yo isnt made to be a weapon, even though it used to be. a barbie doll could be used as a weapon. doesnt mean it was made to be one. how many different ways can i state this? a gun should be treated different than these other common objects because it is made to be a weapon. just like an rpg, a tank, a land mine .....

im not saying a bat cant be used as one. just that bat isnt made to be one. so what are you trying to argue here? that a bat should have restrictions like guns do?


----------



## Silence (Aug 28, 2008)

Eightball, I was making the point that I've been the victim of a violent crime, it wasn't a stranger who committed this crime against me therefore owning a gun wouldn't have really made me any safer.  

The safety of guns is an ILLUSION pure and simple.  You, as a gun owner, aren't really any safer than I am, as a none gun owner.  and the reason I believe that is because if as a non-gun owner I'm more likely to be a victim why haven't a been one yet?   Because crime isn't as rampant and raging as the nightly news would have us believe, not by strangers anyway.  

I don't know how people function when everyday they think they could be the victim of a violent attack.  I believe it's possible, I'm not blind to it and I certainly have taken self-defense classes so I can protect myself but I won't go so far as to buy a weapon that poses more of a danger to me and my family than it does to the criminal I'm supposedly going to use it on.


----------



## necritan (Aug 28, 2008)

busara said:


> wow, way to completely twist what i said.
> 
> and did you miss the part where i said i support the 2nd amendment?



I stand corrected.....


----------



## necritan (Aug 29, 2008)

Silence said:


> Eightball, I was making the point that I've been the victim of a violent crime, it wasn't a stranger who committed this crime against me therefore owning a gun wouldn't have really made me any safer.
> 
> The safety of guns is an ILLUSION pure and simple.  You, as a gun owner, aren't really any safer than I am, as a none gun owner.  and the reason I believe that is because if as a non-gun owner I'm more likely to be a victim why haven't a been one yet?   Because crime isn't as rampant and raging as the nightly news would have us believe, not by strangers anyway.
> 
> I don't know how people function when everyday they think they could be the victim of a violent attack.  I believe it's possible, I'm not blind to it and I certainly have taken self-defense classes so I can protect myself but I won't go so far as to buy a weapon that poses more of a danger to me and my family than it does to the criminal I'm supposedly going to use it on.



Have you had a gun pointed at you???? If so.....how did it make you feel???
The point is.....many crimes are prevented by the sheer introduction of lethal intent (with a gun) in a self-defense situation.....even without shots fired......simply racking a 12-gauge will make most people shit themselves.

If the safety of being armed is an illusion.....why do we have a military.....or armed police for that matter???

I saw an interesting video a couple of days ago where a couple of guys were beating the shit out of a cop in the UK.......cuzz they are "by law" without firearms.

Also....who here has said that they obsess over home-invasion...or being raped on a minute by minute basis???? You are embelishing....and twisting things. 

The anti-gun crowd is afraid of guns due to inexposure or brainwashing.....plain and simple....these are the same people who wouldn't run into a burning house to save a life.....or put themselves into harms way like a LEO would do. They are sheep........


Truly....honestly.....I could care less if any of you gun-grabbers own a gun or ever try to own a gun......

I believe that the mindset I see here are people who shouldn't own guns......because all I hear is emotion and feelings based debate.....rather than using logic and fact.

Emotionally unsound people like Kirt , Silence and the gang WOULD be a danger to thenselves and their families with a gun in their home.....and I applaud them for choosing to be unarmed for all of our safety.

I however am safe with my RIGHTfull ownership of guns.......and I would appreciate it if emotional voter's wouldn't f#$% with my RIGHTS.

Truly.....in all honesty....I could care less if any of you gun "rights" takers died by the hand of some crazed criminal......it would just help to prove our point.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 29, 2008)

I'm with you.


----------



## necritan (Aug 29, 2008)

Oh.....and regarding the subject of "What's a tool....and what's a weapon?"

My Czechoslovakian CZ 75 SP01 pistol.....while commonly loaded with and known to launch Speer Gold Dot 124 grain + p 9mm bullets at lightning speeds from it's 4.72 '' barrel.....when un-loaded....due to its all steel frame w/ extended dust cover and integrated 1913 accessory rail....weighs in at 2.6 pounds.....and as a result....makes a helluva club........shit....I bet I could hit homeruns with it.


----------



## greenpartyaz (Aug 29, 2008)

necritan said:


> Have you had a gun pointed at you???? If so.....how did it make you feel???
> The point is.....many crimes are prevented by the sheer introduction of lethal intent (with a gun) in a self-defense situation.....even without shots fired......simply racking a 12-gauge will make most people shit themselves.
> 
> If the safety of being armed is an illusion.....why do we have a military.....or armed police for that matter???
> ...



The last few posts are the same tired talking points the NRA likes to put out in the media and other places after a tragedy like this occurs. It is just a diversionary tactic by LaPierre and his goons. If you really care about senseless gun deaths like this one; you would advocate holding the gun owners responsible for leaving the firearms in places where children can access them? I don't hear you making an example of this "responsible" gun owner; why it is important to keep your firearms locked up and out of the reach of children. You just divert the issue, and throw a bunch of statistics out there that have nothing to do with this. Why should a 5 year old be taught about handling guns at such an early age? Are you trying to implant something in their fragile little minds at such an early age? And second, what do you say to the mother of the child Wayne? The father should be proud to exercise his second amendment right to keep a loaded gun in the house? Do you have any children? What if you were "exercising" your 2nd amendment right, by leaving your Glock on the night stand only to have your son or daughter remove the safety, and have the weapon discharge? You would be in real psychological confusion. So Wayne, what do you tell the mother of the small infant?


----------



## necritan (Aug 29, 2008)

greenpartyaz said:


> The last few posts are the same tired talking points the NRA likes to put out in the media and other places after a tragedy like this occurs. It is just a diversionary tactic by LaPierre and his goons. If you really care about senseless gun deaths like this one; you would advocate holding the gun owners responsible for leaving the firearms in places where children can access them? I don't hear you making an example of this "responsible" gun owner; why it is important to keep your firearms locked up and out of the reach of children. You just divert the issue, and throw a bunch of statistics out there that have nothing to do with this. Why should a 5 year old be taught about handling guns at such an early age? Are you trying to implant something in their fragile little minds at such an early age? And second, what do you say to the mother of the child Wayne? The father should be proud to exercise his second amendment right to keep a loaded gun in the house? Do you have any children? What if you were "exercising" your 2nd amendment right, by leaving your Glock on the night stand only to have your son or daughter remove the safety, and have the weapon discharge? You would be in real psychological confusion. So Wayne, what do you tell the mother of the small infant?



First off.....Glocks dont have a manual safety.....Im sure you already knew that though.....being an expert on all things gun related...Im amazed you dont know this.

Second......its a felony if someone leaves their firearm out and a child gains access to it. 

Thirdly.....look around your house.....and really use your brain.....you will find 4000 things that could kill your kids.

Bathtubs....knives...electrical outlets.....pills...garbage disposal.....stairs....open door to street......toilet....thumbtacks.....rope....plasticbags....cleaning supplies....open second story windows.....powertools....blah blah blah

I feel badly for the loss of a child as the result of negligent parents......but this is a pathetic arguement for gun control......like I said before.....You antigunners ride on emotion and feelings alone....and throw logic to way side.

And finally.....I dont keep my home defense weapon on a nightstand......."Hey bad guy....hey kids....have at it while Im sleeping"......nor do I keep my gun in "Condition 1"...(google that).....


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 29, 2008)

good morning i got a neg or neuter reputation comment for "bringing violence to my family"....first let me explain my family...i did not know it there were people who did not have guns in their homes till i was in my early twenties.  in my father's house, a gun was within reach at all times...never more than 3 ft from him...every room of the house...no violence came to our home due to that.  when a man tryed to break into my home with my child and i only here...and this was before cordless, cells etc...had one phone in one room that i could not reach without him seeing me.....so i guess you think i should have let him break in....and do what he wanted to do.....well you can think that....


as for the negative or neuter rep you gave me....i think that was just a wee bit childish...i am a liberal...did you know that...liberals own guns...big surprise.   but your leaving bad rep was misuse (I think) of the system.  the thread is the place to discuss issues...i didnt realize the rep button was to get revengue.


----------



## Silence (Aug 29, 2008)

necritan said:


> Have you had a gun pointed at you???? If so.....how did it make you feel???
> The point is.....many crimes are prevented by the sheer introduction of lethal intent (with a gun) in a self-defense situation.....even without shots fired......simply racking a 12-gauge will make most people shit themselves.
> 
> If the safety of being armed is an illusion.....why do we have a military.....or armed police for that matter???
> ...




I have in fact had a gun pointed at me.  I was 17 and the person holding the gun was my father.  He had once again flown into a rage at my mother and gathered us all in the living room, pointing the gun one by one at us and telling us he was going to kill us all.   I was scared shitless.  

I don't think I've said once, or seen anyone else say that you don't have the RIGHT to own guns.  I certainly support the 2nd Amendement and I fully support law abiding citizens right to own guns.  What I don't support is lax laws which allow guns to fall into the hands of criminals and unstable people.   

and like Obama said last night "don't tell me we can't uphold the 2nd Amendement while keeping AK-47's out of the hands of criminals"


----------



## busara (Aug 29, 2008)

necritan said:


> Oh.....and regarding the subject of "What's a tool....and what's a weapon?"
> 
> My Czechoslovakian CZ 75 SP01 pistol.....while commonly loaded with and known to launch Speer Gold Dot 124 grain + p 9mm bullets at lightning speeds from it's 4.72 '' barrel.....when un-loaded....due to its all steel frame w/ extended dust cover and integrated 1913 accessory rail....weighs in at 2.6 pounds.....and as a result....makes a helluva club........shit....I bet I could hit homeruns with it.



the argument wasnt whether or not a weapon is a tool, it's whether a weapon should be treated the same as any other tool. if there is no difference between a weapon and another tool, (like a bat, breadmaker, riding mower), there should be no restrictions whatsoever on it. by your thinking, a gun, rpg, landmine, tank, F-15, nuclear missle, whatever, would just be any other tool and should have no restrictions, right?


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 29, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> I'm with you.



Show me they are anti guns?  Did you even listen last night?  Wanting to take ak 47's away from gangs in East LA is not being anti gun.

No one wants to mess with your guns.  Relax.  

This is right wing bullshit.


----------



## editec (Aug 29, 2008)

Silence said:


> What I don't support is lax laws which allow guns to fall into the hands of criminals and unstable people.


 
We don't have lax laws, so much as we have lax enforcement, I think.

We live in a nation where holding a pound of hemp for personal consumption  could easily get you more hard time than killing somebody.

Seriously, punks kill people with  guns and are out in five to seven years!

Why?

I realy cannot explain it, but our value system is completely forking crazy.

I don't blame that problem on gun owners, or the NRA.

I'm not sure who to blame to be honest.

Seems to me if you _willfully_ kill somebody, and I don't care if you're under 18 or not, you ought to _at minimum_ spend the rest of your life in solidtary confinement.

I had some assclown East Boston punk try to shoot me about ten years ago.

Why?

No real reason.  To build up his rep. as a man not to be messed with I suppose.  I threaten him by not being impressed by his tough guy act, so he went home and got a popgun to off me.

It jammed when he tried to shoot me with it and he ran away.

You think I wouldn't drop that son of a bitch_ in heartbeat_ if I thought I could get away with it?

I'd be doing the world a public service as I have no doubt -- NO  DOUBT WHATEVER! -- this twisted little puke will kill somebody for no particular reason, sooner or later.

Had he killed me?

He'd probably be on the streets by now.


----------



## Silence (Aug 29, 2008)

editec, I agree, laws governing punishment for violent crimes should be enforced more strictly.  

No one remedy will cure the ills of our society, it has to be done in conjunction with MANY efforts, education, jobs training, gun control laws, harsher penalties for violent crimes, etc.  

Until we give the poorest in our society an alternative to crime they will continue to commit crimes because they see no way out and they will take what they don't have by any means possible.  

It's bullshit and I certainly don't suscribe to the idea that being poor automatically means you have no future but it's harder to climb out of a hole that is three generations deep when their is no ladder to climb up.


----------



## KGB (Aug 29, 2008)

Kirk said:


> One million Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.
> 
> Let's go for two million!



how did all those guns suddenly jump out from their storage places & kill those people?  


It should read, 1 million Americans have been killed by criminals using guns since 1960....

I say, ban the criminals, not the weapons....


----------



## Shogun (Aug 29, 2008)

busara said:


> you like posting pictures eh? you are posting information which has nothing to do with what i'm stating. a baseball bat is not made to be a weapon. a yo-yo isnt made to be a weapon, even though it used to be. a barbie doll could be used as a weapon. doesnt mean it was made to be one. how many different ways can i state this? a gun should be treated different than these other common objects because it is made to be a weapon. just like an rpg, a tank, a land mine .....
> 
> im not saying a bat cant be used as one. just that bat isnt made to be one. so what are you trying to argue here? that a bat should have restrictions like guns do?



Indeed, Im one of those "EVIDENCE > rhetorical bullshit" sorta dudes..

made to be a weapon or not a BASEBALL BAT becomes such in the hands of a person who decides to wield it as one.  It doesn't matter at all if the intention of a steak knife is to cut a t-bone when it's sticking out of the chest of a victim.

so, no.   a gun should not be treated differently than any other tool... HAMMER.  AXE.  KNIFE.  etc.  Your opinion is noted and trashed.


----------



## Eightball (Aug 29, 2008)

Silence said:


> editec, I agree, laws governing punishment for violent crimes should be enforced more strictly.
> 
> No one remedy will cure the ills of our society, it has to be done in conjunction with MANY efforts, education, jobs training, gun control laws, harsher penalties for violent crimes, etc.
> 
> ...



Awe..........The Poor...........They are just victims of our terrible unbalanced society that won't level the playing field and do a 1917 Bolshevik revolution and strip the wealthy of their ungodly gains and riches and share it with the have nots that can't help being criminals to feed their babies and spouses.

Thats the same logic that won't brand illegal aliens, as criminals but all the illegal aliens or more P.C. illegal immigrants.

Our poor when compared to the "poor" of the Third World Countries are not poor at all.  How many poor in the third world have cars, T.V.'s, welfare checks, Medi-caid......public clinics.......rescue missions.......Methadone clinics......

I've been poor economically, but never poor in spirit.  Thats the difference between you and me Silence.

As much as life knocks us down, we can still be "wealthy" in spirit, and see current life as a "glass half full" and not "half empty" or pessimism.

I've stood in government food lines at churches and got my government cheese, rice, butter......etc..  

You have this pity, on folks that criminalize their lives cause they don't have "enough".  There are so many public agencies in this country both on the Federal and local level that not one adult, nor one child should go hungry.  Those that you see that push grocery cars are often in and out of rescue missions, half-way houses, etc... and often by their own will refuse to stay in programs....willfully and sometimes because they have hurt themselves irreparibly due to drugs.

If people are willing to get with "programs" and "submitt" to being shown or guided, there is help for them to not be the "poor".

It just makes me sick to read your post of how the criminal element is our society's fault...........therefore, we shouldn't protect ourselves from them if they break into our home............We are the bad ones for not emptying out our wallets and going hungry so that they won't need to rob or hurt anyone.


----------



## editec (Aug 29, 2008)

This puck wasn't poor.

He was pulling down about $30K a year blabbing for MBNA.

No this kid's problem was he is a stupid punk, that's all.

Too many mafia movies or something.



There was a line of people waiting to kick his sorry ass. after that.

First of all for assulting the girl, secondly for bringing a gun to a party, and finally (and of least importance, too)  for trying to off me.

He got his head slammed into a bar repeatedly before he went to prison.

A full bar full of people were there when it happened, I might add.

The D.A.  refused to charge him for trying to shoot me for "a lack of evidence" even though there was a witness who saw the whole event. That particular D.A. and I weren't exactly on good speaking terms.

Anyway, the little puke came back with the cops to get the person who hammered his head agains the bar repeatedly arrested, but oddly nobody in the bar noticed his head being slammed on the bar three or four times.

He ended up getting a year in prison for assulting some girl at the same party, and then he skeedattled back to East Boston, I expect, after he did his time to a place where people appreciate and fear gun toting punks.


----------



## Silence (Aug 29, 2008)

once again, someone reading what they want me to say instead of what I actually said 

You have the right to protect yourself, you have the right to own a gun....you also have a responsibility to the people in your community to want and demand that precautions be taken to ensure that ONLY law abiding citizens have access to guns.  

Being poor isn't an excuse for being a criminal.  I grew up poor and abused and I faced all the things that many of the most hardened criminal use as excuses for their behavior.  You can allow your past to help or hinder your future BUT if you see no future for yourself other than more pain and more suffering what is the point of trying?  I was lucky in that I had a friend who's mother gave me guidance and someone to look up to.  I didn't have that at home, I stuck with an abusive father and a mother to afraid for her life and the lives of her children to escape.   Not everyone has the benefit of seeing that there is more out there than what is right in front of them.  They get stuck in a cycle of drugs, abuse, crime and violence and that is difficult, if not impossible sometimes to overcome.  

All I am saying is that if we have the capability and the capacity to offer a way out why not do it?  Why not open a door instead of slamming it shut?  Why not offer a hand up instead of just another hand out which only last until it's gone and they come looking for more only to find the well is dry.  

What is the phrase?  

give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he can feed himself forever.  (or something like that) 

I don't believe in something for nothing and I don't believe in using your past as a crutch but I also believe that there are certain segements of the population who face much harder obstacles and I'm all for doing my part to make those obstacles a little easier to overcome, for the betterment of society as a whole not because I feel pity for them.  But because in helping them I also help myself.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 29, 2008)

busara said:


> the argument wasnt whether or not a weapon is a tool, it's whether a weapon should be treated the same as any other tool. if there is no difference between a weapon and another tool, (like a bat, breadmaker, riding mower), there should be no restrictions whatsoever on it. by your thinking, a gun, rpg, landmine, tank, F-15, nuclear missle, whatever, would just be any other tool and should have no restrictions, right?



That's just silly. All tools are treated differently. You have to have a CDL to drive a truck commercially. You have to have a license to use explosives. YOu have to be certified to handle PESTICIDES.

Guns are no different, and just because people are scared of them doesn't mean they should be removed from the rest of us. And I don't hear much squawking about reasonable limitations on their sale and use. But we have laws to keep us from killing each other, and changing the accessability of guns for law abiding citizens isn't going to make any difference, except perhaps to make those who do abide by the laws less safe.

I have still not heard any one of the control freaks who think NOBODY should be able to have guns explain why the crime rate ESCALATES in tandem with higher gun restrictions in US cities.


----------



## necritan (Aug 30, 2008)

busara said:


> the argument wasnt whether or not a weapon is a tool, it's whether a weapon should be treated the same as any other tool. if there is no difference between a weapon and another tool, (like a bat, breadmaker, riding mower), there should be no restrictions whatsoever on it. by your thinking, a gun, rpg, landmine, tank, F-15, nuclear missle, whatever, would just be any other tool and should have no restrictions, right?



I was just having a little fun with word games......but....

A gun "is" a weapon......and the 2nd amendment clearly protects the freedom to individual ownership of them. Although you say you agree with this.....I see many strings attached to this in your posts. 

If people have a problem with the "Main" purpose of a gun......which is essentially.....a bullet launching platform.......and the bullet is designed as a penetrative wound channel maker..........then I say...."What else should I use in the event that this particular "tool" is the only feasible answer in a particular situation?????


----------



## necritan (Aug 30, 2008)

Silence said:


> I have in fact had a gun pointed at me.  I was 17 and the person holding the gun was my father.  He had once again flown into a rage at my mother and gathered us all in the living room, pointing the gun one by one at us and telling us he was going to kill us all.   I was scared shitless.
> 
> I don't think I've said once, or seen anyone else say that you don't have the RIGHT to own guns.  I certainly support the 2nd Amendement and I fully support law abiding citizens right to own guns.  What I don't support is lax laws which allow guns to fall into the hands of criminals and unstable people.
> 
> and like Obama said last night "don't tell me we can't uphold the 2nd Amendement while keeping AK-47's out of the hands of criminals"



What a horrible thing for one human.....especially a father.....to do to another. That is criminal in every way.

However.....this is not even remotely common.

Long guns are used rarely in criminal cases.....an AK is a long gun by definition.

We have background checks in place......what else is needed to establish a law abiding citizen......guns getting into the wrong hands is due to importation of illegal guns.....selling of stolen guns from idiot gun owners....etc.

Education and exposure to firearms function and safety.....rather than sweeping the existence of them under the rug like they are a dirty secret....could do a great deal of help to prevent : accidental child death , accidental gunowner death , unsafe keeping of firearms while not attending them.....and a safer home and society from criminal intent.


----------



## necritan (Aug 30, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Show me they are anti guns?  Did you even listen last night?  Wanting to take ak 47's away from gangs in East LA is not being anti gun.
> 
> No one wants to mess with your guns.  Relax.
> 
> This is right wing bullshit.



No....this is "Rights" shit......and it is important.

On what plan shall they take the "evil" AK's from the gang-bangers......and can you tell me how many gang related murders are commited with AK's????

They want to re-do the Assault Weapon ban......plain and simple.....this takes them away from the law aiding citizens......but....I'm guessing thats ok with you.....cuzz "Assault Weapon" sounds scary....so get rid of em....right????


----------



## necritan (Aug 30, 2008)

editec said:


> We don't have lax laws, so much as we have lax enforcement, I think.
> 
> We live in a nation where holding a pound of hemp for personal consumption  could easily get you more hard time than killing somebody.
> 
> ...



Had you been armed at the time....dont know if you were......but had you been......he would be dead....and it would have been justified. Crime comes with some dangers too.....not enough however in this day and age.

I agree with you 10000000% on criminals being sentenced to lightly.

How does it make sense ....hypothetically speaking.....that a woman....while resisting being raped...shoots her attacker and gets sued or charged with manslaughter....while Johnny Criminal kills someone and gets out in 7-10?????


----------



## busara (Aug 30, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Indeed, Im one of those "EVIDENCE > rhetorical bullshit" sorta dudes..
> 
> made to be a weapon or not a BASEBALL BAT becomes such in the hands of a person who decides to wield it as one.  It doesn't matter at all if the intention of a steak knife is to cut a t-bone when it's sticking out of the chest of a victim.
> 
> so, no.   a gun should not be treated differently than any other tool... HAMMER.  AXE.  KNIFE.  etc.  Your opinion is noted and trashed.



wow, i didnt realize you could just say "youre wrong" and make it so. 

so you dont want any weapon to have restrictions? there should be no waiting period on a gun? we should be allowed to own rpg's, land mines, tanks, F-15's, howitzers, cruise missiles.......


----------



## busara (Aug 30, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> That's just silly. All tools are treated differently. You have to have a CDL to drive a truck commercially. You have to have a license to use explosives. YOu have to be certified to handle PESTICIDES.
> 
> Guns are no different, and just because people are scared of them doesn't mean they should be removed from the rest of us. And I don't hear much squawking about reasonable limitations on their sale and use. But we have laws to keep us from killing each other, and changing the accessability of guns for law abiding citizens isn't going to make any difference, except perhaps to make those who do abide by the laws less safe.
> 
> I have still not heard any one of the control freaks who think NOBODY should be able to have guns explain why the crime rate ESCALATES in tandem with higher gun restrictions in US cities.



yes, theyre treated differently! exactly!! shogun seems to be saying that since anything could be a weapon, there should be no differences in how guns are treated then from, say, a dinner plate. a gun is treated the way it is because it is designed as a weapon. a dinner plate is not. all i'm saying is that it needs to be treated differently because it is made to be a weapon.
see, we agree.


----------



## busara (Aug 30, 2008)

necritan said:


> I was just having a little fun with word games......but....
> 
> A gun "is" a weapon......and the 2nd amendment clearly protects the freedom to individual ownership of them. Although you say you agree with this.....I see many strings attached to this in your posts.
> 
> If people have a problem with the "Main" purpose of a gun......which is essentially.....a bullet launching platform.......and the bullet is designed as a penetrative wound channel maker..........then I say...."What else should I use in the event that this particular "tool" is the only feasible answer in a particular situation?????



strings attached? like what? i havent clearly stated how i feel about gun restrictions, but apparently you decided i did. please, tell me what strings ive been advocating. 

and a gun can be the only answer? i thought a bat was just a dangerous and effective?


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 30, 2008)

one must remember that people who have never handled guns, have no concepts except for tv shows and video games.  

as one poster said , the loading of a 12 gauge is enough to scare the shit outta anyone.....so nicely put...but to someone who has no concept of that...it means nothing....what it means to gun owners and to the person hearing the sound...that now we are all locked and loaded.....stops many a home invasions etc.  of course in your civilized world this doesnt ever happen...meanwhile back at the reality ranch many of us depend on guns for self defense.   you may not see the uncivilized out there...but they are there....really to prey on anyone they get the change to prey on.


----------



## SFC_TMC915 (Aug 30, 2008)

Did I miss something, or did Obama say that he's okay with guns for hunting as well as the right to own hand guns but that he's opposed to the sale of assault weapons?   I have experience with assault weapons, I own a hand gun, I have a permit to carry for self protection, but I honestly can't imagine why any hunter or anyone else needs to own an assault weapons???  I'm opposed to gun laws because they're not going to deter criminals from getting their hands on weapons.  But again, why the need to own an assault weapon??


----------



## Chris (Aug 30, 2008)

SFC_TMC915 said:


> Did I miss something, or did Obama say that he's okay with guns for hunting as well as the right to own hand guns but that he's opposed to the sale of assault weapons?   I have experience with assault weapons, I own a hand gun, I have a permit to carry for self protection, but I honestly can't imagine why any hunter or anyone else needs to own an assault weapons???  I'm opposed to gun laws because they're not going to deter criminals from getting their hands on weapons.  But again, why the need to own an assault weapon??



One million Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.


----------



## SFC_TMC915 (Aug 30, 2008)

True.  No argument there.  But laws are for law-abiding citizens.  If you think criminals won't get their hands on guns (and they're the ones for MOST of those murders) I think you're being a little naive.  Just as they get their hands on drugs, they'll get their hands on guns.  A total ban on firearms is like shooting a mouse with an elephant gun (no pun intended).


----------



## Chris (Aug 30, 2008)

SFC_TMC915 said:


> True.  No argument there.  But laws are for law-abiding citizens.  If you think criminals won't get their hands on guns (and they're the ones for MOST of those murders) I think you're being a little naive.  Just as they get their hands on drugs, they'll get their hands on guns.  A total ban on firearms is like shooting a mouse with an elephant gun (no pun intended).



Criminals get guns by stealing them from "law abiding citizens." The gun owners are the ones providing criminals with guns. It's a public service.


----------



## busara (Aug 30, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Criminals get guns by stealing them from "law abiding citizens." The gun owners are the ones providing criminals with guns. It's a public service.



frontline: hot guns: "How Criminals Get Guns" | PBS



> Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception. An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.



theres a lot more in the article too, kirk


----------



## Shogun (Aug 30, 2008)

Kirk said:


> One million Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.



how many have been killed by VEHICLES?


----------



## necritan (Aug 30, 2008)

busara said:


> frontline: hot guns: "How Criminals Get Guns" | PBS
> 
> 
> 
> theres a lot more in the article too, kirk



Its a felony to sell a gun to a criminal or gang-banger. Lax punishments are the cause for our problems.....not lax restrictions.


----------



## necritan (Aug 30, 2008)

SFC_TMC915 said:


> Did I miss something, or did Obama say that he's okay with guns for hunting as well as the right to own hand guns but that he's opposed to the sale of assault weapons?   I have experience with assault weapons, I own a hand gun, I have a permit to carry for self protection, but I honestly can't imagine why any hunter or anyone else needs to own an assault weapons???  I'm opposed to gun laws because they're not going to deter criminals from getting their hands on weapons.  But again, why the need to own an assault weapon??



What is an "Assault Weapon" and why does it scare you???? Shall we have a citizen militia armed with 3-shot hunting rifles....or perhaps armed with 6-shot Single Action Cowboy Revolvers????

Please.....someone tell me what an assault weapon is.......and why its sooooo scary. Please give me the defining features of an assault weapon that set it apart from say....a shotgun.....and how when it gets in the hands of a lawfull citizen...they immediately transform into a criminal hell-bent on death and destruction????


I think its funny how the libs want to take the exact type of weapon necessary to defend against an oppressive government......it soooo obvious.....the whole...."AK's in the hands of criminal" excuse is just laughable......


FWIW - Just to educate a bit.......an AR-style rifle properly set up makes a hell of a good hunting rifle....due to its light weight....they are becoming more and more popular for hunters rather than lugging around that heavy old steel and wood bolt action.......

And yes....an AR-15 is commonly refered to as an "Assault Rifle"........and yes.....they are an effective hunting tool.


----------



## necritan (Aug 30, 2008)

busara said:


> and here we agree (shake hands). i support the right to own guns, mainly because it is the second amendment. but for the purpose of protection you dont need an assault rifle. a shotgun will scare people from your home just fine.



Here's a nice...big....fat string attached. 

Once again......how does one defend its country from tyranical oppression....or God forbid.....invasion.

Tell me what an Assault rifle is.....what its features are....why they scare you....and why you dont believe the second amendment protects this ownership??????


----------



## necritan (Aug 30, 2008)

If the argument against Assault rifle's lies in the fact that they are more inherently dangerous then say....a regular gun.....than why are cars made that are capable of exceeding triple the speed limit? In the hands of a responsible car owner.....a Corvette Z06 poses no threat to other citizens.


----------



## necritan (Aug 30, 2008)

Kirk said:


> One million Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.



Wow....did you type that out this time??? Or did you cut and paste it to change things up a bit. Your repetitive BS is a sign that you have zero knowledge on the subject....and are merely a political ass-puppet , A mouth piece for the ignorant masses......and a waste of human existence.


----------



## SFC_TMC915 (Aug 30, 2008)

No argument from me that assault weapons have a time and place.  The everday citizen does NOT need an assault weapon.  Why would anyone need a weapon that can shoot 3 round bursts?  Why does any citizen need a machine gun?  You are aware that most police departments are out armed by the criminals that they're supposed to protect us from . . . right?  Did you know that when they deploy the National Guard within the borders of the states, that they're given an M-16 clip WITHOUT rounds.  How stupid is that?  And don't even try to tell me that that isn't true because I have first hand experience . . . I'm not basing that statement on hearsay.  Anyone who truly believes that the government (or "the establishment") as some fanatics refer to it, are truly against the rights of it's citizens or that they have a strong desire keep it's citizens down need to move to Iraq or some other God-forsaken country where that fact is true!!!


----------



## necritan (Aug 30, 2008)

SFC_TMC915 said:


> No argument from me that assault weapons have a time and place.  The everday citizen does NOT need an assault weapon.  Why would anyone need a weapon that can shoot 3 round bursts?  Why does any citizen need a machine gun?  You are aware that most police departments are out armed by the criminals that they're supposed to protect us from . . . right?  Did you know that when they deploy the National Guard within the borders of the states, that they're given an M-16 clip WITHOUT rounds.  How stupid is that?  And don't even try to tell me that that isn't true because I have first hand experience . . . I'm not basing that statement on hearsay.  Anyone who truly believes that the government (or "the establishment") as some fanatics refer to it, are truly against the rights of it's citizens or that they have a strong desire keep it's citizens down need to move to Iraq or some other God-forsaken country where that fact is true!!!



Assault weapons as defined in the original AWB have three shot burst capabilities???? And who the hell was talking about machine guns???

I'd rather have a semi-automatic FAL than a full auto version any day.....

Are you calling me a fanatic???? 

God forsaken countries are generally ones consisting of unarmed citizens. I'm just doing what I can to prevent the USA from achieving "God-forsaken" status......


----------



## necritan (Aug 30, 2008)

SFC_TMC915 said:


> You are aware that most police departments are out armed by the criminals that they're supposed to protect us from . . . right?



Nope.....not aware of this. I see more and more LE's with an AR in their squad car......that maybe a result of the Hollywood shoot out......not to mention the Mossy 12 gauge....the issue Sig p226 and possibly some sort of B.U.G. in the form of a snubbie revolver or  compact SemiAuto 9mm or .380. 

If criminals are so insanely armed.....then why limit the law abiding folks....including the LEO's and national guard????


----------



## SFC_TMC915 (Aug 30, 2008)

LOL -- I just realized you're from California.  That explains a lot.  By the way, I don't think you read my post thoroughly . . .  I said the police and the guard should have assault weapons.  I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.  Like I said . . .  I have a gun, I've fired automatic weapons (as a matter of fact I carried one for 9 months overseas).  My personal OPINION is that there should be some restrictions on what weapons the average citizen can purchase.  My personal OPINION is that the democrats aren't going to be knocking on your door taking your personally owned weapons.  My personal OPINION is that anyone who thinks the democrats are going to ban all weapons needs to get a little more educated on the subject.  But again, these are just my opinions.


----------



## necritan (Aug 30, 2008)

SFC_TMC915 said:


> LOL -- I just realized you're from California.  That explains a lot.  By the way, I don't think you read my post thoroughly . . .  I said the police and the guard should have assault weapons.  I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.



There is no question we are going to disagree....for sure. 

I am quite educated on this matter....believe me.....or don't.

Aside from all that........How are the lives of individuals bearing uniforms and badges of more importance than mine and my families?????

What does CA have to do with anything???? If anything....you should be suprised that a freedom loving non-socialist could survive in such conditions.


----------



## SFC_TMC915 (Aug 31, 2008)

I  believe that you're educated.  But I also believe that you don't need an assualt weapon to defend yourself.  Are you honestly going to try to convince me that a rifle or a 9 mm or a .45 won't protect you and your family??????


----------



## necritan (Aug 31, 2008)

SFC_TMC915 said:


> I  believe that you're educated.  But I also believe that you don't need an assualt weapon to defend yourself.  Are you honestly going to try to convince me that a rifle or a 9 mm or a .45 won't protect you and your family??????



An assault weapon: being a mid-long range semi auto centerfire rifle with 10-30 round capacity sporting a pistol grip  , collapsable buttstock , flash suppressor , and detachable magazine?????

This is not the best choice for the midnight intruder....correct.

But what would one use to defend themself in the event of horrible natural disaster...aka Katrina...or invasion from another country...China.....or in the worst case....the collapse of a free nation....USA???? What if our military were to fail????

Assault rifles are not the weapon of gangbangers...rapists...and hoodlums.

They are the weapon of choice for the "could be" civilian non-military armed defenders of this country....if the event presented itself. *This is in the second amendment*

On the other side.....firearms arent all buisiness.....I think from your posts...you may agree that they are fun to shoot as a hobby. 

Shooting an AR or AK variant is a "blast"...no pun intended......theres nothing wrong with that.....right???


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 31, 2008)

SFC_TMC915 said:


> I  believe that you're educated.  But I also believe that you don't need an assualt weapon to defend yourself.  Are you honestly going to try to convince me that a rifle or a 9 mm or a .45 won't protect you and your family??????




any of yall remember the two bank robbers in cafli.   who simply armed themselves to the hilt put on protective clothing and opened fire.  police didnt have the firepower to stop them.  Now there are armour piercing bullets    *black talons* etc.  it wont stop there.....mac were the choice for a long time by the underbelly.....ak etc. ...guess what they will go back to the old fashioned shotgun as soon as the novelty wears off.

   I am not for gun control of any fashion....i think if i want to buy a desert eagle 50 that is my busines.....as long as i can pass the background check.   I am in favor of those....not so much the 3 day waiting period....i am a law abiding citizen who should be able to exercise all of my rights.  Why do you care if I own guns, you will never see them...anti gunners...think pro gunners have them on display....if you realized the value of our guns....you would realize you have a varmit gun out and most of the others are in a safe made for guns.

I come from a long line of gun owners......matter of fact....i cannot think of one person in my family..extended who is not a gun owner.

I am very liberal ....but i am also a gun owner and very pro gun short of joining the nra...i do have my standards (sorry nra members)


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 31, 2008)

I do know a sawed off shotgun....is considered a what.....say it with me...

weapon of mass destruction .....lol.....


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 31, 2008)

Knob Creek Gun Range

check this event out....


----------



## busara (Aug 31, 2008)

necritan said:


> But what would one use to defend themself in the event of horrible natural disaster...aka Katrina



yeah, shoot that hurricane!! thatll school em!!



> ...or invasion from another country...China.....or in the worst case....the collapse of a free nation....USA???? What if our military were to fail????



if china invades, then im sure there would be a draft and we would all be given guns anyways, doesnt mean you need to own the biggest one possible for the very small chance that a scenario like this happens


----------



## Inferno (Aug 31, 2008)

I am not a McCain fan. He did say he would was not against a draft. He was refering to a large scale war. He was not talking about the fiasco in Iraq or Afghanistan. I do so hate to defend this man.


----------



## sky dancer (Aug 31, 2008)

Obama and Biden anti-gun?  Another great reason to vote for them.


----------



## necritan (Aug 31, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Obama and Biden anti-gun?  Another great reason to vote for them.



We are all butterfly's......happy free floating spirits in a world of love and respect.


----------



## necritan (Aug 31, 2008)

busara said:


> yeah, shoot that hurricane!! that'll school em!!
> 
> 
> 
> if china invades, then I'm sure there would be a draft and we would all be given guns anyways, doesn't mean you need to own the biggest one possible for the very small chance that a scenario like this happens



If you were in N.O. after the hurricane hit and you had just enough food and water for you and your family......yet....other people were not so prepared and are out to take what is yours......at any cost they will take it...even if it means your life.....what then will you do???? Seriously...without the smart ass response.

As far as invasion of this country.....would you hand an AR-15 or M-16 to anyone without any training.....will they automatically know how to use it...aim it...be safe with it?????? Do you know how to operate either??

An already armed citizen generally trains with their firearms.....is safe with their firearms....and can ,  if necessary ,  use it quite effectively.


----------



## SFC_TMC915 (Aug 31, 2008)

Given your scenerio . .  I would defend my family with a shot gun or a hand gun.  I don't think the average citizen needs a weapon with a maximum effective range of 550 meters to defend their home or family.  Those idiot bank robbers probably bought those weapons legally or, as your mentioned in a previous post, stole them from a law-abiding citizen.  That bank robbery illustrates my points very well . . . the police aren't armed well enough and that those weapons need to be restricted for use by the police, military, or other law enforcement.  

And your reference to tyrannical oppression . . .  you do live in California in the USA correct?  To what tyrannical oppressive force are you referring?


----------



## busara (Aug 31, 2008)

necritan said:


> If you were in N.O. after the hurricane hit and you had just enough food and water for you and your family......yet....other people were not so prepared and are out to take what is yours......at any cost they will take it...even if it means your life.....what then will you do???? Seriously...without the smart ass response.
> 
> As far as invasion of this country.....would you hand an AR-15 or M-16 to anyone without any training.....will they automatically know how to use it...aim it...be safe with it?????? Do you know how to operate either??
> 
> An already armed citizen generally trains with their firearms.....is safe with their firearms....and can ,  if necessary ,  use it quite effectively.



do you honestly think thieves wouldnt be afraid if you pointed a shotgun at them? stupid argument for the need of assault weapons. like i said, a shotgun or hunting rifle will work just fine.

and yes, i know how to shoot a gun. i've been hunting, and if you wanted to know my sister is a marine. and like i said, if we were invaded there would be a draft. that doesnt mean our govt starts throwing guns to everybody and tells them to go shooting at bad guys. and a citizen who has a hunting rifle or shotgun is safe and can use it effectively. why do they need to have the biggest gun out there to be in a militia?


----------



## Richard-H (Sep 1, 2008)

It seems silly to discuss the issue of gun ownership from the point of view of defending America from invasion. First, it ain't likely to happen anytime in the next several centuries. Second, if it did, the outcome would be determined by major weapons systems not by guns, rifles or machine guns. However macho they may make you feel.

The issue of gun control is over simplified by both the liberals and conservatives, with the NRA supporting the profits of the gun manufacturers.

The vast majority of people who are for "gun control" couldn't care less if law abiding people own guns. Most would even agree that shop owners should definitely have guns on hand.

But the real motivation for "gun control" is to reduce the criminal use of guns and the number of gun accidents. Not to deprive law abiding gun owners of their guns.

So no intelligent person should be taking either side definitively. Instead they should be taking sides on particular gun control proposals. Weighing the benefits of the reduction in criminal use vs. the amount of obstruction to law biding gun owners.

I live in Connecticut which is a liberal, but very pro gun state (we have several of the major gun manufacturers here, plus a huge piece of the U.S. military industry). Most of my nieghbors own guns. I trust them and actually feel more secure in that fact.

But I'm also from New York and I know how bad gun crimes get. When Florida and Texas removed all forms of gun control, the murder rate went through the ceiling.

What we need is cafefully crafted gun control legislation that doesn't obstruct law abiding gun owners, but does reduce crime and accidents. Of course the NRA would oppose anything that might cut into gun manufacturers profits.


----------



## Missourian (Sep 1, 2008)

*Guns don't kill people, Cities kill people.*

I fed the MSHP info into the Bat-computer and came to a startling realization.

Of 22 Missouri counties with populations between 25K and 50K, having a combined population of 806,764 persons,  there were 163 total firearm assaults and 2604 total assaults utilizing weapons of any kind. MSHP stats for 22 rural Missouri counties (PDF)


During the same period, in only the city of St. Louis and the city of Kansas City contained within the state of Missouri (half is in Kansas of course),  with a combined population of 793,587 persons, there were a total of 4,143 firearm assaults and 8986 total assaults utilizing weapons of any kind.

MSHP stats for St. Louis (PDF)

MSHP stats for KC, MO (PDF)


Since there are twice as many gun owners in rural communities as there are in urban communities, and perhaps four times as many actual firearms in rural households. Look here for stats I think the facts are clear.  Guns are not the problem.


The 2006 stats on Missouri crime came from this website : Missouri State Highway Patrol Statisical Analysis Center, they are the most recent available.
The 2004 rural/urban chart came from this website : Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA 2004 study.


----------



## Dirt McGirt (Sep 1, 2008)

Obama and Biden are not the only ones anti-gun,

McCain's rating from the Gun Owners of America:

F-

GOA's Take On John McCain


You can bet the NRA will support McCain because he's the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Ninja (Sep 1, 2008)

Dirt McGirt said:


> Obama and Biden are not the only ones anti-gun,
> 
> McCain's rating from the Gun Owners of America:
> 
> ...



The GOA people are kooks. 

It's a total bush league operation - two dudes sitting in a cluttered living room. No lie.  

What are the GOA's legislative accomplishments? There are none. In fact, they really don't do much other than bash the NRA and distort its record in order to get donations. 

How can they give McCain an F- (THE SAME GRADE THEY GAVE HILLARY AND KUCINICH) when he supports concealed carry and opposes renewing the AWB?


----------



## editec (Sep 1, 2008)

Ninja said:


> How can they give McCain an F- (THE SAME GRADE THEY GAVE HILLARY AND KUCINICH) when he supports concealed carry and opposes renewing the AWB?


 
Good point.

Do you see what I'm saying about gun _queers?_

They're  queer for guns. They apparently have no sense of perspective.

McCain and Kucinich are the same as it regards gun ownership?

These people are nuts.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Sep 1, 2008)

Nobody is going to take away anyone's guns.  That is another smoke screen to attack Obama and Biden.

There are enough semi rational people like myself who own guns but don't buy into the NRA Cult.  There will always be those who would issue you a gun at birth and those who would  ban every gun in the land.

That's the problem with a a lot of issues.  The extremes rule because they make the most noise.

I say we beat them senseless with a rifle but.


----------



## SFC_TMC915 (Sep 1, 2008)

Richard-H and Rayboyusmc . . .    You two posted probably the most intelligent analysis of the gun control issue that I've read in this forum yet!!!  Kudos!!!!


----------



## necritan (Sep 1, 2008)

SFC_TMC915 said:


> To what tyrannical oppressive force are you referring?





An assault rifle is determined by features......pistol grip....detachable magazine....collapsable stock.....why are these things so bad???

I was under the impression that the Hollywood shooters had Machine Guns....to make it clear.....machine guns are illegal and are limited to "Class 3" licence holders.

Lets not confuse Machine gun with Assault Rifle.

Finally......why are police officers to be trusted? And the average citizen is not to be trusted?


----------



## necritan (Sep 1, 2008)

busara said:


> do you honestly think thieves wouldnt be afraid if you pointed a shotgun at them? stupid argument for the need of assault weapons. like i said, a shotgun or hunting rifle will work just fine.
> 
> and yes, i know how to shoot a gun. i've been hunting, and if you wanted to know my sister is a marine. and like i said, if we were invaded there would be a draft. that doesnt mean our govt starts throwing guns to everybody and tells them to go shooting at bad guys. and a citizen who has a hunting rifle or shotgun is safe and can use it effectively. why do they need to have the biggest gun out there to be in a militia?



Put a pistol grip on that hunting rifle of yours with a collapsable stock.....and ....ding ding ding...you got yourself an assault rifle. Why do you think these features should be illegal?

to your sister for protecting this fine country.

No one here is arguing for the need of RPG's and Fully Automatic weapons for the average Joe.......I speak only on the need for "Assault Rifles"....which are of course....legal. 

Since they are legal....already owned by Millions.....why do you think these..."Assault Rifles" should be stripped away from their rightfull owners??


----------



## SFC_TMC915 (Sep 1, 2008)

I don't mind them in the hands of law-abiding citizens, but as someone pointed out on this site who is strongly for gun control when I was supporting lawfully owned weapons (other than assault and automatic weapons), they get into the wrong hands when some schmuck steals them. Let's face it . . . whether you're for or against gun control, the reality is that criminals will get their hands on them by stealing them, smuggling them, having their punk girlfiend or friends (who haven't been arrested yet and can buy them legally) buy them. 

I'm in the Army and I'll defend the Constitution to the end. That being said, I'm still opposed to assault and automatic weapons being owned by the average citizen. If you shoot someone with a shot gun or a hand gun, they'll be just as dead!!

Gun laws should be in place to ensure the safety of the majority not the wants of the few. Anyone can drive once they reach 16 (at least in PA), but there are laws to protect people. To me, the gun laws should be the same . . . to support the Constitution but protect it's citizens. It shouldn't be all (like the NRA wants) or nothing (which misinformed fearful people want). This is one issue where I believe a compromise would benefit everyone.


----------



## editec (Sep 1, 2008)

Short of death penalty for first offenses with a gun, I'm not sure what can be done about guns in this nation.

Certainly more laws about who gets them are meaningless.

We have more guns AND more guns laws, than makes sense in my opinion.


----------



## necritan (Sep 1, 2008)

Vilolence and irresponsibility are bad in this nation......came home a few minutes ago and like 20 dudes were walking by with pipes and stuff.....

Maybe they're plumbers.

People are the problem.


----------



## SFC_TMC915 (Sep 1, 2008)

You're right . . . people are the problem.  Guns don't kill people, people kill people.


----------



## Duke505 (Jan 24, 2009)

SFC_TMC915 said:


> You're right . . . people are the problem.  Guns don't kill people, people kill people.



Very true, but do you think it is the responsible gun owners that are causing the problems? Do you think the people with permits from the state are the problem? Or is it the thugs who obtain guns illegally and are untrained with firearms. 

NOT ALL PEOPLE ARE THE PROBLEM HERE!!!!


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2009)

Why people shouldn't have automatic weapons....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr3zlll0prA]YouTube - Blondy with AK - gun accident[/ame]


----------



## Missourian (Jan 24, 2009)

Chris said:


> Why people shouldn't have automatic weapons....
> 
> YouTube - Blondy with AK - gun accident


 

While your example is far from compelling, this is some common ground for us.

I agree with the National Firearm Act restrictions on civilian ownership of automatic weapons.


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2009)

Missourian said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Why people shouldn't have automatic weapons....
> ...



Although there is something very hot about a blonde with an automatic weapon.


----------

