# GUNS must GO



## Yukon (Feb 24, 2009)

It's time that Americans woke up, smelled the coffee and too their collective heads out of the sad. Be smart, be modern, wake up and REPEAL the 2ND AMENDMENT

The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths (murders, suicides and accidents) among the world's 36 richest nations!! 

** *2,827 children and teens died as a result of gun violence in 2003 (more than the number of American fighting men killed in hostile action in Iraq from 2003 to April 2006)

Americans value their constitution and the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment deals with the right to bear arms. Here is the price that ordinary Americans are paying for the privilege

*** 8 children a day die in murders, suicides and accidents involving guns

*** since John F. Kennedy was assinated more Americans have died from gunshot wounds at home than died in all the wars of the 20th century

*** Osama bin Laden would need at least nine twin towers like attacks each year to equal what Americans do to themselves every year with guns.

*** Murder rates in LA, NY and Chigago were approaching the hightest in the world (30 per 100,000) until moves were made in late 20th century to restrict access to guns to teenagers and the NRA wants these moves reversed.

If Osama bin Laden had had more sense, instead of launching a terrorist attack, he would simply have provided financial backing to the NRA!


----------



## jillian (Feb 24, 2009)

Saying "guns must go" is pretty silly. Whether I personally would want a gun or not, they're protected by the Second Amendment. The conditions of ownership aside, absent a  repeal of the second, it's entitled to the same protection as any other constitutional provision.


----------



## del (Feb 24, 2009)

jillian said:


> Saying "guns must go" is pretty silly. Whether I personally would want a gun or not, they're protected by the Second Amendment. The conditions of ownership aside, absent a  repeal of the second, it's entitled to the same protection as any other constitutional provision.



does chris know his patch is being usurped?


----------



## Gunnen4u (Feb 24, 2009)

What is with Canadians these days? We should annex Alberta to at least save them.

Is this garbage chain mail from your yahoo account or something?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 24, 2009)

del said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Saying "guns must go" is pretty silly. Whether I personally would want a gun or not, they're protected by the Second Amendment. The conditions of ownership aside, absent a  repeal of the second, it's entitled to the same protection as any other constitutional provision.
> ...



yea hear we go again....the same old tired anti-gun BS......could this be the Canadian Chris?


----------



## Yukon (Feb 24, 2009)

Even at this early phase Im not surprised. Not a single one of you has been able to lodge a logical protest to my post. Sarcasm is the best you can do.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 24, 2009)

fuck you.  Stay in canadia.


----------



## Said1 (Feb 24, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Even at this early phase Im not surprised. Not a single one of you has been able to lodge a logical protest to my post. Sarcasm is the best you can do.



If you take away guns, people will just find another weapon. Like knives and use them to do things like cut people's heads off on Voyageur Buses.


----------



## johnrocks (Feb 24, 2009)

There are roughly 50000 gun deaths a year in this nation, of over 300 million people.  This is total gun deaths from homicide to suicide, gun control is ridiculous.


----------



## Gunnen4u (Feb 24, 2009)

Because it's a bullshit arguement that has been argued many times before you decided to put it out there like you stumbled on to something new.

I don't have time for every idiot out there in the world.


----------



## Yukon (Feb 24, 2009)

Removing someone's head with a knife is much more difficult than blowing it off with a shotgun....wouldn't you agree? Therefore your argument is not valid.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 24, 2009)

STFU or I'll cap your fucking ass


----------



## Meister (Feb 24, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Even at this early phase Im not surprised. Not a single one of you has been able to lodge a logical protest to my post. Sarcasm is the best you can do.




It doesn't warrant a response, Yukon.  You don't live here, and you don't have our freedoms.  Kinda sounds like sour grapes


----------



## Zoom-boing (Feb 24, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Even at this early phase Im not surprised. Not a single one of you has been able to lodge a logical protest to my post. Sarcasm is the best you can do.



Jillian did.  BTW, got a link for the info you posted?


----------



## Mr. President (Feb 24, 2009)

Illogical responses are often symptoms of an illogical statement.  Dont they hunt in Canada?


----------



## del (Feb 24, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> STFU or I'll cap your fucking ass



if you think this is stupid, he claims wayne gretzky was the greates hockey player of all time.


----------



## strollingbones (Feb 24, 2009)

i can logically protest it...i live in the country....response time for a 911 can run 20 minutes or more depending on where they already are in county.....now i feel i have ever right to protect myself....dont you?

<---owner of guns


----------



## strollingbones (Feb 24, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Removing someone's head with a knife is much more difficult than blowing it off with a shotgun....wouldn't you agree? Therefore your argument is not valid.



hmmm no....you are not trying to remove their head....simply kill them ...a knife to the throat works well....but is real fucking messy....and you have to get close to them....

so the arguement is real valid....

canadians are such wanna bes


----------



## Said1 (Feb 24, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Removing someone's head with a knife is much more difficult than blowing it off with a shotgun....wouldn't you agree? Therefore your argument is not valid.



But it was still happened. And, if someone had a gun on the bus, they could have blown the hackers head off and saved the other guy. Plus, I'd rather get shot then hacked - I don't like to prolong things that are painful.

So, validate this.


----------



## Munin (Feb 24, 2009)

About that constitution thing that justified civilian gun control: wasn't that something that was more about militia people? Just curious


----------



## Said1 (Feb 24, 2009)

strollingbones said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Removing someone's head with a knife is much more difficult than blowing it off with a shotgun....wouldn't you agree? Therefore your argument is not valid.
> ...



Not really. Just him.


----------



## Gunnen4u (Feb 24, 2009)

What, therefore anyone deemed militia should be the only ones to have them?

The Bill of Rights was what was guaranteed to the States and People by the Federal Gov't.

And the 2nd one says that each State has the right to a well regulated militia, the second part being that the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall never be taken away.

It's pretty simple, yet elusive concept it seems.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 24, 2009)

This comedy interlude brought to you by Shogun brand MUDHOLES (tm)

It's the only brand that Red Foreman will use!


----------



## Gunnen4u (Feb 24, 2009)

Those are big.


----------



## manu1959 (Feb 24, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Even at this early phase Im not surprised. Not a single one of you has been able to lodge a logical protest to my post. Sarcasm is the best you can do.



so let me see if i have this correct.....you want to stop selling guns to the american public and remove all guns from the posession of the american public...and repeal the second amendment....

i assume the cops and robbers and military will still all have their guns....

which means there will still be a black market.....

so you soultion to the black market running guns accross the mexican border would be what.....


----------



## Munin (Feb 24, 2009)

Gunnen4u said:


> What, therefore anyone deemed militia should be the only ones to have them?
> 
> The Bill of Rights was what was guaranteed to the States and People by the Federal Gov't.
> 
> ...



It seems to me that both things are interrelated (militia and civilians owning guns), peoples right to bear arms seems to be in place for being able to use those men as militia. Something that now seems unnecessary with the US having the strongest military in the world. Who is going to defeat the US Navy & Air force? And even then, won't the army be much more able to do the job to defend the nation?


----------



## manu1959 (Feb 24, 2009)

Munin said:


> Gunnen4u said:
> 
> 
> > What, therefore anyone deemed militia should be the only ones to have them?
> ...



i belive the intent was to allow a militia to assemble against an unjust government.....you would think the left would want guns to defend against the darth cheney's of the world....

however, it is obvious the left wants to take you guns so that you can not revolt against their "socialist agenda"..... 

odd that the evil right wants to keep the people armed.....i guess it would be to give a false sense of security as they impliment their evil agenda....


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Feb 24, 2009)

Yukon said:


> It's time that Americans woke up, smelled the coffee and too their collective heads out of the sad. Be smart, be modern, wake up and REPEAL the 2ND AMENDMENT
> 
> The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths (murders, suicides and accidents) among the world's 36 richest nations!!
> 
> ...




What I love about socialists is how consistently foolish they are and how there seems to be no threshold of idiocy they are not prepared to cross to prove it.  

Here we have the idiocy which seeks to note the existance of violent crime and her solution is to disarm the innocent who are most often the target of the criminals engaged in it...

Ownership and use of firearms is a RIGHT jackass... and that right is without regard to how many idiots are ignorant of their responsibilities inherent in that right; it remains a right despite the volume of feminized leftists in Canuckistan who aren't comfortable with being saddled with that responsibility.

Our guns aren't going anywhere sis...  This in contrast to the leftists that try to take them...  particularly those who come to party with nothing but fatally flawed reasoning through which they hope to do so...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 24, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Even at this early phase Im not surprised. Not a single one of you has been able to lodge a logical protest to my post. Sarcasm is the best you can do.




Try to inform yourself.

Take a break and read John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" for an eye-opener.

Further, take a look at statistics that separate legal and licensed guns from unlawful.

Next, consider who would have guns if they were banned. And, please, don't say "nobody would have them."

And move to a country where citizens are considered to be adults. Or is this sarcasm?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Feb 24, 2009)

Munin said:


> About that constitution thing that justified civilian gun control: wasn't that something that was more about militia people? Just curious



There is nothing in the US Constitution which justifies civilian gun control...  the US Constitution speaks only once to Civilian ownership of guns and in that instance, it states unambiguously that "*the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.*"  It states as it's basis, that the sum of armed, able bodied citizens, of which the civilian militia is comprised, is necessary to a free state.

If there is another reference, I'd love to hear more about it.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 24, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Even at this early phase Im not surprised. Not a single one of you has been able to lodge a logical protest to my post. Sarcasm is the best you can do.



thats because we have already debated this to the ground with your American brother Chris......now thanks,because as soon as Chrissy gets wind of this it will start all over again....


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 24, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Even at this early phase Im not surprised. Not a single one of you has been able to lodge a logical protest to my post. Sarcasm is the best you can do.



First why don't you explain the logic of YOUR argument.


----------



## disciple2184 (Feb 24, 2009)

Yukon said:


> It's time that Americans woke up, smelled the coffee and too their collective heads out of the sad. Be smart, be modern, wake up and REPEAL the 2ND AMENDMENT
> 
> The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths (murders, suicides and accidents) among the world's 36 richest nations!!
> 
> ...



Criminals will read your post and just throw away their guns and then we wont need them.


----------



## alan1 (Feb 24, 2009)

Yukon said:


> It's time that Americans woke up, smelled the coffee and too their collective heads out of the sad. Be smart, be modern, wake up and REPEAL the 2ND AMENDMENT
> 
> The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths (murders, suicides and accidents) among the world's 36 richest nations!!
> 
> ...



Canada should outlaw water.
Even though Canada has a much smaller population than the US, more people die from accidental drowning in Canada than there are accidental gun deaths in the USA.  It seems to be especially prevalent among children.
Children Under 5 at Greatest Risk for Drowning
Realty Times - Drowning Statistics Show Importance of Swimming Pool Safety


----------



## xsited1 (Feb 24, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Even at this early phase Im not surprised. Not a single one of you has been able to lodge a logical protest to my post. Sarcasm is the best you can do.



I thought you were joking.  

Do you know how to read books?  If so, you might consider reading this one:

John R. Lott Jr.: More Guns, Less Crime


----------



## manu1959 (Feb 24, 2009)

xsited1 said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Even at this early phase Im not surprised. Not a single one of you has been able to lodge a logical protest to my post. Sarcasm is the best you can do.
> ...



are there pictures....and are they logical.....


----------



## BrianH (Feb 24, 2009)

We'll see how many Canadians flood across the border when the shit hits the fan because they can't protect themselves.   

"Guns Must GO?"  Really??  

Wake up call!!!  People have been killing themselves and each other LONG LONG before guns found it's place on the time-line in history.  And in fact, I would almost argue that the firearm is more humane than slowly impaling someone to death, and or putting them in the Boogey Box and shoving spikes into their torso and eye-sockets.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe Japan has just as high, if not higher suicide rate than the United States, and they're not allowed to own firearms.  The fact is, if someone wants to kill themelves, they'll find away.

As far as accidents go, Why don't we outlaw cars, because more people die every year due to motor-vehicle accidents as opposed to guns.


----------



## BrianH (Feb 24, 2009)

Check out the video survaillance of this home invasion.  The owner of the home had a gun.  Good thing.  (Notice the bullets hitting the windshield)  

"Boy, he should have called the cops and let them handle it"....lol  Whatever

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uw-0nfVC2Rk[/ame]


----------



## Article 15 (Feb 24, 2009)

Yukon said:


> It's time that Americans woke up, smelled the coffee and too their collective heads out of the sad. Be smart, be modern, wake up and REPEAL the 2ND AMENDMENT



No!


----------



## eots (Feb 24, 2009)

Yukon said:


> It's time that Americans woke up, smelled the coffee and too their collective heads out of the sad. Be smart, be modern, wake up and REPEAL the 2ND AMENDMENT
> 
> The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths (murders, suicides and accidents) among the world's 36 richest nations!!
> 
> ...



OK.../you can fuck off now


----------



## BrianH (Feb 24, 2009)

Why do jackasses cling to the other 9 Amendments and then treat the FRICKI 2nd RIGHT of the Constitution as if can somehow be held to different meaning and/or standards.

Here's how I see it.  It is 100% UNCONSTITUTIONAL to even require guns to be registered.  Why you ask?  Because , the Second amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

  I'll let you all look up the definition of "infringe".  Therfore, any attempt to restrict ownership of a firearm would be an infringement, and thus UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Second, if you want to ignore that point, here's another.  The 10th Amendment states that... "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Considering that the Constitution does not mention the "power" to control-gun ownership,and delegate that power to the Federal Government, the power to do so is reserved to the state.  So in reality, it would be a state decision....HOWEVER, any legislation by the state to restrict gun-ownership would violate every Americans' right under the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Anguille (Feb 24, 2009)

*GUNS must GO *

You cannot talk this way about a member.

We don't play these games.


----------



## alan1 (Feb 24, 2009)

BrianH said:


> Check out the video survaillance of this home invasion.  The owner of the home had a gun.  Good thing.  (Notice the bullets hitting the windshield)
> 
> "Boy, he should have called the cops and let them handle it"....lol  Whatever



Police spend about 3% of their time preventing crime, and 97% reacting to crime.
I'd rather be in a position to prevent it myself, rather than wait for them to react to it.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Feb 24, 2009)

BrianH said:


> We'll see how many Canadians flood across the border when the shit hits the fan because they can't protect themselves.
> 
> "Guns Must GO?"  Really??
> 
> ...



That's pretty close...

When I was in Japan, we usually took the train to wherever we were heading for our liberty.  It was a matter of course that inevitably, some one would suicide by jumping in front of the train...  I don't recall anyone there clammering to rid Japan of the trains...

Again, this is not a complicated issue. 

Self defense is an inalienable right... it is NOT a right which stems from a social contract, it is a right which is vested in life itself... and as such it is NOT a right which can be taken away.  Where an individual, a group of individuals and or a government seeks to disarm an individual or a group of individuals, that group advocating the forced disarming of the other is a real and present danger to their lives and as such warrant destruction.

Push this...  go ahead... DO IT!


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 24, 2009)

geezus....if this thread keeps on going Chris is going to spot it.....then Yuke will have a friend....


----------



## Diuretic (Feb 25, 2009)

God said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > STFU or I'll cap your fucking ass
> ...



Damn right, anyone knows it was the Rocket


----------



## Diuretic (Feb 25, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Even at this early phase Im not surprised. Not a single one of you has been able to lodge a logical protest to my post. Sarcasm is the best you can do.
> ...



Psssssst, no-one takes Lott seriously any longer.  He has been dismantled.  Don't reference him.  Just make the point that if someone doesn't live in the US why the fuck should they pronounce on domestic  firearms policy.  That works.


----------



## Diuretic (Feb 25, 2009)

BatBoy said:


> Police spend about 3% of their time preventing crime, and 97% reacting to crime.
> I'd rather be in a position to prevent it myself, rather than wait for them to react to it.



It's a bit more complex than that but never mind.  But you're right.  In the US you do need to be armed for your own protection and any calls to disarm the ordinary US citizen is unrealistic.


----------



## del (Feb 25, 2009)

Diuretic said:


> God said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...




robert gordon orr was the best hockey player, ever, but there were no flies on M. Richard, either.


----------



## Article 15 (Feb 25, 2009)

My kind of hockey player.


[YOUTUBE]<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mggOCzMkJHw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mggOCzMkJHw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]



(but I miss PJ Stock)


----------



## michiganFats (Feb 25, 2009)

Gordie Howe. That is all.


----------



## Anguille (Feb 25, 2009)

Ummm ... nobody beats the Hanson Brothers!!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJkHm2WtSsk&feature=related"]YouTube - Slap Shot, Hanson Bros. Debut[/ame]


----------



## 007 (Feb 25, 2009)

Yukon said:


> It's time that Americans woke up, smelled the coffee and too their collective heads out of the sad. Be smart, be modern, wake up and REPEAL the 2ND AMENDMENT
> 
> The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths (murders, suicides and accidents) among the world's 36 richest nations!!
> 
> ...



What's the matter... scared of us, or just jealous? Either way, fuck off and die. Americans are NOT going to give up their guns. Got it? Good.

You're dismissed ass lips.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Feb 25, 2009)

Diuretic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



SWEET FANTASY... Tell us Diur, what color is the sky in the world where this DELUSION is TRUTH?

Ya see, in reality here, Lott hasn't been touched... there isn't a single point advanced by Lott that has been refuted... Not one...

Now towards proving that, given that you've made the rather emphatic assertion that Lott has been 'dismantled', then reason is served that you'll be able to give us a few... or say ONE valid example where Lott's position has been shown to be so much as innacurate...  Post the SPECIFIC LOTT POSITION>> WITHIN IT'S STATED CONTEXT; SOURCE THE SPECIFIC REFERENCES; THAT OF THE LOTT POSITION AND THE RADICAL LEFTIST DISINFORMATION WEBSITE from which you're lifting...  and show the board precisely where Lott got it wrong.

Now a note to the board:  Would anyone care to wager that Diur here will offer a well reasoned, logically valild, intellectually sound argument, producing a valid, contexctually accurate, Lott position while sourcing the original Lott source, where upon she can show the Lott position to be inaccurate?  AT BEST what we'll get is an out of context Lott position, advanced as a red herring, which is used in the typical misdirection, which is so common ot the ideological left; or the even more popular "Ignore the challenge in hopes that no one notices...'


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Feb 25, 2009)

Diuretic said:


> BatBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Police spend about 3% of their time preventing crime, and 97% reacting to crime.
> ...



Well that's a certain truth of Nature... and as such it is true, everywhere.  It's just that in some places the idiots there have usurped the means of the individual to lawfully arm themselves in self defense; such as Australia and the UK.  But that is the nature of the feminized leftist of which those 'nations' are comprised.

The good news is that when and where another force determines that it will conquer those nations, that the citizenry is disarmed and their respecitve militaries subject to the inherent weakness of the Socialist budget for such otherwise necessary function, that force will readily succeed with the populace being helpless to prevent it... and the folly of their feminzied ways will come to them in yet ANOTHER culktural epiphany, common to the final moments of leftist cultures.


----------



## Diuretic (Feb 25, 2009)

Pub why the fuck do you bother?


----------



## del (Feb 25, 2009)

Diuretic said:


> Pub why the fuck do you bother?



he lost the directions for physical masturbation.


----------



## Diuretic (Feb 25, 2009)

del said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > Pub why the fuck do you bother?
> ...


----------



## 007 (Feb 25, 2009)

Diuretic said:


> Pub why the fuck do you bother?



Well, since the canadian idiot isn't physically present so that someone could screw his/her head off and shit down their neck, a verbal ass whipping is the next best thing.


----------



## Yukon (Feb 25, 2009)

The way I see it, there are three groups of people who think they benefit from the Second Amendment - hunters, self-defendants, and crazy people who think that they're going to stave off tyranny with their deer rifles.

Most conservatives fall into the category of the crazy-people who will save us from tyranny. They blew their chance when then allowed the government to take away their authority to own machine guns and nuclear weapons. These people, the crazy-people,  had a point a long time ago but now that technology has made muskets an ineffective choice for governmental overthrow, let's not let them kid us. Private gun ownership is not going to prevent governmental tyranny, no matter how many times you've watched the movie Red Dawn.


----------



## Meister (Feb 25, 2009)

Yukon said:


> The way I see it, there are three groups of people who think they benefit from the Second Amendment - hunters, self-defendants, and crazy people who think that they're going to stave off tyranny with their deer rifles.
> 
> Most conservatives fall into the category of the crazy-people who will save us from tyranny. They blew their chance when then allowed the government to take away their authority to own machine guns and nuclear weapons. These people, the crazy-people,  had a point a long time ago but now that technology has made muskets an ineffective choice for governmental overthrow, let's not let them kid us. Private gun ownership is not going to prevent governmental tyranny, no matter how many times you've watched the movie Red Dawn.




Are you for real????  All you have to do is read our Constitution, and our Amendments.  After you read them, you might have a better understanding about what freedom really means.  But from your posts...I don't think you will comprehend...so best stay in Canada.


----------



## 007 (Feb 25, 2009)

Yukon said:


> The way I see it, there are three groups of people who think they benefit from the Second Amendment - hunters, self-defendants, and crazy people who think that they're going to stave off tyranny with their deer rifles.
> 
> Most conservatives fall into the category of the crazy-people who will save us from tyranny. They blew their chance when then allowed the government to take away their authority to own machine guns and nuclear weapons. These people, the crazy-people,  had a point a long time ago but now that technology has made muskets an ineffective choice for governmental overthrow, let's not let them kid us. Private gun ownership is not going to prevent governmental tyranny, no matter how many times you've watched the movie Red Dawn.



Well here's a novel idea, worry about canada and leave us the fuck alone. We don't need you, we don't want you, we couldn't care less what the fuck you think we should or shouldn't be doing. Does that register in your pea brain?


----------



## AllieBaba (Feb 25, 2009)

I just wonder how it jibes with the whole "eliminate guns" thing that the cities with the highest murder rates have the toughest gun laws?

We're Americans. We will keep our guns. The first act of a tyrant is to disarm the citizenry, and we won't be going down that road ever.


----------



## BrianH (Feb 25, 2009)

Yukon, 

I'm guessing you didn't watch the video clip that I posted.  

I don't know about you, but I don't plan on becoming the latest murder statistic.  And if I do, I'm going down fighting.  What part of this video makes you think that the police would do you any good??
And lets keep in mind, that these criminals MOST LIKELY have these firearms ILLEGALLY.  So if guns are made to be illegal, it won't matter, because the criminals will still be acquiring them illegally.  All you will do, is disarm law-abiding citizens and empower criminals.  

Studies show that illegalizing guns does not work.  Look at Washington D.C.  Had the highest crime rate, and most gun-control. It is everyone's inalieable right to defend themselves, regardless of constitution.


----------



## AllieBaba (Feb 25, 2009)

Virginia Tech. Before the shootings there, a student had been fighting the idiotic rule that nobody, even with a license, could pack on campus.

What a shame.....someone with a gun could have saved a lot of kids that day.


----------



## elvis (Feb 25, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Removing someone's head with a knife is much more difficult than blowing it off with a shotgun....wouldn't you agree? Therefore your argument is not valid.



whatever you say, Adolf.


----------



## BrianH (Feb 25, 2009)

I agree Allie, I think the problem people have with the thought of allowing students to carry firearms on campus, is they tend to lump "students" in one basket; believing that (students=kids).  People somehow come up with the idea that their 18 year old will be allow to tote a gun around, without citing laws.  You must be 21 to purchase, be in possession of, and even buy hand-gun ammo (in Texas anyway).  So in reality, MOST college students will not be even allowed to carry a handgun if there is ever such legislation that allows it.


----------



## AllieBaba (Feb 25, 2009)

And it's not easy to obtain a concealed weapon permit.

I don't think I've ever heard of a murder occurring where the killer had a permit?


----------



## alan1 (Feb 25, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> And it's not easy to obtain a concealed weapon permit.
> 
> I don't think I've ever heard of a murder occurring where the killer had a permit?



Are you serious?
You mean criminals don't follow the law?
Those dirty law breaking bastards................................


----------



## alan1 (Feb 25, 2009)

Yukon said:


> The way I see it, there are three groups of people who think they benefit from the Second Amendment - hunters, self-defendants, and crazy people who think that they're going to stave off tyranny with their deer rifles.
> 
> Most conservatives fall into the category of the crazy-people who will save us from tyranny. They blew their chance when then allowed the government to take away their authority to own machine guns and nuclear weapons. These people, the crazy-people,  had a point a long time ago but now that technology has made muskets an ineffective choice for governmental overthrow, let's not let them kid us. Private gun ownership is not going to prevent governmental tyranny, no matter how many times you've watched the movie Red Dawn.



Oh goody, you can count to 3.
Next, perhaps you can name somebody that thinks a "musket" is equivalent to a Glock G21?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Feb 25, 2009)

Diuretic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



I just love helping leftists expose themselves as fools...   Oh sure, it's a character flaw, but I do love it so...

Let the record reflect that while Diur would LOVE to have supported her now discredited argument, she's, as predicted, unable to do so and as a result has instead CONCEDED... if only by default...

Which is more than enough...


----------



## Burp (Feb 25, 2009)

Per the Center for Disease Control, from 1999 to 2005, there were 311,356 deaths in the United States from motor vehicles. 

Per the Center for Disease Control, from 1999 to 2005, there were 207.751 deaths in the United States from firearms.  

Yukon?


----------



## Said1 (Feb 25, 2009)

Burp said:


> Per the Center for Disease Control, from 1999 to 2005, there were 311,356 deaths in the United States from motor vehicle.
> 
> Per the Center for Disease Control, from 1999 to 2005, there were 207.751 deaths in the United States from firearms.
> 
> Yukon?



Seems like his internet privileges have been suspended, today. Either that or he's shoveling snow. defrosting pipes or hiding bodies.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Feb 25, 2009)

Yukon said:


> The way I see it, there are three groups of people who think they benefit from the Second Amendment - hunters, self-defendants, and crazy people who think that they're going to stave off tyranny with their deer rifles.
> 
> Most conservatives fall into the category of the crazy-people who will save us from tyranny. They blew their chance when then allowed the government to take away their authority to own machine guns and nuclear weapons. These people, the crazy-people,  had a point a long time ago but now that technology has made muskets an ineffective choice for governmental overthrow, let's not let them kid us. Private gun ownership is not going to prevent governmental tyranny, no matter how many times you've watched the movie Red Dawn.



Well that serves reason; you've been repeatedly challenged to support your 'Canadian feelings' and with each challenge you've run to avoid offering any substantive response... and as such your OP is an:

*EPIC FAILURE*

But no more or less so than any other feminized (leftist) farce...  What you're unable to recognize is that the US government hasn't taken away any authority of anyone, to do anything, at least where inalienable rights are concerned, as the US government does not possess the authority to give or retract inalienable rights...


----------



## Burp (Feb 25, 2009)

According to Transport Canada's report The Alcohol-Crash Problem in Canada: 2000, a total of 981 people died in alcohol-related crashes in 2000. This includes off-road vehicles, as well as pedestrians with alcohol in their blood.

Statistics Canada says that 816 people &#8212; 767 males and 49 females &#8212; died of firearms-related injuries in Canada in 2002.

I'm thinking Yukon's next campaign will be to ban alcohol throughout Canada.


----------



## Burp (Feb 25, 2009)

Said1 said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > Per the Center for Disease Control, from 1999 to 2005, there were 311,356 deaths in the United States from motor vehicle.
> ...



Maybe he's out driving around.


----------



## Meister (Feb 25, 2009)

Burp said:


> Said1 said:
> 
> 
> > Burp said:
> ...



Maybe Canada censored him


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 25, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> I just wonder how it jibes with the whole "eliminate guns" thing that the cities with the highest murder rates have the toughest gun laws?
> 
> We're Americans. We will keep our guns. The first act of a tyrant is to disarm the citizenry, and we won't be going down that road ever.



oh no Ali.....if Chris sees what you posted he will come in here and start posting about how those stats are bull......


----------



## elvis (Feb 25, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > I just wonder how it jibes with the whole "eliminate guns" thing that the cities with the highest murder rates have the toughest gun laws?
> ...



chrissy lewinsky is a moron.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 25, 2009)

Said1 said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > Per the Center for Disease Control, from 1999 to 2005, there were 311,356 deaths in the United States from motor vehicle.
> ...



or doing what he probably does when he gets turned down by his boyfriend.......yes that is what i mean.....pouting......


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 25, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



El.....dont let Chrissy know.....he thinks all of us are.....


----------



## bthoma91 (Feb 25, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Even at this early phase Im not surprised. Not a single one of you has been able to lodge a logical protest to my post. Sarcasm is the best you can do.



My brother, I see both sides of this argument. But...  people kill people, the guns dont. If amercica were to repeal the 2nd amendment,  those criminals would move  on to using knives. Then what are we going to do, illegalize knives? Plus, its like drugs... people still have access to them if they are illegal or not.


----------



## Zook (Feb 26, 2009)

Im sorry I like My rights. We need to keep as may as we can. They seem to be disappearing to fast. From not even being able to smoke in my own bar(if I had a bar and if I smoked) to not being able to hold my phone to my ear and talk while driving. Yes these are prob. Mostly Cali laws but those rights of mine are gone.


----------



## elvis (Feb 26, 2009)

Zook said:


> Im sorry I like My rights. We need to keep as may as we can. They seem to be disappearing to fast. From not even being able to smoke in my own bar(if I had a bar and if I smoked) to not being able to hold my phone to my ear and talk while driving. Yes these are prob. Mostly Cali laws but those rights of mine are gone.



Totalifornia?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Feb 26, 2009)

Burp said:


> According to Transport Canada's report The Alcohol-Crash Problem in Canada: 2000, a total of 981 people died in alcohol-related crashes in 2000. This includes off-road vehicles, as well as pedestrians with alcohol in their blood.
> 
> Statistics Canada says that 816 people  767 males and 49 females  died of firearms-related injuries in Canada in 2002.
> 
> I'm thinking Yukon's next campaign will be to ban alcohol throughout Canada.



Well that would be a reasonable assumption... but you're missing the key element in the equation Burp...  Yukon is not trying to save lives... Her intent is to disarm the innocent, law abiding citizen, in order to promote the means of the left to gain sufficient power to implement future leftist policy failures and otherwise destroy the culture.  I will stipulate the she doesn't believe that the leftist policy will result in culturual calamity, but, she's a fool and what value can really be placed on the opinion of fools?  

I mean hey, if she believed with every fiber of her foolish being that pouring gasoline over the extent of her body and lighting it would lead her to a new enlightenment...  could we really disagree?  Such an opinion IS subjective and while we know that the enlightenment will be the result of calamity to her physical well being and that the enlightenment would be little more than a function of hindsight, it would fall to those within her physical presence to do the best we could to prevent her from doing so based upon our own certain knowledge that such an action would produce catastrophic results...  meaning simply that we know what we're talking about and we don't need to lend credence to the subjective opinions of fools for our certain knowledge to be validated; we know what will result and that they believe otherwise is IRRELEVANT.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Feb 26, 2009)

Zook said:


> Im sorry I like My rights. We need to keep as may as we can. They seem to be disappearing to fast. From not even being able to smoke in my own bar(if I had a bar and if I smoked) to not being able to hold my phone to my ear and talk while driving. Yes these are prob. Mostly Cali laws but those rights of mine are gone.



No Zook... the right is not gone...  The only 'Rights' you have are those which are inherent in your being...  The rights endowed upon you by your creator.  The 'Civil Rights' and other such notions are simple privilege which are sponsored by a popular majority and enforced by a given human power which provides for such...  Inalienable Rights are inlaienable... human beings can neither provide nor remove such rights, as those rights are not within their means to provide...  the authority on which endowed rights rest is stationed beyond human means and as such are untouchable.  

What you're watching erode and are correct in your noted observations, are the protections which the US Constitution was designed to provide... which serve to limit the power of government, particularly the Federal government...  Power that the founders understood would inevitably be used to prevent the individual from exercising their rights.

This is essentially, the result of an ever increasing 'secularization' of the population... people simply are losing their belief in the Creator and as a result are placing more and more of the responsibility which is inherent in their inalienable rights; a responsibility which secures the viability of their means to exercise their rights, upon the government; it is a foolish notion which transfer the authority for the defense of their rights onto the government, thus transferring by default, the very means to exercise their rights; in effect conceding the individual responsibility concedes the individuals means to determine how, when and where they will be able to rightfully engage in a given activity which would otherwise been pursued towards the fulfillment of their individual life.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 26, 2009)

Yukon said:


> The way I see it, there are three groups of people who think they benefit from the Second Amendment - hunters, self-defendants, and crazy people who think that they're going to stave off tyranny with their deer rifles.
> 
> Most conservatives fall into the category of the crazy-people who will save us from tyranny. They blew their chance when then allowed the government to take away their authority to own machine guns and nuclear weapons. These people, the crazy-people,  had a point a long time ago but now that technology has made muskets an ineffective choice for governmental overthrow, let's not let them kid us. Private gun ownership is not going to prevent governmental tyranny, no matter how many times you've watched the movie Red Dawn.



This is just plain incorrect.  The fact is most gun owners, not just conservatives, fall into the first two categories, and simply can't fathom why something they would never use to hurt anybody unless absolutely neccessary should be taken away from them.

Again I ask where is the logic in YOUR argument?  Posting statistics about gun deaths is a fairly weak argument considering other inanimate objects cause even more deaths (i.e. cars or cholesterol) and that it doesn't focus on the real problem.  Even then it is not fair to say guns (or guns or cholestorl) 'cause' death. All of those things require human input of some type.  Irresponsible diet, innatentiveness at the wheel, irresponsible firearm use it is the human variable that is the source of the problem.


----------



## Yukon (Feb 26, 2009)

Comparing deaths resulting from the use of a gun to those resulting from car accidents is the last refuge of the gold-tooth, beer-belly, pick up truck driving, baseball cap wearing, member of the right wing conservative lunatic fringe groups that are destroying the USA. If that's the best you can do sonny than I suggest you continue to support the NRA because thay are the only wack-jobs who will tolerate your insane points of view.


----------



## eots (Feb 26, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoiMDj9bSE8&feature=related]YouTube - Chuck Heston - From My Cold Dead Hands[/ame]


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 26, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Comparing deaths resulting from the use of a gun to those resulting from car accidents is the last refuge of the gold-tooth, beer-belly, pick up truck driving, baseball cap wearing, member of the right wing conservative lunatic fringe groups that are destroying the USA. If that's the best you can do sonny than I suggest you continue to support the NRA because thay are the only wack-jobs who will tolerate your insane points of view.



Yuke.....you do realize i hope,that there are MANY left leaning people who would blow your fucking head off with THEIR guns if you tried to take them......many of them would stand with the right on this.....and besides,why are you trying to disarm the US?....should you not be trying to disarm Canada.....or is it that facing REAL gun owners frightens the shit out of you,so doing it from a distance is safer?.....just like i was thinking earlier......CHICKEN.......


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 26, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Comparing deaths resulting from the use of a gun to those resulting from car accidents is the last refuge of the gold-tooth, beer-belly, pick up truck driving, baseball cap wearing, member of the right wing conservative lunatic fringe groups that are destroying the USA. If that's the best you can do sonny than I suggest you continue to support the NRA because thay are the only wack-jobs who will tolerate your insane points of view.



Yes, name calling is always a logical argument.  Since you're such a logical guy, perhaps you can explain why guns deserve some special distinction over other things involved in violence and death.


----------



## johnrocks (Feb 26, 2009)

I always wonder how a thinking person could or would trust a powerful, centralized government and then want that coupled with guns being banned to the citizens.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 26, 2009)

Hey Yukon.. we still have the 2nd amendment.  If you don't like it then stay your ass up in the snowy north or we'll start trucking millions of mexicans to your border.


----------



## Yukon (Feb 26, 2009)

johnrocks said:


> I always wonder how a thinking person could or would trust a powerful, centralized government and then want that coupled with guns being banned to the citizens.



Don't forget to check under your trailer for commies before you go to bed.


----------



## elvis (Feb 26, 2009)

Yukon said:


> johnrocks said:
> 
> 
> > I always wonder how a thinking person could or would trust a powerful, centralized government and then want that coupled with guns being banned to the citizens.
> ...



you just stay up there in Canada, ok?


----------



## Yukon (Feb 26, 2009)

Elvis,

On behalf of Canadians everywhere I'd like to offer an apology to the United States of America. We haven't been getting along very well recently and for that, I am truly sorry.  I'm sorry we called George Bush a moron. He is a moron but it wasn't nice of us to point it out. If it's any consolation, the fact that he's a moron shouldn't reflect poorly on the people of America. After all it's not like you actually elected him.

I'm sorry about our softwood lumber. Just because we have more trees than you doesn't give us the right to sell you lumber that's cheaper and better than your own. I'm sorry we beat you in Olympic hockey. In our defense I guess our excuse would be that our team was much, much, much, much better than yours. I'm sorry we burnt down your white house during the war of 1812. I notice you've rebuilt it! It's Very Nice.

I'm sorry about your beer. I know we had nothing to do with your beer but, we Feel your Pain.

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean, when you're going up against a crazed dictator, you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than two years before you guys pitched in against Hitler, but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons.

And finally on behalf of all Canadians, I'm sorry that we're constantly apologizing for things in a passive-aggressive way, which is really a thinly veiled criticism. I sincerely hope that you're not upset over this. We've seen what you do to countries you get upset with.

All the Best,
Yukon


----------



## johnrocks (Feb 26, 2009)

Yukon said:


> johnrocks said:
> 
> 
> > I always wonder how a thinking person could or would trust a powerful, centralized government and then want that coupled with guns being banned to the citizens.
> ...



I'm not worried about commies , I worried about people like you who put more faith in government than they do in individuals,freedom and Capitalism.  I don't live in a trailer, I live in a regular home and if you think insults will get me to go uncivil, it won't, I'll continue to let posters see who has taken the high ground here.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 26, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Will you shoot me if I visit your country?




maybe.


fair warning.


----------



## johnrocks (Feb 26, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Will you shoot me if I visit your country?



Come on down to my place, I'll show you a good time and you'll never see a gun unless you want to.


----------



## elvis (Feb 26, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Will you shoot me if I visit your country?



No. I take it back.  you should visit Flint.  without a gun, you should be fine. the police will protect you.  

edit:  I don't live in Flint and never go there.


----------



## bgn (Feb 26, 2009)

Wow. I saw this thread and thought it was stupid just based on the title. I just called you a left-tard in your abortion thread, and I click here only to find you make this one too. Man, I'm tired of being right.


----------



## elvis (Feb 26, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Elvis,
> 
> On behalf of Canadians everywhere I'd like to offer an apology to the United States of America. We haven't been getting along very well recently and for that, I am truly sorry.  I'm sorry we called George Bush a moron. He is a moron but it wasn't nice of us to point it out. If it's any consolation, the fact that he's a moron shouldn't reflect poorly on the people of America. After all it's not like you actually elected him.
> 
> ...



since you think we should have pitched in against Hitler in 1939, I will assume you also think France should have pitched in against Saddam....
after all we're allies.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Feb 26, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Elvis,
> 
> On behalf of Canadians everywhere I'd like to offer an apology to the United States of America. We haven't been getting along very well recently and for that, I am truly sorry.  I'm sorry we called George Bush a moron. He is a moron but it wasn't nice of us to point it out. If it's any consolation, the fact that he's a moron shouldn't reflect poorly on the people of America. After all it's not like you actually elected him.
> 
> ...




wow imagine if you could write something that clever without plagerizing it.


----------



## elvis (Feb 26, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Will you shoot me if I visit your country?
> ...



that kind of talk isn't allowed on here.  I made it clear that wasn't my intention.


----------



## Munin (Feb 26, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> since you think we should have pitched in against Hitler in 1939, I will assume you also think France should have pitched in against Saddam....
> after all we're allies.



France did pitch in against Saddam (you seem to forget that), but not during the last Iraqi war.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 26, 2009)

Of course a Canadian would not want US citizens to have guns, there is a risk that we would all just take over Canada ... since even their cops rarely carry more than a stick. But here's the thing, stop being so afraid of us conquering you, if we wanted to we would have already done it ... so stay in your own country and leave our guns alone.

PS: I don't use guns, prefer knives, can kill more people with them and get away with it better.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 26, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



complain to a mod.  your concern means two things to me: jack and shit.


----------



## elvis (Feb 26, 2009)

Shogun said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



how eloquent and creative


----------



## Andrew2382 (Feb 26, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Elvis,
> 
> 
> I'm sorry about our softwood lumber. Just because we have more trees than you doesn't give us the right to sell you lumber that's cheaper and better than your own. I'm sorry we beat you in Olympic hockey. In our defense I guess our excuse would be that our team was much, much, much, much better than yours. I'm sorry we burnt down your white house during the war of 1812. I notice you've rebuilt it! It's Very Nice.



No need to apologize for your shitty lumber...its easy to have an advantage when your centralized socialistic government sets the prices and is afraid to have real competition like we do here.  Just don't cry about it when it gets tariffed.  

For a country that invented hockey, your record in the olympics is nothing to brag about    you guys have 7 gold medals with 4 of them coming in the first 4 olympics in the 20's and 30's when no one played...then you went a good 50 years without winning a medal..GREAT JOB!  Total Medal Count- Canada 13- USA 10  
Should we play a game of basketball, a sport we invented and have recently shown when needed still dominate?

CANADA DID NOT BURN DOWN THE WHITE HOUSE! You were not a country yet. Great Britian did attack Wasghington D.C. and burn the interior of the White House. 

That would be like saying we defeated Canada in the American revolution of 1776. Which is immpossible because Canada was not a country yet. And the USA won the French and Indian war. Which is Immpossible cause the USA was not a soverien country yet. 




> I'm sorry about your beer. I know we had nothing to do with your beer but, we Feel your Pain.



Canadian beer vs. American beer: The alcohol content battle - Beer, Wine, Homebrew, and Everything Fermentable! - fermentarium.com

you fail again, canadian beer is not stronger then american beer...Legend that moronic Canadians still believe so they can sleep better at night while banging the mooses they call ladies.



> I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean, when you're going up against a crazed dictator, you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than two years before you guys pitched in against Hitler, but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons.



you do know that Canadians entered the Second World War united with Great Britain, through Commonwealth association...Early in the war, Canada's commitment to the British-French forces in Europe was limited to one division. Canada's military deployment reached corps-level strength for the invasions in Italy in 1943, and Normandy in 1944.   You know around that time frame America came in and showed everyone how it was done.




> And finally on behalf of all Canadians, I'm sorry that we're constantly apologizing for things in a passive-aggressive way, which is really a thinly veiled criticism. I sincerely hope that you're not upset over this. We've seen what you do to countries you get upset with.
> 
> All the Best,
> Yukon



I am sorry that it took you to 1982 to have total independence from England...we had taken them to take a hike 200 years earlier....even though it was more of a formality in 82 you gained independence in 34?  Around there....we are still about 150 years ahead of you.

Thank you for giving shelter to all of our pussy draft dodgers who run to Canada.  They fit in well there I hear.

If you have sucha  problem with America, please feel free to destroy all the American F/18 Hornets that populate your airforce.

Sincerely,

Uncle Sam


----------



## Shogun (Feb 26, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



indeed!  Now, ask me how much I give a fuck about your concern regarding my posts...  you can DO EEET!  I'll give you a hint:  it rhymes with "Bon't Live A Fruck".


----------



## Munin (Feb 26, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Canada's military deployment reached corps-level strength for the invasions in Italy in 1943, and Normandy in 1944.   *You know around that time frame America came in and showed everyone how it was done.*



*In your dreams buddy:* The americans got their asses kicked at first. They learned hard lessons, it were the germans that showed the Americans how it was done:



> The United States did not have a smooth entry into the war against Nazi Germany. Early in 1943, the U.S. Army suffered a near-disastrous defeat at the *Battle of the Kasserine* Pass in February. The senior Allied leadership was primarily to blame for the loss as internal bickering between American General Lloyd Fredendall and the British led to mistrust and little communication, causing inadequate troop placements.[10] The defeat could be considered a major turning point, however, because General Eisenhower replaced Fredendall with General Patton. Military history of the United States during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




*Battle of the Kasserine*

*"*The Battle of Kasserine Pass took place in World War II during the Tunisia Campaign. It was, in fact, a series of battles fought around Kasserine Pass, a two-mile (3 km) wide gap in the Grand Dorsal chain of the Atlas Mountains in west central Tunisia. The Axis forces involved were primarily from the German-Italian Panzer Army (the redesignated German Panzer Army Africa) led by Field Marshal Erwin Rommel and the Fifth Panzer Army led by General Hans-Jürgen von Arnim. The Allied forces involved came mostly from the U.S. Army's II Corps commanded by Major General Lloyd Fredendall which was part of the British First Army commanded by Lieutenant-General Kenneth Anderson.

*Significant as the first large-scale meeting of American and German forces in World War II, the untested and ineptly led American troops suffered heavy casualties and were pushed back over fifty miles (80 km) from their positions west of Faid Pass in a humiliating rout. The battle has been described as when the amateurs first met the professionals.* In the aftermath, the U.S. Army instituted sweeping changes from unit-level organization to the replacing of commanders. When they next met, in some cases only weeks later, the U.S. forces were considerably more effective. *"* Battle of the Kasserine Pass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And it were not the American soldiers but the British soldiers who got the Allied forces out of this mess:



> The attack by 21st Panzer Division up to Sbiba was stopped on February 19 by elements of the British 1st Infantry Brigade (Guards), the 2nd Battlion of the Coldstream Guards


----------



## Andrew2382 (Feb 26, 2009)

Munin said:


> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> > Canada's military deployment reached corps-level strength for the invasions in Italy in 1943, and Normandy in 1944.   *You know around that time frame America came in and showed everyone how it was done.*
> ...




so that one battle in Feb of 43 sums up how we did for the rest of the war...plus why didn't you link the rest of the paragraph other then just what fits your arguement

"Slowly the Allies stopped the German advance in Tunisia and by March were pushing back. In mid April, along with British General Bernard Montgomery, the Allies smashed through the Mareth Line and broke the Axis defense in North Africa. On May 13, 1943, Axis troops in North Africa surrendered, leaving behind 275,000 men. Allied efforts turned towards Sicily and Italy.
"

By May of 1943 Axis troops surrendered....3 months later... I would hardly call that disastorous.

And it had nothing to do with the skill of American soldiers junior, is was bad strategy and tactics that lead to that defeat...General Patton led the war from that point on and I am pretty sure from Normandy on, it was mostly victories


----------



## Diuretic (Feb 26, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Of course a Canadian would not want US citizens to have guns, there is a risk that we would all just take over Canada ... since even their cops rarely carry more than a stick. But here's the thing, stop being so afraid of us conquering you, if we wanted to we would have already done it ... so stay in your own country and leave our guns alone.
> 
> PS: I don't use guns, prefer knives, can kill more people with them and get away with it better.



Hang on KK, Canadian cops carry guns.  Now even the border folks do....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 26, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Elvis,
> 
> On behalf of Canadians everywhere I'd like to offer an apology to the United States of America. We haven't been getting along very well recently and for that, I am truly sorry.  I'm sorry we called George Bush a moron. He is a moron but it wasn't nice of us to point it out. If it's any consolation, the fact that he's a moron shouldn't reflect poorly on the people of America. After all it's not like you actually elected him.
> 
> ...


yukon a question......what the hell has Canada ever invented or improved upon,that has actually helped the world....name 10 things.....


----------



## Munin (Feb 26, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> so that one battle in Feb of 43 sums up how we did for the rest of the war...plus why didn't you link the rest of the paragraph other then just what fits your arguement
> 
> "Slowly the Allies stopped the German advance in Tunisia and by March were pushing back. In mid April, along with British General Bernard Montgomery, the Allies smashed through the Mareth Line and broke the Axis defense in North Africa. On May 13, 1943, Axis troops in North Africa surrendered, leaving behind 275,000 men. Allied efforts turned towards Sicily and Italy.
> "
> ...



I was only talking about how you ve put it: you seemed to say that the superior americans would "teach" the Europeans "how it is done".

While it were the americans that needed to learn the most lessons. Sure Americans troops were very good when they evolved in this war (better training, more veteran troops and better leaders), but that was not what you said. Also: british troops also were very good during WWII (initially much better then US troops), they simply did not have the manpower to defeat the Germans (something the americans did have) and the british army was already too much stretched out over its colonies.




> By May of 1943 Axis troops surrendered....3 months later... I would hardly call that disastorous


The first introduction with German troops was a complete disaster for the americans. Not like what you said: that the americans would teach the Europeans how it is done. (they showed how it is NOT done). That is the point I m trying to make, not that the Allied forces (americans, british and french) defeated the Germans 3 months after this (because the germans were outmatched in numbers and supplies).


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 26, 2009)

Diuretic said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Of course a Canadian would not want US citizens to have guns, there is a risk that we would all just take over Canada ... since even their cops rarely carry more than a stick. But here's the thing, stop being so afraid of us conquering you, if we wanted to we would have already done it ... so stay in your own country and leave our guns alone.
> ...



It's an old joke ... really old ...


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 26, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Elvis,
> ...



Beer doesn't help the world?


----------



## Andrew2382 (Feb 26, 2009)

Yes, but was it a disaster due to the troops?

No

It was a disaster from the leadership, poor communication and tactics


And all of the allied troops were skillfull...including USSRwhich held off Germany for months...


----------



## Munin (Feb 26, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> And all of the allied troops were skillfull...including USSRwhich held off Germany for months...



That is not true: the allied troops were outnumbering the germans, the Germans troops were very skilled.  The USSR were only victorious because of their superior numbers, but because of their "inferior" soldiers they lost even more troops (10,700,000 : World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) then the germans when the war was over.





*Keep in mind who has "won" the war.*



The germans mainly lost because they couldn't keep up in terms of production with the allied forces, that is one of the main reasons why the allied air force gained superiority (because of bigger numbers). German tank divisions still were superior to the american tank divisions, these german tank devisions had already gained a legendary reputation.

German troops proved themselves when they conquered almost the whole of Europe, so no need to question their skills (they conquered more territory then the Russians and allies).

American and other allied troops then caught up with the Germans in skills, tactics, technology, ...

While the Germans had bigger logistical problems (they had 3 fronts to fight on).


----------



## Diuretic (Feb 26, 2009)

_Somewhere in Europe, 1944, a group of Allied soldiers are taking shelter in a ruined house_.

"Damn that was close, I didn't think I'd ever see Brooklyn again.  Kinda reminded me of that Kassarine Pass fuckup"
&#8220;What's a 'Brooklyn'? Yank?&#8221;
&#8220;It's where they have a totally hopeless baseball team eh?&#8221;
&#8220;Stow it Canuck, if it weren't for Americans you guys wouldn't have a chance with baseball. &#8220;
&#8220;Rounders you mean.&#8221;
&#8220;Limey, it's called 'baseball', it's called 'baseball' 'cos it's 'baseball'.&#8221;
&#8220;Yes but we invented it.&#8221;
&#8220;You guys invented every fucking thing, but did you make any of it work?  No, that was down to good old American know-how.&#8221;
&#8220;No need to be like that Yank.&#8221;
&#8220;Maybe Limey but take note, after this one is over you're going to see some changes in this world.&#8221;
&#8220;Yeah maybe Newfoundland will join Canada, eh?&#8221;
&#8220;Newfoundland's British mate and British it will stay, mark my words.&#8221;
&#8220;We'll see, my British friend, we'll see.&#8221;
&#8220;Okay, how's the lay of the land out there?&#8221;
&#8220;I think they've scarpered.&#8221;
&#8220;Yeah, I had a peep, looks to be all quiet, maybe we can get out of this rat hole eh?&#8221;
&#8220;Do we split up Yank?&#8221;
&#8220;I don't think so Limey, let's find an Allied unit first, then we can get back to our respective units.&#8221;
&#8220;Good idea, we've got a better chance of making it if we stick together you guys,&#8221;
&#8220;I just had a thought.&#8221;
&#8220;Uh-oh, the Limey is thinking.&#8221;
&#8220;No really, I just had a thought.  Here we are stuck in this bleedin' dump and all we've got is our  bundooks and one another.&#8221;
&#8220;'Bundook?&#8221;
&#8220;Yank, it's Brit slang for 'rifle'.  Since the Brits don't have weapons unless they're in the military they invented a word that wasn't offensive to them.&#8221;
&#8220;Come on you blokes, stop taking the piss, I'm serious.&#8221;
&#8220;Go on then, enlighten us poor colonials.&#8221;
&#8220;Well I mean, a Brit, a Yank and a Canadian are in this ruined house during the war...&#8221;
&#8220;Now he's going to tell a joke.&#8221;
&#8220;Weird Limey humor &#8211; oh sorry, did I pronounce &#8220;humour&#8221; wrong?&#8221;
&#8220;Nope, you say it alright, it's your spelling that stinks.&#8221;
&#8220;Bloody hell, we are supposed to be Allies you know you blokes.&#8221;
&#8220;Tell that to the brass, there's more fighting between them than between us and the Krauts.&#8221;
&#8220;You mean Germans.&#8221;
&#8220;We call them 'Krauts'&#8221;.
&#8220;Not too original eh?&#8221;
&#8220;Well we're too busy fightin' 'em to come up with fancy nicknames.&#8221;
&#8220;Anyway as I said, we're stuck in this dump and trying to get back to our lines.  It struck me as being a metaphor&#8221;.
&#8220;Hey I'm a farm boy from Saskatchewan, we don't do big words.&#8221;
&#8220;He means, Canuck, that the three of us stuck here is like how it is in the whole war, it's us against the Krauts.&#8221;
&#8220;So what's his point?&#8221;
&#8220;My point, if I may interrupt, is that we only have each other to rely on.&#8221;
&#8220;Yeah, no kidding!&#8221;
&#8220;But we can still take the piss out of each other&#8221;
&#8220;He means we mock each other, gently.&#8221;
&#8220;I know what he means Canuck, I got the context worked out.&#8221;
&#8220;But, d'you think we'll forget all this one day?&#8221;
&#8220;Not a chance Limey, not a chance, we're Allies.&#8221;
&#8220;We're like family.&#8221;
&#8220;Yes family at Christmas, blimey you ought to see my lot at Christmas, booze and squabbling for three days it is.&#8221;
&#8220;Okay, stow it you guys, time to get outa here.  Let's go. I gotta get back to Easy Company, got to see what they're up to without me.&#8221;
&#8220;Righto Sarge, we're behind you.&#8221;
&#8220;That's what he's frightened of Limey&#8221;
&#8220;I ain't frightened of nothin'...well maybe my wife.&#8221;
&#8220;No argument from me Sarge.  Sarge?  I can't keep calling you Sarge can I? Have you got a name?&#8221;
&#8220;Sure do Limey, it's Frank, but you can call me Rock.&#8221;
&#8220;Sergeant Rock, hah, sounds like something you'd find in a comic.&#8221;
&#8220;And that's about your level of reading Canuck farmboy.&#8221;
&#8220;There he goes again, hey we're supposed to be friends Yank.&#8221;
&#8220;Friends?  Heck no, we're Allies, is all.&#8221;
&#8220;Bloody colonials, I'll never understand 'em.&#8221;
&#8220;Let's go you guys!  Geronimo!&#8221;


----------



## Yukon (Feb 26, 2009)

To those of you who continually attack the thought of repealing the 2nd Amendment. What if it were your child that was gunned down by somebody exercising his or her "right to bear arms"?


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 26, 2009)

LOL ... it wouldn't happen if they knew the parents had a gun and could shoot back.


----------



## johnrocks (Feb 26, 2009)

Yukon said:


> To those of you who continually attack the thought of repealing the 2nd Amendment. What if it were your child that was gunned down by somebody exercising his or her "right to bear arms"?



The same way I'd feel when I had a child ran over ,pissed,hurt and angry but I wouldn't want to ban Ford Motor Co.


----------



## Yukon (Feb 26, 2009)

I doubt a woman like you has children.


----------



## elvis (Feb 26, 2009)

Shogun said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



i could care less.  i just don't want to be allied with you and your stupidity.


----------



## johnrocks (Feb 26, 2009)

Yukon said:


> I doubt a woman like you has children.



You know how to insult don't you.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 26, 2009)

Yukon said:


> I doubt a woman like you has children.



Never claimed I did ... as a matter of fact I have said many times that I don't and since I also admit to hating sex, I won't ever.

Still, you can't deny logic, though you try. If no one legally has guns, the criminals will still get them, no matter what. Stealing from the legal sources (police and military) or having them smuggled into the country (like drugs and sex slaves). If no one legally has one they won't fear using them at all, since we know that even not knowing whether someone has a gun hasn't stopped them all it has kept them in check a little (of course we have so few in legal citizens hands and the criminals know this). Whenever the number of legalized gun ownerships falls, the number of crimes committed with illegal guns rises. However, the number of accidents with guns rarely changes. These are facts, the logic is that if there were more armed citizens then fewer criminals (those who actually want to survive) would be willing to take the chances of pulling a gun out simply for fear that anyone could just pull out a gun, if not everyone, to stop them. However, knowing that there are no guns except in the hands of police, they have until they hear the sirens to kill as many as they want.


----------



## johnrocks (Feb 26, 2009)

Switzerland has more guns per capita than we do, guess what their crime rate is that involves guns.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Feb 26, 2009)

I think the downfall of Germany in WW2 was Hitler himself.

The guy was an idiot when it came to military strategy.
First he didn't neutralize Britian before he attacked Russia which was a huge mistake cause he then forced himself into a 2 front war.  he would have had better success completely surrounding them and starving them out then he did by the assault. He got to far ahead to survive the Russian winter offensive, which he failed to supply his troops properly for the winter.

Luftwaffe was cleary outmatched and out skilled by the Royal Air Force...the spit fires and hurricanes were able to turn inside on the Luftwaffe BF-109's with ease

The RAF had several force multipliers, the most important of which was radar. The official British term for it was "RDF," for radio direction finding, before a changeover in 1943 to match the American usage of "radar." Britain had no monopoly. The German Navy made limited use of radar. However, the incompetent Udet had rejected radar for the Luftwaffe in 1938 because it did not fit with his notions of air combat.

And Mustangs were probably the most dominant fighter in the war.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 26, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



ok thats one....


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 26, 2009)

johnrocks said:


> Switzerland has more guns per capita than we do, guess what their crime rate is that involves guns.



Regardless ... Switzerland is not the US. Sorry, I don't like comparisons with other countries because they don't think like we do. If you gather all the info from all the countries you will actually prove that there is no connection between legal gun ownership and the crime rate involving guns.


----------



## cbi0090 (Feb 26, 2009)

I read somewhere recently (I think it was Colombia, but I'm not certain) that to get rid of the gangs that were terrorizing the villages the government started handing out guns!  And it works!!  
I've been advocating for that for years.  I've been in too many third world countries where entire towns are held hostage to a hand full of gunmen who take and do whatever pleases them because they have the guns.  One gun in the hands of the right person could tip the balance and allow the people to live as most people wish to live..freely.  Guns in the hands of everyone makes it impossible for it to be any other way.  
Guns don't kill people.  It's a cliche, I know, but it's true.  I grew up with guns and nobody ever any of the problems everyone screams about these days.  I got my first gun when I was 10 and I never had any desire to shoot anyone, or myself and I certainly knew how to unload it before I ever cleaned it or took it out of it's case. 
Anyone who thinks that people behave because it's the right thing to do, is living in a dream land.      



elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 26, 2009)

Yukon said:


> To those of you who continually attack the thought of repealing the 2nd Amendment. What if it were your child that was gunned down by somebody exercising his or her "right to bear arms"?


a law abiding gun owner would not do that......but a criminal would....committing murder kinda negates the right to bear arms moron.....geezus you are dense......


----------



## johnrocks (Feb 26, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> johnrocks said:
> 
> 
> > Switzerland has more guns per capita than we do, guess what their crime rate is that involves guns.
> ...



I don't like comparing either to be honest, we see it with healthcare as well as guns among other issues however my point was Switzerland has a very low crime rate related to guns yet liberals never mention them, it's always Canada,England or some other country.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 26, 2009)

johnrocks said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > johnrocks said:
> ...



Here's something to use against those who try to use England as an example.

The reason their criminals don't want to use guns often is because "there is no where to run". They just can't escape from their police and using a gun will ensure they are hunted down. So because their country is so small the criminals would rather not use the guns, thus not making them the #1 on their list and giving them a better chance of getting away.


----------



## Shooter1/1 (Feb 26, 2009)

Yukon said:


> It's time that Americans woke up, smelled the coffee and too their collective heads out of the sad. Be smart, be modern, wake up and REPEAL the 2ND AMENDMENT
> 
> The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths (murders, suicides and accidents) among the world's 36 richest nations!!
> 
> ...



I love that you quote numbers from LA, NY, and chi-town, how many of these guns, were owned LEGALY? the fact is that yes, we as americans, love our guns. but the vast majority of us own our fire-arms per the laws of our localities. so why don't you go piss up a rope.  The fact is our founders made sure we could defend ourselfs from being subjects. ya know why Osama dose not try a frontal assualt in our country? cause the fact is the vets and the rednecks and every other liberty loving american would gather up what they had as far as boom sticks and go to work. oh, did Shooter just say that? yeah, he did, I know it would be the Gunnys and a lot of others on this site that would be out doing work to defend our nation. look Canada boy, no one wants the opinion of a guy who's greatest national treasure is a screwed up version of bacon. you judge us, well how about starting with explaining Bryan Adams? we can talk after that. 
  We as Americans love our guns, they go boom and we like that. they also put meat on the table and bad guys in the ground. oh, and when the wolf comes to your door, don't ask why the americans didn't do anything. we have enough 'slims' up north, who cares if they over run your country? while we are at it.... have you ever had to defend something that some one would kill you for? yeah, didn't think so, you need guns to do that. stay out of our laws and we will stop correcting you when you call ham, bacon.


----------



## BrianH (Feb 26, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Comparing deaths resulting from the use of a gun to those resulting from car accidents is the last refuge of the gold-tooth, beer-belly, pick up truck driving, baseball cap wearing, member of the right wing conservative lunatic fringe groups that are destroying the USA. If that's the best you can do sonny than I suggest you continue to support the NRA because thay are the only wack-jobs who will tolerate your insane points of view.



What the hell are you talking about?  It makes perfect sense to compare the two.

Both are inanimate objects without the use of humans.  

You can load a gun, chamber a round, and set it on the counter, and it will never fire without human control.

You can put the keys in the ignition, turn the car on, but it'll never go anywhere or do anything until a human jumps behind the wheel.  

You can set a sharpened knife on the counter, and it won't do anything until someone grabs it.   

Get the picture?  More people die from automobile accidents than firearms. Simple as that.  

And as far as the constution goes, why do retards constantly cling to the other nine amendments as if they are unchangeable and everyone's inalieable rights, but then treat the frickin 2nd Amendment (in the Bill of RIGHTS) as if it's somehow different and subject for change.  I wonder how many crimes (even firearm) started out as a verbal confrontation by two people exercising their 1st Amendment freedom of speech.  *Under the same logic, we should ban the freedom of speech, because it causes arguements, leading to physical altercations, domestic violence, gang warfare, and fatalities.  So really, the freedom of speech can lead to firearm deaths.  

I wonder how many little girls have been raped and married off because of the 1st Amendment freedom of religion??  Maybe we should ban that too?


----------



## Burp (Feb 26, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Comparing deaths resulting from the use of a gun to those resulting from car accidents is the last refuge of the gold-tooth, beer-belly, pick up truck driving, baseball cap wearing, member of the right wing conservative lunatic fringe groups that are destroying the USA. If that's the best you can do sonny than I suggest you continue to support the NRA because thay are the only wack-jobs who will tolerate your insane points of view.



Really?  This is all you have?  

Yawn.

And thank you Brian...you said many of the things I was going to.  

I have a 9mm sitting on my desk right now.  I'm not worried about it jumping up and shooting me.  I have several cars sitting in my garage right now and I doubt they are going to kill someone in the next 15 minutes.  

Oh yeah...and  knife in my closet dresser.  I took it out of my pocket tonight and it didn't attack me. 

And a question for you.  You are home with your family when a bad guy breaks through your front door.  He stands in front of all of you pointing the gun at your child.  Let's say your dog jumps on him and the gun flies out of his hand onto your lap.  

You now have the gun.  The bad guy starts moving to grab your daughter. 

What do you do?


----------



## Gunny (Feb 26, 2009)

Yukon said:


> It's time that Americans woke up, smelled the coffee and too their collective heads out of the sad. Be smart, be modern, wake up and REPEAL the 2ND AMENDMENT
> 
> The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths (murders, suicides and accidents) among the world's 36 richest nations!!
> 
> ...



Come get them ...


----------



## eots (Feb 26, 2009)

IF ONLY JOHN HAD LISTENED TO HIS OWN ADVICE AND BEEN PACKING AND WEARING A VEST HE  MIGHT STILL BE WITH US


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE2Vdcv9Q_o&feature=PlayList&p=B1431A837B3E26DE&index=0&playnext=1]YouTube - Happiness is a Warm Gun - John Lennon [Beatles][/ame]


----------



## elvis (Feb 26, 2009)

eots said:


> IF ONLY JOHN HAD LISTENED TO HIS OWN ADVICE AND BEEN PACKING AND WEARING A VEST HE STILL BE WITH US
> 
> 
> YouTube - Happiness is a Warm Gun - John Lennon [Beatles]



one of my favorites.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 26, 2009)

del said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Saying "guns must go" is pretty silly. Whether I personally would want a gun or not, they're protected by the Second Amendment. The conditions of ownership aside, absent a  repeal of the second, it's entitled to the same protection as any other constitutional provision.
> ...



I thought that WAS Chris, just using a different name.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 26, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Comparing deaths resulting from the use of a gun to those resulting from car accidents is the last refuge of the gold-tooth, beer-belly, pick up truck driving, baseball cap wearing, member of the right wing conservative lunatic fringe groups that are destroying the USA. If that's the best you can do sonny than I suggest you continue to support the NRA because thay are the only wack-jobs who will tolerate your insane points of view.



Let me just jump in here and thank you for giving us a demonstration of what you consider to be "logically refuting the point".  You may now return to humping moose or whatever the hell it is you do for fun in Canada.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 26, 2009)

Yukon said:


> To those of you who continually attack the thought of repealing the 2nd Amendment. What if it were your child that was gunned down by somebody exercising his or her "right to bear arms"?



To those of you who continually attack the thought of legal gun ownership, what if it were YOUR child that was killed by an intruder while you watched helplessly because you didn't have a gun?  What if it was your daughter who was raped and strangled with her own pantyhose in an alley because she didn't have a gun?  Happens a lot more often than legal gun owners shooting children, moron.


----------



## elvis (Feb 26, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > To those of you who continually attack the thought of repealing the 2nd Amendment. What if it were your child that was gunned down by somebody exercising his or her "right to bear arms"?
> ...



the canucks must think the murderers and rapists are the true victims.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 26, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



Well, then, they're welcome to them.  Just let us know if they want them shipped by train, bus, or dump truck.


----------



## Chris (Feb 26, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > To those of you who continually attack the thought of repealing the 2nd Amendment. What if it were your child that was gunned down by somebody exercising his or her "right to bear arms"?
> ...



There is nothing wrong with gun ownership, but when anyone suggests sensible regulations like banning assault rifles or local background checks, gun nuts start squealing like a stuck pig.


----------



## elvis (Feb 26, 2009)

Chris said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



No that was you squealing when Clinton didn't use any lube.


----------



## Chris (Feb 27, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Insulting someone you don't know on a message board is pretty pathetic, don't you think?


----------



## elvis (Feb 27, 2009)

Chris said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



then you should stop insulting veterans and gunowners on this board, now shouldn't you, Monica?


----------



## eots (Feb 27, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBAMNJZ8OVo&feature=related]YouTube - The world's most powerful handgun, and the fastest![/ame]


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 27, 2009)

Chris said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



i tried to tell ya he would get wind of this.....


----------



## Yukon (Feb 27, 2009)

Perhaps one of you enlightened NRA backers could explain to me why it is necessary to carry a concealed handgun? Is it the colored people you fear, the caucasian drug smuggler, perhaps it's the latino car thief, or is it the state trooper who pulls you over for speaking, or the Muslim woman exercising her right to freedom of religion by wearing a veil....what is it?


----------



## del (Feb 27, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Perhaps one of you enlightened NRA backers could explain to me why it is necessary to carry a concealed handgun? Is it the colored people you fear, the caucasian drug smuggler, perhaps it's the latino car thief, or is it the state trooper who pulls you over for speaking, or the Muslim woman exercising her right to freedom of religion by wearing a veil....what is it?



assholes from canada, mostly.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 27, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Perhaps one of you enlightened NRA backers could explain to me why it is necessary to carry a concealed handgun? Is it the colored people you fear, the caucasian drug smuggler, perhaps it's the latino car thief, or is it the state trooper who pulls you over for speaking, or the Muslim woman exercising her right to freedom of religion by wearing a veil....what is it?



Yuke...you have ignored many questions asked of you so far.....why should anyone answer you?.....


----------



## DiamondDave (Feb 27, 2009)

Yuk has now officially made it to my ignore list amongst the other infamous asshole trolls we have on here...

It will be much more of a pleasure not seeing his ridiculous bullshit posts


----------



## Yukon (Feb 27, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps one of you enlightened NRA backers could explain to me why it is necessary to carry a concealed handgun? Is it the colored people you fear, the caucasian drug smuggler, perhaps it's the latino car thief, or is it the state trooper who pulls you over for speaking, or the Muslim woman exercising her right to freedom of religion by wearing a veil....what is it?
> ...



Hairry,
Ask a mature, reasoned question and I will share my wisdom with you. On the other hand if questions presented to me are childish and illogical I wont answer.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 27, 2009)

Yak-Off .... First grow up, then actually read those posts we made with logical reasons and facts to defend the right to carry guns ... then maybe, just maybe, stop hating America, or at least stop hating the US. Of course a catholic false god lover would not want everyone to be able to resist any tyranny anyway ... it's how your church has operated for centuries.


----------



## Yukon (Feb 27, 2009)

Kitty,

How did you get from defending the 2nd Amendment to attacking the Roman Catholic Church?


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 27, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Kitty,
> 
> How did you get from defending the 2nd Amendment to attacking the Roman Catholic Church?



Not attacking, knowing history. Perhaps when you become interested in facts instead of propaganda you may be able to learn it. The catholic tyrants are known for disarming the "peasants" in history to keep them from overthrowing their appointed leaders in the governments they control ... so it's no wonder they have you fooled (since they fooled you into believing them at all) into thinking that guns are bad.


----------



## Meister (Feb 27, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Kitty,
> ...



Kitten, is this where the "Separation of Church and State" first came into being, before it was morphed to what we have today?


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 27, 2009)

Meister said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



It was the reasoning behind it ... one of many.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 27, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



there have been at least 10 or so reasoned questions that you have ignored Yuke.....and you did not answer them for one simple reason....YOU CANT......you are a disgrace to Canada......even Bob and Doug McKenzie laugh at you....


----------



## BrianH (Feb 27, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Perhaps one of you enlightened NRA backers could explain to me why it is necessary to carry a concealed handgun? Is it the colored people you fear, the caucasian drug smuggler, perhaps it's the latino car thief, or is it the state trooper who pulls you over for speaking, or the Muslim woman exercising her right to freedom of religion by wearing a veil....what is it?



Well, since you've most blatantly ignored several of my posts that have derailed your entire argument, I'll try to get your attention by answering these retarded questions you've laid down before us in your previous post.

First, the reason the gun is concealed, is to not alarm anyone.  If someone sees a gun, they freak out....(*you would know about this*).  So, following the logic of "What momma don't know, don't hurt her," concealing your handgun prevents mental breakdowns by people such as yourself, not to mention, it also hides the gun in case someone sees you on the street and wants to take it from you.

Now, as far as the people who we're afraid of on the street.  To answer honestly, it would be the guy that shows up at your car door trying to carjack you, the guy coming up to you in the parking lot with a knife trying to mug and/or kill you, and my favorite, those gangbanging thugs who want to try both of those things.  I know a man who was almost robbed and beaten outside of a shopping mall...except, he had gun.  He noticed to two gang members looking at him and whispering.  He was close enough to hear them debating on which one was going to hit him first.  Casually, he put his hands in his pockets, pulling his jacket back slightly with his forearms, revealing his concealed sidearm.  The two abandoned their plans and started walking across the parking lot.  My friend pulled out his phone and called the police.  The two young men were arrested and come to find out, they were going to rob him, beat him, and leave him for dead for their initiation.  THOSE people are the people I'm afraid of.  Certainly not a fanny-pack wearing Canadian who'd rather slap his way out of gun fight.


----------



## BrianH (Feb 27, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Kitty,
> 
> How did you get from defending the 2nd Amendment to attacking the Roman Catholic Church?



The second Amendment doesn't have to be defended, it's a RIGHT (and in fact the 2nd RIGHT) garaunteed in our constitution.  Why do you feel it's subject to change while the other 9 are not?  People have certainly died from direct results of other Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

The amendment only has to be explain to moronic bunny-huggers.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 27, 2009)

Mmmm ... bunnies .... I am getting hungry now damn it!


----------



## Meister (Feb 27, 2009)

BrianH said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps one of you enlightened NRA backers could explain to me why it is necessary to carry a concealed handgun? Is it the colored people you fear, the caucasian drug smuggler, perhaps it's the latino car thief, or is it the state trooper who pulls you over for speaking, or the Muslim woman exercising her right to freedom of religion by wearing a veil....what is it?
> ...




"Fanny pack wearing Canadian",  that's a good one. I have a mental image of Yukon with that on.


----------



## BrianH (Feb 27, 2009)

Meister said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



LOL...sorry.  it's the only thing I could think of.  I was straying away from being vulgar... 

Kitten, sorry I made you hungry.


----------



## Burp (Feb 27, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



Then go back and read my post about a bad guy coming into your home and tell me what you would do.


----------



## alan1 (Feb 27, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Perhaps one of you enlightened NRA backers could explain to me why it is necessary to carry a concealed handgun? Is it the colored people you fear, the caucasian drug smuggler, perhaps it's the latino car thief, or is it the state trooper who pulls you over for speaking, or the Muslim woman exercising her right to freedom of religion by wearing a veil....what is it?



Perhaps you could ask a real question instead of creating a strawman.
Or is that too much of me to ask?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 27, 2009)

Yuke has ignored every pertinent question asked of him......because he cant answer them.....


----------



## eots (Feb 27, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Perhaps one of you enlightened NRA backers could explain to me why it is necessary to carry a concealed handgun? Is it the colored people you fear, the caucasian drug smuggler, perhaps it's the latino car thief, or is it the state trooper who pulls you over for speaking, or the Muslim woman exercising her right to freedom of religion by wearing a veil....what is it?



here is the bottom line the government is corrupt enough as it is and the only thing that really stops them from a overt elite dictatorship is we all have guns..lots and lots of guns
and the powers that be are aware that if that right is overtly infringed upon or denied that   they would only unify a committed and diverse group of individuals with a common belief that the right to bare arms and the constitution is to be defended with your life if nessesary...so go exercise the rights and responsibility you have  and buy yourself a ...nice gun .....


----------



## Gunny (Feb 28, 2009)

Chris said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



Define "assault rifle."  Define "gun nuts."  I can kill you with ANYTHING, to include my fingers.  Going to force me to wear mittens?

YOU are a "gun nut."  You are FAR more obsessed with firearms than anyone I know.  At least most gun owners are at least educated and have some common sense; whereas, you don't.  Anyone that believes the tool is the criminal and not the hand that wields it needs to go back to elementary school.


----------



## Gunny (Feb 28, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Perhaps one of you enlightened NRA backers could explain to me why it is necessary to carry a concealed handgun? Is it the colored people you fear, the caucasian drug smuggler, perhaps it's the latino car thief, or is it the state trooper who pulls you over for speaking, or the Muslim woman exercising her right to freedom of religion by wearing a veil....what is it?



No it's retards like YOU, troll.  Muslim women are exercising their right to freedom of religion by wearing a veil?  Idiot.  GMAFB.  

You shouldn't be allowed out in public.

If you aren't planning to attempt committing a crime against me, you'll never know whether I an or am not carrying a concealed a weapon.  On the other hand, if you ARE, you'll find out REAL quick.


----------



## Gunny (Feb 28, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



Lame deflection.


----------



## Gunny (Feb 28, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Kitty,
> 
> How did you get from defending the 2nd Amendment to attacking the Roman Catholic Church?



Simple math:  When you set out to attack what people believe in with stupid, nonsensical arguments, plan on being counterattacked for what YOU believe in.  

Not real hard.  Even for someone of _your_ ilk.


----------



## Gunny (Feb 28, 2009)

Burp said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Empty the mag.


----------



## Burp (Feb 28, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



+1.  I'm confident that 15 rounds of HP center chest will eliminate the threat.

And who knows...I might even save the last two or three for head shots.


----------



## Yukon (Feb 28, 2009)

If someone broke into my home or attacked a member of my family of course I would take the appropriate action necessary to defend them. But that isn't why the homicide rate in the USA is so high. People can carry concealed handguns and they use them when they are angered because most of them are, I believe, are mentally unstable to begin with. It's what I call the Rambo syndrome - weakling wimps trying to be tough.

What happened to the good old "fist fight" to settle disputes?


----------



## Burp (Feb 28, 2009)

Yukon said:


> If someone broke into my home or attacked a member of my family of course I would take the appropriate action necessary to defend them. But that isn't why the homicide rate in the USA is so high. People can carry concealed handguns and they use them when they are angered because most of them are, I believe, are mentally unstable to begin with. It's what I call the Rambo syndrome - weakling wimps trying to be tough.
> 
> What happened to the good old "fist fight" to settle disputes?



How do you have a fistfight with the "mentally unstable" badguys who have guns?  

This is what you don't understand.  You want to punish the responsible people who learn how to use a handgun and train to fine tune that knowledge because of the "mentally unstable" people who believe they are Rambo. 

I took proper classes, received my concealed carry permit, and continue to train (in a safe environment) and fine tune my ability with my handgun so if I am ever forced to use it, I am able to eliminate the threat in a way that doesn't cause injury to anyone else. 

There are people who have a driver's license who have no business on the road.  They are careless in their driving and don't care about anyone around them.  Just as there are people who are carless about how they treat weapons.  

Imagine the rate of deaths from auto accidents rising to an unbelievable level.  All the licensing and training and reviewing of licenses to make sure the right people are driving has done no good - accidents levels are outrageous.  The government, in their infinite wisdom, now says the only way to prevent any more deaths is to ban the use of automobiles. 

Would this be acceptable to you?


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 28, 2009)

Yukon said:


> If someone broke into my home or attacked a member of my family of course I would take the appropriate action necessary to defend them. *But that isn't why the homicide rate in the USA is so high. People can carry concealed handguns and they use them when they are angered* because most of them are, I believe, are mentally unstable to begin with. It's what I call the Rambo syndrome - weakling wimps trying to be tough.
> 
> What happened to the good old "fist fight" to settle disputes?



No, it's because the criminals know most law abiding citizens won't go through the trouble (or can't) to get a gun so they only fear the cops.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 28, 2009)

Yukon said:


> If someone broke into my home or attacked a member of my family of course I would take the appropriate action necessary to defend them. But that isn't why the homicide rate in the USA is so high. People can carry concealed handguns and they use them when they are angered because most of them are, I believe, are mentally unstable to begin with. It's what I call the Rambo syndrome - weakling wimps trying to be tough.
> 
> What happened to the good old "fist fight" to settle disputes?



Yuke.....you take out GANG-BANGING homicides,since they occur daily,and constitute a big chunk of those stats,and the US homicide rate falls immensely,and the US would now be considered one of the safest countries on the planet.....and thats a fact....


----------



## LiveUninhibited (Feb 28, 2009)

You cant keep guns out of the nation any more than you can keep drugs out. Even if you have total trust in the government (I dont) and make guns illegal, the black market is simply going to sell more guns making them rich. And who are they going to sell guns to? People who violate the law, the very last people you want to have them. And guess what? Theyre going to be secure in the fact that their victims will be unarmed. So I can see where you might try to argue for the regulation of guns, but trying to get rid of them completely simply cannot and should not happen.


----------



## Yukon (Feb 28, 2009)

Hairry,

You are correct, but if handguns are removed it would also lower the crime rate to within the reach of other civilized nations.


----------



## Burp (Feb 28, 2009)

Yukon...

Post 180.


----------



## Yukon (Feb 28, 2009)

My remarks are contained within the original post below in capital lettering.



Burp said:


> This is what you don't understand.  You want to punish the responsible people who learn how to use a handgun and train to fine tune that knowledge because of the "mentally unstable" people who believe they are Rambo.
> 
> *I NEVER PROFESSED THAT ANYONE BE PUNISHED.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Burp (Feb 28, 2009)

You can't murder someone with an automobile?

Why is it outrageous?  Guns don't kill - some people have used guns that resulted in a death.  Automobiles don't kill - some people have used automobiles the resulted in a death.  

Neither object can act freely - someone is controlling it.  Controlling it irresponsibly could result in a death (or deaths).


----------



## Gunny (Feb 28, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Hairry,
> 
> You are correct, but if handguns are removed it would also lower the crime rate to within the reach of other civilized nations.



That is absurd.  I suppose you are volunteering to be one of those defenseless folk that become statistics?  

Only people like you, and the criminals who would love nothing better than a disarmed society support your bullshit.  You think those criminals are going to turn in their guns?

And there is NO data to support your assertion.  We have a lawless, rebellious society.  We aren't freakin' sheeple like you.  Crimes would just be committed by other means.


----------



## Yukon (Feb 28, 2009)

Gunny said:


> And there is NO data to support your assertion.  We have a lawless, rebellious society.  We aren't freakin' sheeple like you.  Crimes would just be committed by other means.




There is lots of data. Here's an example:

Handguns and Homicide​
On the average, if someone gets shot and killed, four out of five times it will be with a handgun. In 1997, for example, handguns were used in 79.4 percent of all firearm homicides.10

From 1990 to 1997, handguns were used in a majority (55.6 percent) of all homicides; that is, they were used in murder more than all other weapons combined.11

From 1990 to 1997, there were 293,781 firearm deathshomicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings.12

From 1990 to 1997 in the United States there were more than


160,000 homicides

110,000 firearm homicides

89,000 handgun homicides13

Handgun homicides hit record highs in the early 1990s, peaking in 1993. That year there were 13,258 such killingsout of a total of 16,120 firearm homicides.14
As part of an overall drop in crime, in 1997 handgun homicides fell to 8,503.15

VPC - Handgun Ban Fact Sheet


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 28, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > And there is NO data to support your assertion.  We have a lawless, rebellious society.  We aren't freakin' sheeple like you.  Crimes would just be committed by other means.
> ...



Those statistics are inaccurate, sensationalized to scare people, which is worse than using a gun illegally. You can't believe everything you read.

Yukon, use logic for once, not just propaganda. Really, you have to have at least a few active brain cells or you wouldn't be posting here.


----------



## Yukon (Feb 28, 2009)

Kitty,

The figures are accurate for the stated time intervals. You just wont accept the facts. You probably believe there were WMD's in Iraq too ?


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 28, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Kitty,
> 
> The figures are accurate for the stated time intervals. You just wont accept the facts. *You probably believe there were WMD's in Iraq too* ?



Actually, no I don't.

But your statistics are not accurate. 
Here's violent crimes in the US: Bureau of Justice Statistics Violent Crime Rate Trends
Murder: Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide Trends
More detail: Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Characteristics <- Scroll down to "Weapon Used".

"In 2005, 24% of the incidents of violent crime, a weapon was present.

Offenders had or used a weapon in 48% of all robberies, compared with 22% of all aggravated assaults and 7% of all rapes/sexual assaults in 2005.

Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2005, 55% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 14% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 11% with other weapons."

... also our laws on guns have not become any stricter since the declines started. These are REAL facts, the problem with your sensationalized ones that really sets up a red flag, they neglect to mention that our total violent crime rate in the US has dropped significantly in the last 10 years. So, 55% is an increase only because those without guns are realizing people are no longer such easy targets, while those with guns still believe that fewer people are carrying. Factoring in the number of violent crimes, the total number of gun related homicides is actually down.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 28, 2009)

As I said Yukon, use those few brain cells for more than just inflating your head.


----------



## BrianH (Feb 28, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > If someone broke into my home or attacked a member of my family of course I would take the appropriate action necessary to defend them. But that isn't why the homicide rate in the USA is so high. People can carry concealed handguns and they use them when they are angered because most of them are, I believe, are mentally unstable to begin with. It's what I call the Rambo syndrome - weakling wimps trying to be tough.
> ...



Also to mention, is that they include "Justifiable Homicide" in the statistics.


----------



## BrianH (Feb 28, 2009)

Burp said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > If someone broke into my home or attacked a member of my family of course I would take the appropriate action necessary to defend them. But that isn't why the homicide rate in the USA is so high. People can carry concealed handguns and they use them when they are angered because most of them are, I believe, are mentally unstable to begin with. It's what I call the Rambo syndrome - weakling wimps trying to be tough.
> ...



And speaking of a driver's license....the only reason you have to be registered/liscensed to drive, is because driving is not a right garaunteed by the Constitution.  The government wants to "owning guns" like driver's liscense, but they fail to see that the Constitution grants you the right to own a gun, but not the right to drive.  Which is precisely the reason why your driver's liscense can be taken from you if you break the law.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 28, 2009)

Yukon said:


> There is lots of data. Here's an example:
> 
> Handguns and Homicide​
> On the average, if someone gets shot and killed, four out of five times it will be with a handgun. In 1997, for example, handguns were used in 79.4 percent of all firearm homicides.10
> ...



your saying that in a 7 year period there were 293 thousand homicides by firearms....thats 41,968 per year avg.....take away about 60 % or more due to the gangs and drug related shit and that leaves about 16,000 or so per year from the rest of the non-evolved......out of a pop. at that time of around 290 mill.......thats not bad.....compared to some of those other SAVAGE countries out there....


----------



## BrianH (Feb 28, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > If someone broke into my home or attacked a member of my family of course I would take the appropriate action necessary to defend them. *But that isn't why the homicide rate in the USA is so high. People can carry concealed handguns and they use them when they are angered* because most of them are, I believe, are mentally unstable to begin with. It's what I call the Rambo syndrome - weakling wimps trying to be tough.
> ...



Same reason you don't see your Columbine, V-Tech, and other crazed gunmen going into police stations or military barracks and trying to kill a bunch of people, because they know they'll get shot at, so they pick "gun-free" zones like schools, colleges, malls, stores, etc.......


----------



## Meister (Feb 28, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > There is lots of data. Here's an example:
> ...



If Yukon lives in canada, why is he worried about our laws.  Is Canada a utopia??


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 28, 2009)

bottom line for me Yuke....if the US would start actually throwing away the key for people using guns on other people,like use a gun to commit a CRIME...NOT SELF DEFENCE...A CRIME....,EVEN if no one is hurt,you get 25 years,no chance of parole,you serve every friggin minute of it.....if some is hurt or killed of course the sentence goes up....i think there would be less crime with guns.....


----------



## BrianH (Feb 28, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> bottom line for me Yuke....if the US would start actually throwing away the key for people using guns on other people,like use a gun to commit a CRIME...NOT SELF DEFENCE...A CRIME....,EVEN if no one is hurt,you get 25 years,no chance of parole,you serve every friggin minute of it.....if some is hurt or killed of course the sentence goes up....i think there would be less crime with guns.....



That's right, stiff punishments cause less crimes.  Not that I agree with muslim law, but my brother-in-law spent 8 months in Bahrain on deployment, and he said there's really no crime there...because the punishment for committing them are so severe.  If the punishment was getting stoned to death, there'd be less crime here I'm sure.


----------



## Yukon (Feb 28, 2009)

Stoning people to death is NO worse than injecting poison into their arm........US justice = MUSLIM justice


----------



## Gunny (Feb 28, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > And there is NO data to support your assertion.  We have a lawless, rebellious society.  We aren't freakin' sheeple like you.  Crimes would just be committed by other means.
> ...



Sorry.  Epic fail.  That data does not support your illogical assumption.


----------



## Gunny (Feb 28, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Kitty,
> 
> The figures are accurate for the stated time intervals. You just wont accept the facts. You probably believe there were WMD's in Iraq too ?



Where does dragging Cannucks behind a big fucking truck stand in those statistics?  I just want to know how original I am.


----------



## Gunny (Feb 28, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> bottom line for me Yuke....if the US would start actually throwing away the key for people using guns on other people,like use a gun to commit a CRIME...NOT SELF DEFENCE...A CRIME....,EVEN if no one is hurt,you get 25 years,no chance of parole,you serve every friggin minute of it.....if some is hurt or killed of course the sentence goes up....i think there would be less crime with guns.....



Yeah, Bush signed that into law with a Democrat Congress when he was Governor here.  You use a gun, you're gone.

Oh wait ... it couldn't have been Bush ... it was good ...


----------



## Gunny (Feb 28, 2009)

BrianH said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > bottom line for me Yuke....if the US would start actually throwing away the key for people using guns on other people,like use a gun to commit a CRIME...NOT SELF DEFENCE...A CRIME....,EVEN if no one is hurt,you get 25 years,no chance of parole,you serve every friggin minute of it.....if some is hurt or killed of course the sentence goes up....i think there would be less crime with guns.....
> ...



Well think about it.  If you steal something here, you get a smack on the wrist.  Or a bailout from the government.

You steal something there they cut the hand that stole off.


----------



## BrianH (Feb 28, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Stoning people to death is NO worse than injecting poison into their arm........US justice = MUSLIM justice


 
Which would you choose?


----------



## Gunny (Feb 28, 2009)

BrianH said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Stoning people to death is NO worse than injecting poison into their arm........US justice = MUSLIM justice
> ...



Neither.  I have an arsenal of firearms and bladed weapons.  I'm taking some folk down with me ...


----------



## necritan (Feb 28, 2009)

Why are all the Liberal girls sooooo afraid of guns???  Are you equally afraid of Cars , Pools full of water , Knives , Prescription Drugs , Surgeons , etc etc....you know...stuff that kills people??

Fear of guns is directly correalated to an under-developed brain....IMO. Liberals want your guns , your freedom to speech  , your money , everything.

Want to take my guns.......????   *Mol&#333;n labe!*


----------



## LiveUninhibited (Feb 28, 2009)

Twain is famous for stating that statistics are a type of lie. In reality, statistics must be interpreted and sometimes the meaning of them is more obvious than other times:



Yukon said:


> On the average, if someone gets shot and killed, four out of five times it will be with a handgun. In 1997, for example, handguns were used in 79.4 percent of all firearm homicides.



That *does not *mean that an absence of guns would have prevented these homicides. Perhaps more importantly, you're not going to get rid of guns without a police state. And if you tried, it would be those who respect the law who comply. Those are not the same people who commit homicides. This is why your statistics are useless.


----------



## necritan (Feb 28, 2009)

LiveUninhibited said:


> Twain is famous for stating that statistics are a type of lie. In reality, statistics must be interpreted and sometimes the meaning of them is more obvious than other times:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



More importantly.....who cares what killed these people?? How many of these poor souls were victims of Gang-on-Gang violence?? Why are criminals allowed early release from prisons just to strike again?? How many crimes are prevented with "Guns"??

I'd like to see some stats for those questions.


----------



## alan1 (Feb 28, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Stoning people to death is NO worse than injecting poison into their arm........US justice = MUSLIM justice


Obviously you've never actually witnessed an actual stoning, so, for your benefit I provide this link,
Stoning Video
Warning, it is quite graphic.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Mar 1, 2009)

Yukon said:


> It's time that Americans woke up, smelled the coffee and too their collective heads out of the sad. Be smart, be modern, wake up and REPEAL the 2ND AMENDMENT
> 
> The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths (murders, suicides and accidents) among the world's 36 richest nations!!
> 
> ...



You have a Canadian flag for an avatar, so why do care what we do with our Constitution?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 1, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > bottom line for me Yuke....if the US would start actually throwing away the key for people using guns on other people,like use a gun to commit a CRIME...NOT SELF DEFENCE...A CRIME....,EVEN if no one is hurt,you get 25 years,no chance of parole,you serve every friggin minute of it.....if some is hurt or killed of course the sentence goes up....i think there would be less crime with guns.....
> ...



Gunny seriously,is like that in Texas?.....cause were i am at if you have 2 oz of pot you will probably serve longer time then someone who just held up a 7-11.....the nice people out here feel that the poor bastard was probably corn holed by his dad when he was a kid....so we have to understand him,and what he went through,and WHY he committed that crime.....and why we have to support him in his time of need.........i got to go get a kleenex    .....


----------



## alan1 (Mar 1, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...


Here ya go.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 1, 2009)

BatBoy said:


> Here ya go.




thanks fella...


----------



## LOki (Mar 1, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Even at this early phase Im not surprised. Not a single one of you has been able to lodge a logical protest to my post. Sarcasm is the best you can do.


Everytime one of you idiots tries to tell us about all these millions of people killed by guns, you can't name even one of them--neither the gun doing the killing OR the person killed.

You retards focus all your attention on "gun deaths" while you ignore every "other kind of" death as if all "other kinds of" deaths are preferrable.

Then you demand the enactment of laws that motivate criminals to steal guns rather than buy them, while simultaneuosly disarming and/or impeding only those folks who obey laws, use and own guns in a peacuful manner, and would defend themselves from the criminally violent with their guns.

And none of you have one rational response.  Just continued hang-wringing, and ad-nauseam repetition of "millions of 'gun-deaths'"


----------



## Gunny (Mar 1, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



I know how it is there.  Spent about half my career stationed in SoCal.

I would have to look up the exact particulars, but yes, if you use a firearm in the commission of crime, the penalty is multiplied automatically.  And come on, this Texas ... we put jaywalkers to death ....


----------



## necritan (Mar 1, 2009)

LOki said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Even at this early phase Im not surprised. Not a single one of you has been able to lodge a logical protest to my post. Sarcasm is the best you can do.
> ...



They prefer the other kinds of deaths...because if those freedoms that they find important ( cars , pools , doctors , useage of cutlery , un-protected sex , smoking , drinking ) were banned.....they would feel oppressed. Since they feel guns , and self-protection is an unnecessary thing , then it is unnecessary for everyone. And because they are mentally challenged , hypocritical elitist pricks....there opinion is all that matters....and your freedoms are trumped by there childish fears of firearms.

Seriously.....did all you libby's watch too many Rambo movies as kids?? Too many action flicks??

Do you retards think you will stop violence by banning guns?? How bout knives?? How bout baseball bats?? 

Why do you brain-dead bleeding heart lefties want to protect criminals so much?? 

Its bad enough that you want to let them out of jail early for violent crimes , but then when you do , you dont want me to give them two shots to center-mass and one to the head when they try to harm me or my family.

Why should your childish , prepubescent minded fears be more important than one's self protection??


----------



## BrianH (Mar 1, 2009)

Gunny said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



I was hoping someone would choose neither.  And I figured Gunny would be the one. lol  I agree by the way....

Yukon, your argment is so far gone, that you started with "Guns Must Go" and started criticizing hunters and recreational shooters as well as gun-owners who own guns for protection.  Now that you have nowhere else to go, you're arguing about concealed handguns.  So you narrowed your position from banning ALL guns, to targeting handguns and people who have been trained to use them....Just face the facts that you're wrong, and that inanimate objects do not kill people, unless stimulated by an outside stimulus.  Even accidents where kids get their hands on guns and shoot themselves are the fault of the gun-owner.  

According to the U.S. Constitution, the right to bear arms cannot be infringed.  So any attempt to prevent gun ownership is an infringement and unconstitutional in my book, and should be to anyone else who interprets it.


----------



## Burp (Mar 1, 2009)

BrianH said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



There is a group of politicians out there who understand this.  And will do the right thing and leave things along.  

However, there are those who are trying to manipulate the system to keep people unarmed.  

How?  

They want to stamp each single round of ammunition with a serial number so that every round can be traced through a massive data base. 

It serves no other purpose than to make the price of ammo skyrocket and be cost-prohibitive for gun owners.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 1, 2009)

necritan said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



What happened was, when they saw a gun, thier parents said, "Don't look or touch that!!!  Those kill people and I never want you to own one!"  So the kid grows up fearing guns.  It's also the same reason you have these city kids shooting themselves on accidents.  Daddy never lets them see the gun because guns kill people, so when Daddy's not home, curious George finds the gun and see what happens when you pull the trigger.

THe first time I ever asked my dad to see the guns in the gun-cabinet, he grabbed the key (privately) and openned it up.  He took out his 12-gauge goose-gun.  (an old 30-inch Mossberg)  He told me what it was and how it worked.  After explaining the basic safety rules (like always point it at the ground or in the air--and never at anyone else) he even let me hold it.  When we were done, he told me that if I ever wanted to look at the guns, just come and ask and he would get them out for me to look at, and to NEVER get them by myself.   So I never had to sneak behind my dad's back to look at the guns.  
This is the time in my life when my dad explained all of the gun safety rules. 
-Leave you're friends house if they get out their dad's guns to show you.
-Never get out the guns by myself
-Never point a gun at anyone
-Treat EVERY gun as if it is loaded and ready to fire.
-Don't point a gun at anything unless you intend on shooting it.
-And, DON'T be afraid of the gun, because YOU control it.  It does not control you.
*These were some of the basic rules my dad taught me when I was about 5-7 years old.  Of course, I didn't get my first gun until I was in Junior High, but I'd used them my whole life, and continue to use them.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 1, 2009)

Burp said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



I've heard this and it sucks.  A good friend of mine is in law-enforcement, and this is some of the things they've heard that are possible.  He said the Constitution doesn't give us the right own ammunition.  But I asked him, "Would a gun without ammunition be considered an 'arm' by conventional means?"  It was good question, but probably is not a good enough question to stop taxing ammo and stamping serial numbers on them.  I guess now is the time to start stocking up...


----------



## Burp (Mar 1, 2009)

The two most important things that gunowners understand:

!.  Treat EVERY gun as if it is loaded and ready to fire.

2.  Don't point a gun at anything unless you intend on shooting it.


----------



## necritan (Mar 1, 2009)

BrianH said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



Yeah.....I was at the store yesterday...and things are looking quite lean in the ammo department.

Luckily Ive got about 1000 rounds of 223/5.56 , 400 9mm , 200 40 cal , 400 7.62x39 , bunches of 12 guage , and a partridge in a pear tree


----------



## Burp (Mar 1, 2009)

You and me both.  Slim pickings on line too.  

3k of 9mm.

3k of .40


----------



## BrianH (Mar 1, 2009)

Burp said:


> You and me both.  Slim pickings on line too.
> 
> 3k of 9mm.
> 
> 3k of .40



I've been stocking up slowly.  Need more though.


----------



## necritan (Mar 1, 2009)

Burp said:


> You and me both.  Slim pickings on line too.
> 
> 3k of 9mm.
> 
> 3k of .40



Thats a fair collection you got there....

You need a 5.56 launching platform though....

Here's mine....its my baby. It makes soccer moms cry and libbys pee-pee their pants.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 1, 2009)

necritan said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > You and me both.  Slim pickings on line too.
> ...





Tear......Sniff.....It's beautiful.


----------



## Burp (Mar 1, 2009)

Very sweet.   

That would certainly get someone's attention.

Kind of hard to CC though.


----------



## necritan (Mar 1, 2009)

Burp said:


> Very sweet.
> 
> That would certainly get someone's attention.
> 
> Kind of hard to CC though.




Hahahaha......true. Unless you're wearin some big ole pants.


----------



## JohnStOnge (Mar 1, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Even at this early phase Im not surprised. Not a single one of you has been able to lodge a logical protest to my post. Sarcasm is the best you can do.



I don't know if this will be "logical" to you but let's talk about what the United States is.  The people who fought the revolution to establish the United States didn't do it for public health and safety. They did it for Liberty.


----------



## necritan (Mar 1, 2009)

JohnStOnge said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Even at this early phase Im not surprised. Not a single one of you has been able to lodge a logical protest to my post. Sarcasm is the best you can do.
> ...




And they used bad evil guns to do it.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 1, 2009)

Guns are cool ... but I like my chem bombs better, more my style, and knives, but they're for play more than anything really. Hell, if I wanted to plan a murder it wouldn't take more than the cleaning supplies in their own house ... less evidence to. As for self defense ... well ... funny thing about being cute, never needed to defend myself.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 1, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Perhaps one of you enlightened NRA backers could explain to me why it is necessary to carry a concealed handgun? Is it the colored people you fear, the caucasian drug smuggler, perhaps it's the latino car thief, or is it the state trooper who pulls you over for speaking, or the Muslim woman exercising her right to freedom of religion by wearing a veil....what is it?



Perhaps you could explain to me why it's necessary to advertise to the criminals who the armed people are, so that they can merely target those without.  Studies show that concealed-carry laws benefit not only the safety of those who actually have guns, but also those who don't, precisely because criminals who cannot be sure which potential victims might fight back and which won't are more likely to be reluctant to attack anyone at all.  And while I don't personally care if my carrying a concealed weapon saves your sorry ass or not, you could at least be a little grateful.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 1, 2009)

Yukon said:


> If someone broke into my home or attacked a member of my family of course I would take the appropriate action necessary to defend them. But that isn't why the homicide rate in the USA is so high. People can carry concealed handguns and they use them when they are angered because most of them are, I believe, are mentally unstable to begin with. It's what I call the Rambo syndrome - weakling wimps trying to be tough.
> 
> What happened to the good old "fist fight" to settle disputes?



"The appropriate action to defend them."  Since you are so vehemently opposed to gun ownership, one can only assume this phrase means "screaming like a woman", since I don't see what else is left to you.

What happened to the "good old fist fight" to settle disputes?  I tell you what, Scooter.  When some guy with a knife tries to mug you, you just go ahead and suggest that he put down his weapon and "settle the dispute" with fisticuffs?  Let me know how that works out for you.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 1, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > And there is NO data to support your assertion.  We have a lawless, rebellious society.  We aren't freakin' sheeple like you.  Crimes would just be committed by other means.
> ...



The VPC?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahaha ::cough, cough::  Why not just cite Wikipedia while you're at it?


----------



## necritan (Mar 1, 2009)

Hmmmmm.....I wasnt aware of all the CCW holders comitting acts of murder....this is a new one.

I like how people just fabricate lies to further their agenda.


----------



## LiveUninhibited (Mar 2, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



The VPC obviously has an agenda. I'm not sure you could say the same about wikipedia. The validity of a wikipedia article depends on what sources it cites and most problematic ones are flagged.


----------



## LOki (Mar 2, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > And there is NO data to support your assertion.  We have a lawless, rebellious society.  We aren't freakin' sheeple like you.  Crimes would just be committed by other means.
> ...


Not one statisitc that demonstrates that ". . . if handguns are removed it would also lower the crime rate to within the reach of other civilized nations."

I note that you don't pull the statics that address illustrate the coorellation between gun control laws and violent crime rates; the statisics that illustrate that where gun control laws make gun ownership for regular folks more restrictive, viloent crime rates increase, and where gun laws are such that gun ownership for regular folks is made less restrictive, violent crime rates decrease. Interesting little bit of intellectual dishonesty there.

Everytime one of you idiots tries to tell us about all these millions of people killed by guns, you can't name even one of them--neither the gun doing the killing OR the person killed.

You retards focus all your attention on "gun deaths" while you ignore every "other kind of" death as if all "other kinds of" deaths are preferrable.

Then you demand the enactment of laws that motivate criminals to steal guns rather than buy them, while simultaneuosly disarming and/or impeding only those folks who obey laws, use and own guns in a peacuful manner, and would defend themselves from the criminally violent with their guns.

And none of you have one rational response. Just continued hang-wringing, and ad-nauseam repetition of "millions of 'gun-deaths.'"


----------



## Eightball (Mar 2, 2009)

JohnStOnge said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Even at this early phase Im not surprised. Not a single one of you has been able to lodge a logical protest to my post. Sarcasm is the best you can do.
> ...



Also a few gallant Minute Men probably accidently shot themselves in the foot, but they didn't get their muskets taken away because they had firearm accident.  Accidents happen.

I have a gut feeling that people driving cars probably kill and maim a lot more folks that legal gun owners do.......Please correct me if I'm wrong? 

Do you folks know how many people die from 110 volts of residentai electricity every year.  I'm a retired electrician and I've had more electrical zappings at home messing with fixing things than at work and messing with much higher voltages and amperages.

Shall we ban any man or woman from trying to be a home handy person with appliances,,,,,,,to protect them from themselves?

Lets face it folks........and be rational about this.  People all over the U.S. are killing themselves in big numbers that far exceed gun related deaths.  Yet, firearms have this evil mystique, that is so unfair.  Most gun owners enjoy collecting firearms as hobbyists, also get fun shooting them at gun ranges, also hunting with firearms.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 2, 2009)

Yukon ... you have been proven the fool in this thread more times than I care to count ... even if you ignore all the non-factual remarks.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 2, 2009)

LiveUninhibited said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



I was not saying that Wikipedia had an agenda.  I was comparing the relative reliability of each as sources.  I wouldn't trust either of them as far as I could throw their webmasters, albeit for different reasons.


----------



## necritan (Mar 3, 2009)

SedLex said:


> Its impossible to forbid the use of gun altogether. Guns are necessary for defensive purposes of a country like in case of war. Use of guns should be moderated, monitored and regulated. Not all of us can own guns.
> ----------------------
> Legal Matters







Regulated?

Moderated?

Monitored?

Not all of us can have guns?

You think its ok to do this to someones rights??


----------



## LiveUninhibited (Mar 3, 2009)

necritan said:


> SedLex said:
> 
> 
> > Its impossible to forbid the use of gun altogether. Guns are necessary for defensive purposes of a country like in case of war. Use of guns should be moderated, monitored and regulated. Not all of us can own guns.
> ...



Some people have a problem with ex-con killers being allowed to carry a gun. My philosophy on that is if he's that dangerous why is he out of prison? Did mandatory minimums for marijuana dealers "force" them to let the homicidal baby rapist go early?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 3, 2009)

SedLex said:


> Its impossible to forbid the use of gun altogether. Guns are necessary for defensive purposes of a country like in case of war. Use of guns should be moderated, monitored and regulated. Not all of us can own guns.
> ----------------------
> Legal Matters



The only problem being that if you give someone the ability to moderate, monitor, and regulate gun ownership, they will eventually end up doing so based on their own agenda, to eliminate opposition to what they want, and thereby become the very person/group against whom we needed the guns in the first place.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 3, 2009)

LiveUninhibited said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> > SedLex said:
> ...



I have to agree there.  If that homicidal baby rapist is taking up too much space, I favor execution over release.  That way, they won't be taking up too much space on the outside, either.


----------



## necritan (Mar 3, 2009)

LiveUninhibited said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> > SedLex said:
> ...



I have a huge problem with murderous ex-cons carrying guns...

But that is the fault of our shitty judicial system.

My feelings are.....if the guy is out....he is to be granted all the freedoms of anyone else.....especially self-protection.

And if there is a doubt that he may want to do bad again.....then why the hell was he released??


----------



## kelly (Mar 3, 2009)

silly Canadian we would have never come to be the awesome people we are without our gun-loving mentality. besides our super cool president has no intention of banning the guns we actually kill each other with, just the ones that look really scary!!!


----------



## BrianH (Mar 3, 2009)

LiveUninhibited said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> > SedLex said:
> ...



Ex-con killers shouldn't have guns, and if they do, they have them illegally.  And I agree, they shouldn't be out of prison.  If someone is so dangerous that they're not legally allowed to have a gun, they don't need to be on the street.


----------



## necritan (Mar 3, 2009)

BrianH said:


> Ex-con killers shouldn't have guns, and if they do, they have them illegally.  And I agree, they shouldn't be out of prison.  If someone is so dangerous that they're not legally allowed to have a gun, they don't need to be on the street.



Yeah....last time I checked....I didnt have to register my pocket knife or have a background check to buy it. Yet stabbings are Favorite amongst criminals.....


----------



## LOki (Mar 3, 2009)

SedLex said:


> Its impossible to forbid the use of gun altogether.


It's actually illegal.



SedLex said:


> Guns are necessary for defensive purposes of a country like in case of war.


. . . or home invasion, or being assaulted.



SedLex said:


> Use of guns should be moderated, monitored and regulated.


The use of guns already is sufficently moderated, monitored and regulated; it's the keeping and bearing of them that has been infringed upon illegally.



SedLex said:


> Not all of us can own guns.


There are plenty of regulations making it illegal for the demonstrably criminally violent and incompetent to own guns.


----------



## Yukon (Mar 4, 2009)

"There are none as blind as those who refuse to see" - YUKON.


----------



## Terral (Mar 4, 2009)

Hi Yukon:



Yukon said:


> It's time that Americans woke up, smelled the coffee and too their collective heads out of the sad. Be smart, be modern, wake up and REPEAL the 2ND AMENDMENT



That has to be the most ridiculous suggestion that anyone has ever made in the history of online discussion forums! If you do not want to own a gun, then do not buy one. The powers of We The People from Amendment #2 guarantee our rights under Amendment #1! :0) 



Yukon said:


> The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths (murders, suicides and accidents) among the world's 36 richest nations!!



So what? Guns do not kill people. People do! Next you will want to ban all cooking knifes over two inches! :0)  



Yukon said:


> ** *2,827 children and teens died as a result of gun violence in 2003 (more than the number of American fighting men killed in hostile action in Iraq from 2003 to April 2006)



Taking away the guns of lawful gun owners will leave all the bad guys with guns anyway! The American Citizen is the final line of defense against foreign invaders and Government oppression! Just how are you going to defend yourself when the crap hits the fan? 



Yukon said:


> Americans value their constitution and the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment deals with the right to bear arms. Here is the price that ordinary Americans are paying for the privilege
> 
> *** 8 children a day die in murders, suicides and accidents involving guns



Nonsense. 3000 people die in auto accidents EVERY DAY (I cannot post links = Google = Crash! Boom! 3,000 people die in car accidents daily), so your solution is to ban all automobiles! 



Yukon said:


> *** since John F. Kennedy was assinated more Americans have died from gunshot wounds at home than died in all the wars of the 20th century



So what? Try to count the number of lives saved and the number of crimes that never happened, because some law-abiding U.S. citizen had access to his legal firearm. Your hypothesis falls flat on its face, because the bad guys will always have guns no matter how many law-abiding citizens you convince to give away their Second Amendment Rights. 



Yukon said:


> *** Osama bin Laden would need at least nine twin towers like attacks each year to equal what Americans do to themselves every year with guns.



Osama what? :0) Because you are unaware (Lordy), 9/11 was definitely an INSIDE JOB (my blog = ttp://terral-911.blogspot.com/ = add the h), so Senor Bush and Karl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld would need to murder even more innocent Americans to mount up the kinds of numbers you are talking about . . .



Yukon said:


> *** Murder rates in LA, NY and Chigago were approaching the hightest in the world (30 per 100,000) until moves were made in late 20th century to restrict access to guns to teenagers and the NRA wants these moves reversed.



Our Congress allows millions and millions and millions of Illegal Alien Foreign Nationals to run around loose EVERYWHERE, so they are obviously not concerned at all about keeping any legal U.S. Citizen safe at all. The people coming here in the middle of the night to steal U.S. identities and JOBS care nothing about obeying the Rule of Law and we still need our guns to maintain some level of security IN OUR HOMES. Only an idiot would give away his guns amid the growing CHAOS flooding across the border in droves . . . 



Yukon said:


> If Osama bin Laden had had more sense, instead of launching a terrorist attack, he would simply have provided financial backing to the NRA!


 
Osama bin NONSENSE! Osama had nothing to do with the 9/11 Inside Job where the real bad guys sat inside the White House and Justice Department and FBI and CIA and Congress for the past eight years! That is how we gained the Department of Homeland Insecurity and millions and millions and millions of Illegal Alien Foreign Nationals running around from sea to shining sea at the very same time. You really want our guns? Great! Just break down the door and take them, but the local coroner will be cleaning your behind in the morning. :0) 

GL,

Terral


----------



## Yukon (Mar 4, 2009)

Terral,

You loose all credibility as soon as you try to convince me that 9/11 was an "inside job". That assertion is insane and only a crazy person would believe it. Yes my son, guns should go because lunatics like yourself have access to them and that is scarey. In fact scarier then knowing Bin Laden is still alive.


----------



## Terral (Mar 4, 2009)

Hi Yukon:



Yukon said:


> Terral,
> 
> You loose all credibility as soon as you try to convince me that 9/11 was an "inside job". That assertion is insane and only a crazy person would believe it. Yes my son, guns should go because lunatics like yourself have access to them and that is scarey. In fact scarier then knowing Bin Laden is still alive.



Please do not confuse me with someone trying to convince Yukon of anything, because I did read your *guns must go nonsense* in the Opening Post of this thread. Perhaps we can engage in a healthy 911Truth Debate one of these fine days when I am allowed to post links. Fun, fun, fun . . . :0)

GL,

Terral


----------



## BrianH (Mar 4, 2009)

Yukon said:


> "There are none as blind as those who refuse to see" - YUKON.



"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson


"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.  
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
-- Benjamin Franklin

Founding Fathers Quotes



"Yukon is an idiot."--BrianH


----------



## Yukon (Mar 4, 2009)

Brain,

Your quotes come from a differnet time. They mean nothing in todays world. That's one of the problems we face - people living in the past thinking that what worked then works now. Pathetic.............


----------



## johnrocks (Mar 4, 2009)

people who support gun control and people who support drug control really need to get a room together since both are advocating the failed premise that the government can control human behavior. Greed, sins of the flesh and heart simply can't be easily regulated without destroying a free society.  You want a society without those things then get ready to live in a theocracy or some form of dictatorship/authoritarian society such as Iran or China.


----------



## AllieBaba (Mar 4, 2009)

America is a gun culture. The gun related crime is a result of too many restrictions regarding gun use, not the opposite.

I think the gun control freaks and those who want drugs LEGALIZED should get a room together. 

My guess is that if any of the drug running criminals found out where that room was, they'd bust in the door and shoot 'em up. Their primary focus would be the drug morons, but they'd know the gun control morons wouldn't be armed, so it wouldn't matter.


----------



## Missourian (Mar 4, 2009)

I can't believe this thread has gone on 18 pages. By the end of page 2 the idea of repealing the 2nd Amendment had been so thoroughly trounced, I didn't bother to post.


----------



## AllieBaba (Mar 4, 2009)

There's always a gun thread going on. It's fun to visit about once every six months.


----------



## johnrocks (Mar 4, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> America is a gun culture. The gun related crime is a result of too many restrictions regarding gun use, not the opposite.
> 
> I think the gun control freaks and those who want drugs LEGALIZED should get a room together.
> 
> My guess is that if any of the drug running criminals found out where that room was, they'd bust in the door and shoot 'em up. Their primary focus would be the drug morons, but they'd know the gun control morons wouldn't be armed, so it wouldn't matter.



Gun control doesn't  work, I oppose it however drug control doesn't either unless you call the 30 billion we spend each year fighting it, the drug pushers on the border at war and being able to buy a bag of weed quicker than you can go into a Wal Mart Superstore to get a box of detergent a success.


----------



## Yukon (Mar 4, 2009)

Can't fight drugs so legalize it, cant fight crime so why have laws? Just make everyone exercise their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms and laws wont be necessary?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Mar 4, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Can't fight drugs so legalize it, cant fight crime so why have laws? Just make everyone exercise their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms and laws wont be necessary?



Laws dictating what people can and can't do to their own bodies goes against the idea of liberty.


----------



## Yukon (Mar 4, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Laws dictating what people can and can't do to their own bodies goes against the idea of liberty.



...out of the mouths of babes, right-wing Conservatives, and of idiots !


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Mar 4, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Laws dictating what people can and can't do to their own bodies goes against the idea of liberty.
> ...



I'm not a right wing conservative, and an idiot would be a person who cannot discuss something intelligently so they simply insult others.


----------



## johnrocks (Mar 4, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Can't fight drugs so legalize it, cant fight crime so why have laws? Just make everyone exercise their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms and laws wont be necessary?



Punish the crime ,such as murder, reckless driving from being drugged up, not the act of owning a gun or doing drugs in the privacy of your home, it's called personal responsibility.  Take the good that you love more than anything and think about it being banned, would you still partake in it and be a criminal simply because you didn't want to give that good up or would you succumb to the law?  A lot would bow to the law however a lot of folks wouldn't.  For me, it would be chocolate, for you it might be cereal but the point is, there would be lawbreakers and an underground market created because of the banning of that good.  I'd buy an illegal gun for example if they were outlawed, millions buy drugs illegally.


----------



## johnrocks (Mar 4, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


----------



## Tech_Esq (Mar 4, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Brain,
> 
> Your quotes come from a differnet time. They mean nothing in todays world. That's one of the problems we face - people living in the past thinking that what worked then works now. Pathetic.............



Today's world includes the Romanians who took up arms against their dictator in 1990 and fought off the last vestiges tyranny. Take off the rose colored glasses and start seeing the world for what it is.

You are responsible for your liberty, if you don't own up to your responsibility, rest assured, no one will secure your liberty for you. Instead, they will eventually subjugate you. Just ask the Venezuelans.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 4, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Brain,
> 
> Your quotes come from a differnet time. They mean nothing in todays world. That's one of the problems we face - people living in the past thinking that what worked then works now. Pathetic.............



First off, they're not  "my quotes". They're quotes from leaders of men who I'd gladly take to heart quicker than your little quote about blind people.  

What's pathetic, is your extreme lack of intelligence and failure to understand the quotes of the American founding fathers.  These were warnings my friend.  A few of MANY.  Men such as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin were warning the people of what would eventually come, and what people should do to prevent such tyranny.  And if you noticed, they were right.  We ARE experiencing things that these men warned about.  What you fail to realize dumbass, is that there are countries (STILL) on this earth who experience what the colonists experienced back in that "time."  Liberties are still crushed to this day in many parts of the world.  And in many cases, these are countries that don't allow their population to own firearms and/or protect themselves.  

Look up Thomas Jefferson's quotes about private banking and tell me whether or not it pertains to the present.

You've been proven wrong at every turn in this thread and you still attempt to cling to your anti-gun fanaticism by posting retarded quotes from yourself, and trying to convince other people they don't know what they're talking about.  

Banning guns, or even requiring registration would be unconstitutional....simple as that. 

IT would violate the 2nd Amendment by infringing upon an individuals' right to bear arms.
It would violate the 10th Amendment by unconstitutionally granting a power to the federal government.......(such powers of which the 10th Amendment addresses).


----------



## BrianH (Mar 4, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Brain,
> ...



Exactly......

Also Yukon, I find it humorous that you've chosen a screen-name that (for me at least) describes a territory that contains some of the best hunting areas on the North American continent.


----------



## Father Time (Mar 4, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Brain,
> ...



Not that I don't believe you but could you provide a source, I ask because I need to prove that guns can be useful for another forum.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 4, 2009)

Father Time said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



Not sure if I'm on the right path here, but why would you need a link to something to show guns are useful?  They are useful to me in providing food.  Or they are useful in defending my life.  I don't think anyone can deny that they are useful in those instances.

But really I wouldn't even entertain someone by trying to make a case for that argument.  It's the equivalent of the argument that guns should be banned because there is no need for them.  Usefullness is not something you should need to show.  Need or usefuleness is irrelevant.  If it were the things I should be able to deprive you of due to your lack of 'need' for them extends a ways beyond just guns.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Mar 4, 2009)

Father Time said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



Hmmm.....well, it's not too difficult to look up the Romanian revolution, but Here you are.

If you read the article it will detail the various points where arms were used. As I recall as it occurred, there was some speculation that the revolt might fail because of a lack of arms by the people and the initially it appeared that the Army was with the government. Eventually, the Army splintered and people got arms (probably from the Army) and part of the Army sided with the people. 

In Venezuela, in case you just missed it, the people have voted to have dictator Chavez, essentially, for life. How has Uncle Hugo responded? Over the weekend he sent troops to the farms to force farmers to increase rice production. Bet they wish they could shoot back.


----------



## Yukon (Mar 4, 2009)

BrianH said:


> "...they're not  "my quotes". They're quotes from leaders of men who I'd gladly take to heart..."




The men you quote are dead, they died a few hundred years ago (some were in fact traitors to the British Crown). What they said hundreds of years ago has no relevance whatsoever in today's world. Stop quoting silly things from the past. Wake up because it's 2009 my son.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 4, 2009)

Yukon ... the past teaches us lessons ... without learning from it we are doomed to repeat it. Without the past we would not even exist. Nothing is ever made irrelevant if it is based on wisdom, so even today those words mean the same, we know they do because we see examples of people who ignore them all the time.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Mar 4, 2009)

Yukon said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > "...they're not  "my quotes". They're quotes from leaders of men who I'd gladly take to heart..."
> ...



Britain lost. Get over it. Even if you are still a subject of the crown. Ahhh yes....subjugated, just as I mentioned. 

You sir are a fool of the first order and your every utterance proves the point.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 4, 2009)

Yukon said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > "...they're not  "my quotes". They're quotes from leaders of men who I'd gladly take to heart..."
> ...



1st.  Amazing!! You know about one of the two things that are certain in life!!! 
These men were supremely more intelligent than you or me and, in fact, treated this nation like it is failed to be treated today.  Many of the problems that we have, as a nation, stem directly from disregarding what these men said...NOT from gun-ownership or lack-there-of.

2nd.  The guy you quoted is brain-dead and about 3 times retarded.

Get over the fact that you're wrong.  You have nothing left to do but discredit peoples' sources and attempt (emphasis on ATTEMPT) to belittle people and their obviously more logical opinions.

I guess since it's 2009, we'll go ahead and ignore history and do the same stupid shit we've done in the past.  Hell, I mean, we had some good times in the past right?  The problem with your retarded logic, is that we (obviously not you) learn from past events.  And even beyond the individual; the government learns from past events.  For example: the government learned that prohibiting the sale of alcohol, they created new problems. 

I'll rehash for you since you've blatantly disregarded anything I've said regarding the unconstitutionality of banning firearms in the United STates.

1.  The right to bear arms is the 2nd Right granted in the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution. (No different that the rights garaunteed in the other 9 Amendments.)

2.  The 2nd Amendment states: * "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."*
(This means that ANY attempt to restrict gun-ownership is an infringement upon an individual's right to bear arms; and is thus, unconstitutional.)

3.  Even IF it was constitutional to ban or regulate firearms, the power to do so would not lie with the federal government.  
10th Amendment of the United States Constitution states:  *"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."*
(This means, that because the United States Constitution does not grant the power to control firearms to the federal government, then the power to control firearms goes to the states and/or people "respectively."  Even so, this fails to be the issue because it is unconsitutional to infringe upon the right to bear arms to begin with)

4.  As far as your "guns kill lots of people" crap, that logic is thrown under the bus when you compare gun deaths to automobiles or any other thing that kills large numbers of people.

5.  Your logic assumes that if guns were banned, there'd be less crime; however, your logic fails to address historical factuality.   People have killed one another for CENTURIES without the use of firearms.  And in fact, I can think of FAR WORSE death machines that were invented for the purpose or killing before the firearm made its debut.  The fact is, people will find something to kill each other with.  It's amazing how many prisoners die in prison from home-made (and smuggled) weapons.  Also, studies show that places with higher gun-control have more crime.  

6.  Banning guns will not stop criminals from obtaining firearms.  They obtain them legally now, and they will obtain them legally then.  What makes you think that, all of a sudden, our criminals will start abiding by the law??  Banning guns will simply disarm the public and make them more vulnerable to the criminals with the guns.

Get over it....you're argument has been dismantled.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Mar 4, 2009)

Brian, although I'm sympathetic to your 10th amendment argument, the current law of the law as pronounced by the USSC is that the tenth amendment is a "truism" and not enforceable. 

The last time the 10th Amendment had teeth was Hammer v. Dagenhart. This case was overruled by USSC in United States v. Darby Lumber Company. And that is only one evil thing that case did. The sooner Darby gets overruled the better off we would all be.

Just so you know.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 4, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Brian, although I'm sympathetic to your 10th amendment argument, the current law of the law as pronounced by the USSC is that the tenth amendment is a "truism" and not enforceable.
> 
> The last time the 10th Amendment had teeth was Hammer v. Dagenhart. This case was overruled by USSC in United States v. Darby Lumber Company. And that is only one evil thing that case did. The sooner Darby gets overruled the better off we would all be.
> 
> Just so you know.



I appreciate it.  I had an argument about that with someone before.  The USSC doesn't always make decisions I agree with.  I think the USSC has failed to realize the "real" meaning of the 10th Amendment; among others.  I know my opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans when compared to the USSC decision, but it's still my opinion none-the-less.  The USSC first destroyed the 10th Amendment after the civil war regarding the right to secession.  It's not suprising the decision was made by the side that won the war.  

The reason I continue to use the 10th Amendment, is because I believe that many of our amendments and constitution have been figuratively stomped on.  It makes me mad when retarded decisions are made out of something that is obviously clear-cut.   

Anyway, thanks for the info.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 4, 2009)

Professor Called Police After Student Presentation | CCSU Recorder

mind as well restrict freedom of speech while we're at it.  

I can see why something like this would concern someone with anti-gun views, but this is a bit extreme.  IMHO, I believe the professor called the cops because she disagreed with this young man's beliefs, and probably thought that his report on concealed weapons meant that he was carrying on campus.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 4, 2009)

BrianH said:


> Professor Called Police After Student Presentation | CCSU Recorder
> 
> mind as well restrict freedom of speech while we're at it.
> 
> I can see why something like this would concern someone with anti-gun views, but this is a bit extreme.  IMHO, I believe the professor called the cops because she disagreed with this young man's beliefs, and probably thought that his report on concealed weapons meant that he was carrying on campus.



Why do you think people like Yukon want to disarm citizens?

Hell, may as well get rid of them all, just completely dissolve the constitution ... which is what would happen if they got rid of guns ... eventually.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 4, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Professor Called Police After Student Presentation | CCSU Recorder
> ...



People like Yukon believe that the world is a little garden full of flowers.  He/she believes that we no longer live in a world where anyone would need a gun, that governments no longer possess the will to control the people, or that an invasion isn't possible, or that a tyrant could get into office.  Crappy people get into good governments all over the world, and our government is no different.  

Germany was a Democracy when Hitler took power.  

That's exactly what would happen.  As far as the constitution goes, it's already getting dissolved little by little.  I think it's only a matter of time before the figurative crap hits the fan.  We'll either be in another revolution in a few years, or we'll give up all of our freedoms and submit to the government.  I'm all about GOOD/little government.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 4, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Brain,
> 
> Your quotes come from a differnet time. They mean nothing in todays world. That's one of the problems we face - people living in the past thinking that what worked then works now. Pathetic.............



Ah, yes.  The ever-popular leftist arrogance that assumes that human nature has fundamentally changed, and/or that they are so much more brilliant and understanding of human nature than everyone who has ever come before.  All that was ever required for all these endlessly failed notions to succeed is for THEM, in their infinite wisdom and superior character, to be put in charge.

There's nothing new under the sun.  (That would be a quote from the Bible, but you probably know more than God, too.)  Human nature hasn't changed, and will never change, including the part of it that makes some people so hubristic as to think that history is bunk and they don't have anything to learn from it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 4, 2009)

Yukon said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > "...they're not  "my quotes". They're quotes from leaders of men who I'd gladly take to heart..."
> ...



So if someone states a truth and then dies, that truth becomes false simply because the one who uttered it is dead?

WHY has it no relevance in today's world?  Because human beings have fundamentally changed?  Because the bedrock principles and freedoms espoused in the Constitution are no longer needed or wanted by human beings, and therefore no longer apply?  All righty, then.  I'll expect to see you starting a thread immediately on why the First Amendment needs to be repealed, because all that crap about the importance of freedom of speech and freedom of religion was uttered by dead men hundreds of years ago and has no relevance in today's world.

Otherwise, you will oblige everyone by pulling your head from your rectum and stop prattling about "2009" as though the date is, in and of itself, a refutation of anything.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 4, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Brian, although I'm sympathetic to your 10th amendment argument, the current law of the law as pronounced by the USSC is that the tenth amendment is a "truism" and not enforceable.
> 
> The last time the 10th Amendment had teeth was Hammer v. Dagenhart. This case was overruled by USSC in United States v. Darby Lumber Company. And that is only one evil thing that case did. The sooner Darby gets overruled the better off we would all be.
> 
> Just so you know.



And we care more about what a bunch of lawyers in black dresses says than what the Constitution says because why?  I thought this thread was about what's ACTUALLY in the Constitution, as opposed to what a bunch of agenda-driven losers try to read into it.


----------



## necritan (Mar 4, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Can't fight drugs so legalize it, cant fight crime so why have laws? Just make everyone exercise their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms and laws wont be necessary?
> ...



Amen brother......


----------



## necritan (Mar 4, 2009)

Yukon said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > "...they're not  "my quotes". They're quotes from leaders of men who I'd gladly take to heart..."
> ...



A few hundred eh????
How are we soooooo advanced now??? Please explain....

I seriously dont understand why YOU....a citizen of an entirely different country even care. Cuzz I certainly dont care about your shitty excuse for a country. Why do you care??? What is your investment in our nation ?? Why do you seek to weaken the people of this fine nation through lies and deception?? 

The quotes of those men....were "Revolutionary". How are we such an advanced culture now in respect to then??? Give a good example please.....

Fucking Retarded Moose Humper....

You wanna know whats cool about those guys from waaaayyyyy back then????

They would have taken you out in a field and SHOT your sorry ass for attempting to destroy the Constitution that protects the freedoms of these People of the United States of America.


----------



## necritan (Mar 4, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


----------



## HideTheRum (Mar 4, 2009)

So how has gun control affected Ireland? They are a small nation and while they may have cut down on GUN crime, their crime involving knives and other weapons shockingly went up. I'm new and cannot post links, but why else would they have to have knife control? 
These stupid laws only accomplish the appearance that politicians are doing something about crime, while not doing anything about the criminals. 

Taking away the constitutional freedoms of law abiding citizens only makes it easier for crimes to be committed against them.


----------



## johnrocks (Mar 4, 2009)

HideTheRum said:


> So how has gun control affected Ireland? They are a small nation and while they may have cut down on GUN crime, their crime involving knives and other weapons shockingly went up. I'm new and cannot post links, but why else would they have to have knife control?
> These stupid laws only accomplish the appearance that politicians are doing something about crime, while not doing anything about the criminals.
> 
> Taking away the constitutional freedoms of law abiding citizens only makes it easier for crimes to be committed against them.



Exactly!


----------



## frazzledgear (Mar 5, 2009)

Yukon said:


> It's time that Americans woke up, smelled the coffee and too their collective heads out of the sad. Be smart, be modern, wake up and REPEAL the 2ND AMENDMENT
> 
> The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths (murders, suicides and accidents) among the world's 36 richest nations!!
> 
> ...



From the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:

 &#8220;International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra more guns = more death/fewer guns = less death.  Unfortunately such discussions have all too often been afflicted by misconceptions, factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative. It may be useful to begin with a few examples. One is the compound assertion that: (a) guns are uniquely available in the U.S. compared to other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the U.S. has by far the highest murder rate. Though this has been endlessly repeated, in fact, b) is false and a) substantially so.&#8221;

The World Health Organization argues that by reducing gun ownership, it reduces murder and suicide BY GUNS.  Well DUH.  But it does NOT reduce homicide and suicide rates whatsoever!   Since stricter gun control doesn't reduce homicide and suicide rates, then what is the real agenda of people like you who insist banning ownership of guns by law abiding citizens is a must?

There are an estimated 350,000,000 guns in the US -more guns than there are people.  A few thoughts on this.  

1.  Just exactly HOW do you suggest that government goes about forcibly stripping gun owners of their guns when they refuse to forfeit this right?  Because they certainly would.  Do you envision midnight raids and kicking in doors of otherwise law abiding citizens or what?  How...fascist of you.   And exactly the kind of government abuse our founders most feared.

2.  Amending the Constitution requires the consent of 3/4 of all states.  That means the majority of people in at least 38 states must vote in favor of voluntarily FORFEITING their constitutional rights -with the understanding they will never get it back.  Since 40 states just passed legislation making it even EASIER to own guns, which was the will of the people of those states and the Supreme Court upheld the right of Americans to own guns and given the fact there are hundreds of millions of guns in this country  -just how likely do you think Americans will voluntarily forfeit this right during your lifetime?   

3.  There were about 10,500 homicides carried out with a gun in the United States in 2004 -the most recent year I could find.  (The exact number is always more difficult to find when it doesn't fit in with the liberal agenda.  Only when the homicide rate with guns rises can you readily find that data.)   That means 349,989,500 guns were not used in a homicide.  

Do you normally believe in punishing the overwhelming vast majority because a tiny minority chose to commit a crime?  It is a FACT that stricter gun control does not reduce the overall homicide or suicide rates.  So why are liberals obsessed with making people as helpless as possible -both against criminals who never follow the law anyway, but also against a government that would turn on its own people?  Which happens even in this day and age.  Which is why OUR founders included this as a God given right that no man had a right to take away.  

Lets compare those figures with the fact there are only around 32,000,000 cars in this country.  But around 45,000 people are killed in car accidents every single year.  And hey, I'm pretty sure my math skills are adequate enough to realize that is about 1/10th the number of guns but they kill nearly 5 times as many people.  And neither has a damn thing to do with Iraq casualties and it is nothing but a pathetic attempt to manipulate people by pretending one is somehow relevant to the other.  I've seen conservatives accurately point out that an American runs a higher risk of being murdered in Los Angeles than a US soldier is likely to be killed anywhere in Iraq.  True -but also a meaningless comparison. 

Car drivers in the US are FAR more likely to ACCIDENTALLY kill you with their car than a US gun owner is likely to shoot you -accidentally or not.  But owning and driving a car isn't a right.  It is a state-granted privilege.  Owning a gun is a right -and its the one that gets a liberal's panties in a real twist.  If you liberals were REALLY motivated by a desire to save lives here   -then you would be even more insistent that private citizens should not be allowed to drive a car at all.   After all, a good nanny government would realize that is what it would take to save the most lives.  NOT by removing ten times as many guns that are responsible for 1/5 the number of deaths -but that removal still won't lower the overall homicide and suicide rates.  That will remain about the same -just dead by some other means instead.  

But you liberals don't do that because you personally have a use for driving a car in spite of the far more dismal death rate with cars.  Its owning guns you have no use for -and therefore insist that because YOU have no use for that right, no else has any use for it either and shouldn't be allowed to exercise that right at all.  *Whether you personally value all your rights or not, whether you personally choose to exercise any of your rights - can never determine the value of that right for another person or determine whether they should be "allowed" to exercise that right.*  Not ever.   That isn't how it works, sorry.

I have a great idea -how about you socialist-dabbling, nanny-government idolizing, leftwing whackos from other countries take care of the many, MANY problems in your own country first before being so arrogant enough to try and tell us how to do it better in our own country.  Because last I checked, Canada is sure no Utopia.


----------



## Eightball (Mar 5, 2009)

frazzledgear said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > It's time that Americans woke up, smelled the coffee and too their collective heads out of the sad. Be smart, be modern, wake up and REPEAL the 2ND AMENDMENT
> ...



Excellent rebuttal!

P.S.  Yukon:  Many gun owners were previously " criminally mugged" liberals.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 5, 2009)

Eightball said:


> Excellent rebuttal!
> 
> P.S.  Yukon:  Many gun owners were previously " criminally mugged" *liberals*.



Even if true ... what the hell does this have to do with right and wrong. It is wrong to take away rights, period. No matter who it is that does or does not want to utilize those rights.


----------



## Yukon (Mar 5, 2009)

BrianH said:


> "...Germany was a Democracy when Hitler took power..."



The USA was a democracy when Bush Junior took over, and he did illegally take over. Bush Junior lied his way into a war that has killed thousnads of American boys and you people just bent over and took it straight up the rectum.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 5, 2009)

Yukon said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > "...Germany was a Democracy when Hitler took power..."
> ...



Rectum?? lol.  Be a man and say ASS.

As far as Bush getting into office, you're right, he did receive less votes, however, illegality had nothing to do with it.  It was a USSC decision that put him into office.  I don't particularly agree with it any more than I agree with other retarded USSC decisions, but hindsight is 20-20, especially when your making "rectum" references.

  You have nowhere to go on the gun issue.  Which has been why you haven't posted a damn thing about guns in the last several posts.

Keep straw-manning.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Mar 5, 2009)

Yukon said:


> It's time that Americans woke up, smelled the coffee and too their collective heads out of the sad. Be smart, be modern, wake up and REPEAL the 2ND AMENDMENT
> 
> The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths (murders, suicides and accidents) among the world's 36 richest nations!!
> 
> ...


I ask Yukon what the hell does  he/she know about it and get all offended as yank, then I remember the bullet in my garage  door or my roof. But then I live with illegal aliens with cars, houses and guns and  then I remember, this isn't Paradise or Canada. It's a piece of shit no-where and I inhabit...well Ya know, you don't have a clue what it's about, boyo. I don't hate guns, I don't worship them, either. I wish I lived in Canada, Then I might feel so free to pass judgment and presume illusions of grandeur. You don't have a clue what this is about. that is good, boyo. I wish I was in your shoes.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 5, 2009)

Yukon said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > "...Germany was a Democracy when Hitler took power..."
> ...



The US has never been a total democracy, nor have we ever wanted it to be.  I think we will all thank you to keep your uninformed, non-American pronouncements off of OUR national history and heritage.


----------



## Father Time (Mar 5, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



Yes, don't you know that the grim reaper only comes for you once you are no longer relevant to the world?


----------



## Eightball (Mar 5, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



Yukon is unaware of a form of Democracy called a "Republic".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 5, 2009)

BrianH said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



::glances down at her rather impressive cleavage::  And I want to be a man because why?



BrianH said:


> As far as Bush getting into office, you're right, he did receive less votes, however, illegality had nothing to do with it.  It was a USSC decision that put him into office.  I don't particularly agree with it any more than I agree with other retarded USSC decisions, but hindsight is 20-20, especially when your making "rectum" references.



BEEEEEP!!  First of all, he ALLEGEDLY received fewer votes overall, but only a fool trusts the totals explicitly, given the rampant election fraud so common these days.  And anyway, we don't elect our Presidents by overall national total, so prattling about some apocryphal "popular vote" is meaningless.  Second, the USSC decision didn't put anyone in office.  The Electoral College vote did.  The USSC just put an end to Gore's attempt to steal the election.

If you must talk about it, at least do so with facts.



BrianH said:


> You have nowhere to go on the gun issue.  Which has been why you haven't posted a damn thing about guns in the last several posts.



Actually, I haven't posted much about guns per se because you're right:  there's nowhere else to go on guns.  They're Constitutionally legal, and there's no way in Hell anyone's going to muster enough support for an Amendment to repeal the Second Amendment.  Therefore, this is all just a pointless meander through the fevered wet dreams spawned by Yukon's diseased mind.

But hey, if you don't like guns, feel free to disarm yourself.  Just make sure you post a sign in your yard to that effect, so that your antifirearm purity isn't tainted by the shadow of MY gun ownership.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 5, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



Is all of this aggression aimed toward me?? If so, you need to go back and re-read the thread, because I've been arguing the same thing that you're saying.  

Second of all, I said the same thing you did about Bush's election...you just chose different words and put different spin on it.  The USSC could have sided with Gores attempt and then it would have been a different story.  I am also aware that our system is based on electoral votes, however, that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.


----------



## necritan (Mar 5, 2009)

BrianH said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



Mis-directed hostility to be sure.

(Pointing to Cecilie's post).... I dont think there will be an Amendment to repeal the 2nd  either....(hopefully)....but the Anti's are relentless in their attempts to nueter the 2nd into an oblivion. And unless gun owners want to shoot $1000 micro-stamped ammunition out of their registered (smart gun) muzzle loaders  ....they may want to wake up and start defending this extremely important "Right" that is so often taken for granted.


----------



## frazzledgear (Mar 6, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Munin said:
> 
> 
> > About that constitution thing that justified civilian gun control: wasn't that something that was more about militia people? Just curious
> ...



You are right.  I guess they stopped teaching this in public schools because some people here seem not to know this - but the Bill of Rights is the list of rights all citizens have.   The silly claim that although the 1st Amendment applies to all citizens, the founders then threw in the 2nd Amendment which somehow only applied to some vague, ill-defined "special" group and NOT all citizens -and then went back to laying out the rights of all citizens in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th etc. Amendments -is one of the hokiest arguments around.   And wrong.  Which is why the Supreme Court struck down the gun ban in Washington, DC.   

The Bill of Rights lays out the rights of ALL citizens -not any rights for government, any government-run organization, military or any "special" group.  It places no restrictions on citizens with regard to these rights.  The only restrictions are placed on government to not interfere with these rights.   There is no such thing as a "group right" that is denied to all other citizens.  

In addition, the founders wrote the Federalist Papers and many wrote additional papers in order to further define, explain and lay out the reasoning behind the different sections of the Constitution for all future generations.   They fully intended the right to own guns to be for all citizens -without a doubt.  The founders explain their great fear they were creating a government that might *someday* turn on its own citizens -and knew the best way of making it more difficult for government to do so was by making sure citizens had the means to defend themselves from such a government.  Our founders firmly believed that government is always to be the servant of the people -and not their master.   Ever look up the definition of "militia"?  It means "citizen soldiers" as opposed to professional soldiers -and those citizen soldiers may be fighting either in defense of existing government or against it.  When a militia is called up, citizen soldiers are expected to bring their OWN gun.  The founders deliberately did NOT refer to "state regulated" militias -but only to "well regulated" ones.  The founders deliberately did NOT refer to militias fighting ONLY in defense of existing government because they knew there may be a time when a "free state" and "existing government" were not one and the same thing.  Just as happened just a few years earlier before the Revolutionary War.   These were not hastily chosen words, but ones that took YEARS to decide upon  trying to insure no loophole that might allow government to strip citizens of this right.  

ALL governments carry the potential to turn on its own citizens because government is run by people -who are never saints.  Our own government has turned on or abused entire groups of Americans in the past.  But the governments most lethal to its own citizens are the ones that first stripped their own citizens of the means to defend themselves.  I would never vote in favor of forfeiting this right for all future generations.  I don't have the RIGHT to forfeit this right for all future generations.  And past generations did not forfeit that right for me.

I hear people say, oh our government could never turn on Americans, not in THIS country.  Says who?  Think the founders would recognize the government we have today?   It is much larger, far more powerful and far more instrusive into both state authority and the lives of individuals than they ever envisioned.  Who knows what it will look like in another 200 years.  No government has ever lasted forever and a good government today is no guarantee that government will remain so for all future generations as well.  No government turns on its own citizens -until it does.


----------



## Father Time (Mar 6, 2009)

It would seem odd to me that founders would lay out an amendment granting soldiers (and only soldiers) the right to keep and bear arms. Did they honestly believe that would ever become an issue? Oh well if they ever want to tell me that the founders never intended it, I have a great Jefferson quote to counter it which I'm sure you guys are familiar with.


----------



## necritan (Mar 6, 2009)

Father Time said:


> It would seem odd to me that founders would lay out an amendment granting soldiers (and only soldiers) the right to keep and bear arms. Did they honestly believe that would ever become an issue? Oh well if they ever want to tell me that the founders never intended it, I have a great Jefferson quote to counter it which I'm sure you guys are familiar with.




Yup...its a pretty pathetic arguement huh? 

Good ole' Thomas has lots of good stuff to say....

Lets hear it.


----------



## frazzledgear (Mar 6, 2009)

BrianH said:


> Second of all, I said the same thing you did about Bush's election...you just chose different words and put different spin on it.  The USSC could have sided with Gores attempt and then it would have been a different story.  I am also aware that our system is based on electoral votes, however, that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.




The Supreme Court couldn't have agreed with Gore's attempt to steal that election and pretend to have any Constitutional authority after that.  Which is why it didn't even come close to agreeing with Gore.  Insisting that democracy at work is trolling among spoiled ballots in heavily Democrat counties where any mistakenly rejected ballot was most likely going to be a Gore vote -while ignoring the spoiled ballots that were cast by the very same method in heavily Republican counties where any mistakenly rejected ballot was most likely going to be against the Democrat -is a joke.  

That was a stunt worthy only of a third world banana republic -but NOT how a democratic, free and fair election actually works.  My state election laws do not allow for selective recounts or selective handcounts.  Florida THOUGHT it had such laws too but Gore found a loophole.  A loophole Florida immediately closed in order to avoid another candidate pulling a Gore on them. 

Gore did not win in Florida, not by any count, re-count or re-re-count.  Not even by very partisan Democrat groups who went in afterwards and did their own counting, hoping to prove that somehow Gore really won in Florida.  Gore didn't win in Florida and at no point was he even ahead in any count.  He lost -but he tried his best to steal it.  Someone can only try to steal what isn't theirs to begin with.  And since Bush won every count and re-count -that means it was Gore who tried to steal that election.  The Supreme Court in a 7-2 ruling said what Gore was trying to do was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

Presidents are not elected by popular vote.  All Presidential candidates not only are WELL aware of this fact -they specifically tailor their campaigns to try and come up with the right combination of electoral votes.  They couldn't care less about the general popular vote -because winning that without the electoral votes -won't get them a cup of coffee.   Bush did it right.  Gore didn't.  But Gore thought HE would be the one to lose the general popular vote while winning the electoral vote.  He had a speech all written up explaining why the popular vote was meaningless and why HE was the rightful President.  Which he would have been had it worked out that way -but it didn't.

Gee, he sure started whining like a little girl when it turned out he got that wrong, huh?  THEN it was all about why whoever won the general popular vote should really be President.  LOL  As for going to court -try to remember it was GORE who first went to court.  Over and over again in fact.  Bush finally had to go the Supreme Court to put a stop to the unconstitutional banana republic bullshit Gore was engaged in with the support of the blatantly Democrat partisan state supreme court.  And the Supreme Court agreed that what was going on was unconstitutional.  I'm pretty sure you Democrats would miraculously be able to comprehend this one if it had been the reverse situation.   

Time for you whackos to get over that one.  And maybe the rest of us can try to get over the totally classless act Gore pulled trying to steal an election he couldn't legitimately win.


----------



## necritan (Mar 6, 2009)

For the record......I really dont think Brian is much of a Gore supporter.


----------



## Father Time (Mar 6, 2009)

necritan said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > It would seem odd to me that founders would lay out an amendment granting soldiers (and only soldiers) the right to keep and bear arms. Did they honestly believe that would ever become an issue? Oh well if they ever want to tell me that the founders never intended it, I have a great Jefferson quote to counter it which I'm sure you guys are familiar with.
> ...



 "What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

From Revolution to Reconstruction: Presidents: Thomas Jefferson: Letters: THE NEW CONSTITUTION


----------



## necritan (Mar 6, 2009)

Father Time said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> > Father Time said:
> ...



Wow.....its cool everytime I read it....thankyou for posting that.

Can you imagine if we had a leader now....who spoke with such words....with such passion for freedom and liberty???

Wow.


----------



## sparky (Mar 6, 2009)

i own an arsenal of guns......anyone care to comment on how they make me _free_....?


----------



## frazzledgear (Mar 6, 2009)

necritan said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > necritan said:
> ...




I'm pretty sure liberals would be insisting such a person should be locked up for the "safety" of us all.  

It seems there must be a "critical mass" point before people understand what it meant by such language.  We aren't there at this time and therefore such language only scares people who refuse to take the time to contemplate what is meant by these words.  But after hearing so many people say that Obama is making sure this country will never be what it was and the never ending spending spree to insure many generations to come are also all bankrupt as well -I think we are getting much, much closer to understanding it.  Let's get real here.  This country is not only spending money that hasn't even been earned.  Its spending money that people who will earn it haven't even been born yet.  And your kids will not be the great-grandparents of those who are expected to earn it either.

Maybe next time people will realize that change for change's sake -is a really stupid reason to vote for anyone.  But then -this is my third go around with a generation that fell in love with a "hopey-changey" message without once questioning what changes those might be.  Its not an American thing.  I think its a dumbass human thing.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 6, 2009)

necritan said:


> For the record......I really dont think Brian is much of a Gore supporter.



Thanks necritan...you're correct.  I voted for Bush, but simply mentioned the "process" in which I didn't agree with.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 6, 2009)

sparky said:


> i own an arsenal of guns......anyone care to comment on how they make me _free_....?



Well, you have the FREEDOM to purchase and possess your arsenal.  That in itself makes you free.  

And, in the event that your freedom is jeapordized, you have the ability to fight for your freedoms.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 6, 2009)

Anyone who is against gun ownership I double dare you to walk into the worst possible neighborhood in your area and insult as many people as possible ... trust me, you won't be shot by a legal gun owner.


----------



## Yukon (Mar 6, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Anyone who is against gun ownership I double dare you to walk into the worst possible neighborhood in your area and insult as many people as possible ... trust me, you won't be shot by a legal gun owner.



If you enter that neighbourhood at night look for teeth shining in the dark.


----------



## necritan (Mar 6, 2009)

sparky said:


> i own an arsenal of guns......anyone care to comment on how they make me _free_....?



Who say's they make you free??? They are "a" freedom....."a" right.

YOU make you free....period.  

Care to tell us why you are always cranky???

Care to tell me how a people would demand their freedom from an oppressive government WITHOUT GUNS????


----------



## necritan (Mar 6, 2009)

Yukon said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who is against gun ownership I double dare you to walk into the worst possible neighborhood in your area and insult as many people as possible ... trust me, you won't be shot by a legal gun owner.
> ...



Are you on drugs???

Seriously....do you use heavy drugs??


----------



## HideTheRum (Mar 6, 2009)

necritan said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Hmmmm, maybe socialized medicine does have some benefits!


----------



## Burp (Mar 7, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Brain,
> 
> Your quotes come from a differnet time. They mean nothing in todays world. That's one of the problems we face - people living in the past thinking that what worked then works now. Pathetic.............



Guess you'll be telling us the Bible is obsolete?


----------



## DStar777 (Mar 15, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Brain,
> 
> Your quotes come from a differnet time. They mean nothing in todays world. That's one of the problems we face - people living in the past thinking that what worked then works now. Pathetic.............



Good morning Mr. Yukon,

I'm a bit behind since I just registered to the site today (3-15).  

What's really pathetic is that someone like you actually thinks that law abiding gun owners represent a threat to the likes of you.  How paranoid do you have to be?  Those 'Founding Fathers' were very smart to put that 2nd Amendment in there and thank God it will not be repealed anytime soon.


----------



## Yukon (Mar 15, 2009)

necritan said:


> If you enter that neighbourhood at night look for teeth shining in the dark.



Are you on drugs???

Seriously....do you use heavy drugs??[/QUOTE]

I was a regualr user of marijuanna and still like the odd "puff". I never did "heavy" drugs, I tried LSD once in 1969 and the experience was not nice.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 15, 2009)

Yukon said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> > If you enter that neighbourhood at night look for teeth shining in the dark.
> ...



I was a regualr user of marijuanna and still like the odd "puff". I never did "heavy" drugs, I tried LSD once in 1969 and the experience was not nice.[/QUOTE]

Liar Liar Pants on Fire....Your posts suggest otherwise


----------



## HideTheRum (Mar 16, 2009)

When seconds count, the Police are only minutes away..... if you make it to the phone.


----------



## Kalam (Mar 16, 2009)




----------



## Yukon (Mar 16, 2009)

The recent slaughter in Alabama could and would have been avoided if there were strict laws making the owning of automatic weapons and handguns illegal punishable by 10 to 20 years in prison.


----------



## Burp (Mar 16, 2009)

Yukon said:


> The recent slaughter in Alabama could and would have been avoided if there were strict laws making the owning of automatic weapons and handguns illegal punishable by 10 to 20 years in prison.



Or if someone who legally carried would have shot his ass and stopped the whole thing.

When are you going to understand that making weapons illegal is NOT going to stop people from getting them.


----------



## Yukon (Mar 16, 2009)

Burp,

Your's is a failed arguement, the one put forward by the wack-jobs at the NRA. Ban GUNS now, save lives ! Barack will do it.


----------



## Kalam (Mar 16, 2009)

Banning firearms won't stop criminals from using them. Consequently, it won't stop me, either. Legal or not, I will exercise my right to bear arms and I will protect myself and others should the need arise.


----------



## Father Time (Mar 16, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Burp,
> 
> Your's is a failed arguement, the one put forward by the wack-jobs at the NRA. Ban GUNS now, save lives ! Barack will do it.



You really think it's impossible for people to obtain illegal items?

I guess Al Capone made all his money selling pizza, speakeasies were nicknames for libraries and that guy selling weed, they're just garden weeds.

And I guess all the times I've seen people light off illegal fireworks was a mirage or something.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 16, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Burp,
> 
> Your's is a failed arguement, the one put forward by the wack-jobs at the NRA. Ban GUNS now, save lives ! Barack will do it.



Woman shot by arrow on NYC street - Life- msnbc.com

BAN BOWS AND ARROWS NOW.....SAVE LIVES!!!!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 16, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Burp,
> 
> Your's is a failed arguement, the one put forward by the wack-jobs at the NRA. Ban GUNS now, save lives ! Barack will do it.



Yes, because banning guns is somehow going to make them not exist at all, thereby keeping anyone from ever getting hold of them.

That's the real problem.  Lame-ass liberal imbeciles have to try to ban guns because they can't go back in time and prevent them from being invented.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 16, 2009)

Yukon said:


> The recent slaughter in Alabama could and would have been avoided if there were strict laws making the owning of automatic weapons and handguns illegal punishable by 10 to 20 years in prison.



could you guarantee that that would never have happened?....even with a gun ban?


----------



## BrianH (Mar 16, 2009)

Kalam said:


>



You're not from Gonzales, TX are you????


----------



## Kalam (Mar 16, 2009)

BrianH said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Naw, I just thought that the message was relevant.


----------



## necritan (Mar 16, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Burp,
> 
> Your's is a failed arguement, the one put forward by the wack-jobs at the NRA. Ban GUNS now, save lives ! Barack will do it.



No he wont.......he's not that stupid.


----------



## necritan (Mar 16, 2009)

Further more......If the Feds decided to have a little gun grab??......it's fuckin on baby.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 16, 2009)

Said1 said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Even at this early phase Im not surprised. Not a single one of you has been able to lodge a logical protest to my post. Sarcasm is the best you can do.
> ...



Wrong again. Nothing is as effective as a gun. 

However, the last eight years are proof that we need the Second Amendment. We also need some national soul searching as to why our gun violence rate is so high. There are other nations in which most homes have guns in them, and they do not have anywhere near the violence rate that we do.


----------



## HideTheRum (Mar 16, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Said1 said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



Link? Never heard of such a thing as other nations with as many guns(rights) as we have..., per capita?.... most nations have them banned, but that does not really cut down on crime.

Immigrants are knife thugs says Judge Carney - Stormfront
A little food for thought.

Criminals=Criminals=do not care what laws are=will break the law regardless.

But hey, lets make everyone susceptible to getting pistol whipped!


----------



## keymaker (Mar 16, 2009)

Eradicating gun use would be impossible. Gun use could never be banned with the present threat of terrorist attacks and high crime rates. Gun use should instead be regulated and provided with the severest penalty ever to those who perpetrate crimes with the use of guns.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 17, 2009)

Yukon said:


> The recent slaughter in Alabama could and would have been avoided if there were strict laws making the owning of automatic weapons and handguns illegal punishable by 10 to 20 years in prison.



Actually ... the two best ways it would have been avoided ...

1. If there were more legally owned guns he would have been to scared to try it, or someone would have ended it sooner.

2. The police there suck and did a very bad job.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Said1 said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



No, it is you who is wrong. A gun is the worst way to kill if you want to get away with it, ask the serial killers and they'll tell you over a hundred ways that are more effective. Guns should be an equalizer, however with more in the criminals hands and fewer in the citizens hands because of stricter regulations the criminals now have more power ... and this is evident in almost all cities with extremely strict gun control laws. Accidental deaths caused by guns ... have you ever seen these people interviewed ... they really shouldn't have been allowed to reproduce anyway.


----------



## LOki (Mar 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Said1 said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...


Guns are certianly effective . . . effective for self defense. This effectivness in self defense is the precise reason that gun control laws target potential victims of violence (the thrust being disarming potential victims) rather than aggressors.



Old Rocks said:


> However, the last eight years are proof that we need the Second Amendment.  We also need some national soul searching as to why our gun violence rate is so high.


No we don't. The "gun violence" rate is high because there are alot of guns around, and they are effective. No soul searching required.

We need some real soul searching as to why do so many of us insist upon gun regulations purposely designed to inhibit gun ownership amongst regular folks while MOTIVATING violent criminals to commit (potentially violent) crimes? Why do these people think such regulation will somehow lead to less violence?

The real soul searching that is required is why so many of us consider "gun violence" and "gun deaths" to be separate and distinct from all other kinds of violence we inflict upon each other, so much so, that so many of us would trade in thousands of incidents of "gun violence" for millions of incidents of "some other kind of" violence.



Old Rocks said:


> There are other nations in which most homes have guns in them, and they do not have anywhere near the violence rate that we do.


There are quite a few more nations where the regular citizenry is barred from possessing the most effective tools for self defence, and they *UNANIMOUSLY* are subject to the will of those who control the guns.

There is just no question what-so-ever regarding the motive of the gun control crowd--it's nothing less than the subjugation of their fellow human beings.


----------



## RightofCenter (Mar 17, 2009)

The item most prisoners are killed with in prison are...sharpened dining utinsels.  Shall we outlaw those too?

The thing that kills most people on highways is...automobiles.

The thing that kills most people in old folks homes is...old age.

The hatred of guns was and is perpetuated by rich mens wives with nothing better to do than blame guns for societies ills.  Now liberal single women carry that torch.  How ironic is that?


----------



## Eightball (Mar 17, 2009)

LOki said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Said1 said:
> ...



You are "right on"!  

You remove the guns from the citizenry, and you have complete power and the voice of the people is moot.

Hitler did a gun grab, and what did the Jews, gypsies, bible Christians, and non-Arians etc. have to stand against the Third Reich?


----------



## RightofCenter (Mar 17, 2009)

Lastly, the percent of crime and violent crimes against others is directly proportionate to the percent of overpopulation and EMPLOYMENT ratios in that community.

Reducing the population will affect the crime rate, and reducing births will affect the crime rate, but even more, if your lousy criminals would get a job, they wouldnt need to go around robbing people.  But since there are no jobs, they say, your heathens move into the diametrically opposed category of work: robbing and killing people.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 17, 2009)

RightofCenter said:


> Lastly, the percent of crime and violent crimes against others is directly proportionate to the percent of overpopulation and EMPLOYMENT ratios in that community.
> 
> Reducing the population will affect the crime rate, and reducing births will affect the crime rate, but even more, if your lousy criminals would get a job, they wouldnt need to go around robbing people.  But since there are no jobs, they say, your *heathens* move into the diametrically opposed category of work: robbing and killing people.



Why only people who live in the "country"?


----------



## Father Time (Mar 17, 2009)

LOki said:


> There is just no question what-so-ever regarding the motive of the gun control crowd--it's nothing less than the subjugation of their fellow human beings.



I think your tinfoil hat is too small.

They just believe (wrongly) that letting citizens own guns causes crime.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 17, 2009)

Kalam said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...



I like it...just thought I'd ask.  Not to far from where I live.


----------



## Yukon (Mar 17, 2009)

Abortion has reduced the crime rate tremendously. Couple that with gun control and the USA will almost be civilized.


----------



## RightofCenter (Mar 17, 2009)

Yukon: tell me this, why do you think its the guns fault that people kill or injure with it?

Secondly: do you HONESTLY believe that if guns are outlawed, that criminals wont have guns?

Third: Why do you care if criminals you dont know, get killed or shot by other criminals you dont know.  Or....do you know them?  Why are you concerned for their safety?


Afterthought: I never met a gun I didn't like.  I have, however, met a lot of people I didn't like.


----------



## Yukon (Mar 17, 2009)

Innocent people are killed by red necks out to prove themselves as macho.


----------



## johnrocks (Mar 17, 2009)

I think I finally have figured you out.  You post like you do to purposely try and paint liberals as pompus asses who really don't have a clue.  Well, your wrong, I know some really clueless libs who aren't pompus asses!


----------



## Yukon (Mar 17, 2009)

Is a pompous ass the same as a conceited donkey ?


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 17, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Innocent people are killed by red necks out to prove themselves as macho.



Dude ... really? 

Really?

You actually believe that? Of course with all the other crap you believe it shouldn't be THAT surprising. But dude ... really ... lay off the crack ... or are you pissed because here in Washington we shut down you largest supplier recently with a lot of armed people?


----------



## RightofCenter (Mar 17, 2009)

I have noticed time and time again, that people that scream "outlaw guns" will NEVER respond to your questions, they will only offer smoke screen after smoke screen.

Trying to get someone to debate the topic legitimately is next to impossible, they just continuously resort to emotional outbursts with no foundation in logic whatsoever.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 17, 2009)

RightofCenter said:


> I have noticed time and time again, that people that scream "outlaw guns" will NEVER respond to your questions, they will only offer smoke screen after smoke screen.
> 
> Trying to get someone to debate the topic legitimately is next to impossible, they just continuously resort to emotional outbursts with no foundation in logic whatsoever.



Normally I would disagree with this, but it has been true of this thread, to a fault really.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 17, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Abortion has reduced the crime rate tremendously. Couple that with gun control and the USA will almost be civilized.



Yet another ignorant and unsubstantiated idea that you swallowed wholeheartedly because it agreed with your half-assed worldview and because you're too damned dumb to think for yourself.

Not that you are remotely deserving of any effort at intelligent rebuttal, but it doesn't take a genius to understand that legalized abortion actually INCREASES the number of out-of-wedlock births by changing societal attitudes toward extramarital sex, thus increasing the number of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, including among women who would not consider having an abortion.  

Thus, rather than decreasing the number of unwanted children being born - one of the principle arguments in favor of the idea that abortion reduces crime - it has actually led to an increase in those births.  And because legalized abortion increases the possibility that the reluctant fathers will say, "Well, she should have had an abortion", and wash their hands of the whole situation, it also increases the likelihood that these unplanned children will be raised in poor, single-parent households headed by women, a factor that has long been linked to crime.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 17, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Innocent people are killed by red necks out to prove themselves as macho.



Yeah?  Prove it.  And prove that it is linked to legal gun ownership.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 17, 2009)

hey look the guy is from fucking Canada....what do you expect?.....intellect?...geezus the most intelligent people ever to come out of Canada is Doug and Bob McKenzie.....and they are considered genius by Canadian standards......watch South Park sometimes the Episodes about Terrance and Phillip will tell you all you need to know about Canadians.....its fairly realistic.....


----------



## LOki (Mar 17, 2009)

Father Time said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > There is just no question what-so-ever regarding the motive of the gun control crowd--it's nothing less than the subjugation of their fellow human beings.
> ...


Nonsense.



Father Time said:


> They just believe (wrongly) that letting citizens own guns causes crime.


It's good you recognize they are wrong, but the notion that letting citizens own guns causes crime is so patently, and self evidently wrong, it simply does not follow that they should actually hold to the notion--what they actually want is evident in the precise nature of the regulations that they propose, and that regulation has nothing to do with crime, and everything to do with disarming law abiding folks.  There's only one purpose for that.

Just one.


----------



## RightofCenter (Mar 17, 2009)

People that are afraid of guns have issues I cant relate to.  Guns are guns.  I think you better assess where your real issues are.


----------



## Father Time (Mar 17, 2009)

But I've met people who think gun control is peachy and I used to be one of them (and now I think weapon bans should mostly begin at rpgs).

They're not convinced this way by stats and graphs they're convinced by bad logic that leaves out the situations of tyrannical government and also leads to unintended consequences.

One of the usual things is the utopian world of what would happen if guns weren't around. It may sound nice but realistically it's a fairy tale but when people tell them about the world they usually leave out that part.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 17, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Abortion has reduced the crime rate tremendously. Couple that with gun control and the USA will almost be civilized.



Yeah, cause the D.C. gun ban decreased crime dramatically.....  LMAO

By the way, we already have gun control.  It's called a bull's-eye.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 17, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Innocent people are killed by red necks out to prove themselves as macho.



Wait....I thought you said guns kill people...??

I guess we should ban cars because lots (MORE) of innocent people are killed from dumbass street-racers and careless drivers who don't have any consideration for other people's lives.   Once again -->


----------



## BrianH (Mar 17, 2009)

RightofCenter said:


> People that are afraid of guns have issues I cant relate to.  Guns are guns.  I think you better assess where your real issues are.



Exactly, it's the same reasons why knives are knives, cars are cars, and etc...

It's useless to douse Yukon with NUMEROUS FACTS, because he ignores them and then accuses you of being the crazy one.  Typical anti-gun priss.  I bet he cries when he hears a gun-shot.


----------



## Maple (Mar 17, 2009)

That's the first thing Hitler did was to disarm the German people and look what happened then. 10 million people died, 6 million of them Jews, somehow I don't think this is a good idea. Drugs are illegal and yet the person who wants them finds it easy to get them. What makes you think that criminals who want guns won't get them? You really want to disarm the law-abiding citizen and make them unable to defend their homes and families. You need to think again.


----------



## frazzledgear (Mar 17, 2009)

Father Time said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > There is just no question what-so-ever regarding the motive of the gun control crowd--it's nothing less than the subjugation of their fellow human beings.
> ...



Sorry, but for those who seek ultimate power -gun control is an absolute must and among the very first priorities.  Without question.  One of the first things Marx said was a necessity was stripping citizens of the right to own guns.  For the "useful idiots" Marx said would aid the communist cause in so many different ways -the rationalization that guns are what cause crime and that guns were a public safety issue etc. -would work just fine.  Just look how many useful idiots on this thread think guns present a far more significant public safety issue than something like automobile accidents.   Guns cause a fraction of the number of deaths car accidents do even though there are nearly ten times as many guns as cars in this country -but you would never know that from the useful idiots.  Most of them don't even know that anyway.  (But certainly suggests that gun owners take their responsibilities far more seriously than car owners do.)

Communists were not alone in recognizing the importance of stripping their own citizens of the right to own guns.  They were just one of a few that actually committed to paper why they believed it was essential for their own ability to grab and hold power -that they do so.


----------



## Toro (Mar 17, 2009)

What about potato guns?  Can we keep those?


----------



## Father Time (Mar 18, 2009)

frazzledgear said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



I know tyrants would strip citizens of arms but that's not why regular fools support gun control. They honestly believe that it will reduce crime a lot. I've talked to these fools on other forums. They're not evil just insanely mis-informed.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 18, 2009)

Toro said:


> What about potato guns?  Can we keep those?



no.....your not mature enough....you might take someones eye out....


----------



## Father Time (Mar 18, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > What about potato guns?  Can we keep those?
> ...



[insert Christmas Story reference]


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 18, 2009)

Father Time said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



That movie sucked so bad even my mother wanted her money back.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



you are the first person i ever heard say that Kitty......


----------



## LOki (Mar 18, 2009)

Father Time said:


> I know tyrants would strip citizens of arms but that's not why regular fools support gun control.


Sure it is.



Father Time said:


> They honestly believe that it will reduce crime a lot.


And they honestly believe that rights are crimes; you know: religion, free speech, due process, security in your person and possessions--inhibiting your capacity to defend your rights is the primary step required for them to reduce "crime."



Father Time said:


> I've talked to these fools on other forums.


So have I.



Father Time said:


> They're not evil just insanely mis-informed.


I often find them well informed--they are often well aware of the patently obvious fallacies in the defenses they present for their position; that is why I find them insanely evil.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 18, 2009)

It has been shown that in certain areas of the country, where it is a law to have a firearm in the home, the crime rate has gone down significantly. If a criminal with the intent on breaking into a home, knows almost assuredly, that there is no firearm inside, chances are he will break in. My brother was shot and killed years ago in Chicago, and I still would not advocate the banning of guns for responsible citizens. If my brother had a gun himself, he might have been able to ward off the attack. 
Food for thought-If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?  Keep your hands off our firearms/liberty tools.


----------



## GHook93 (Mar 18, 2009)

*You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands!*
- The Late Great Heston


----------



## Father Time (Mar 18, 2009)

Well Loki I guess you and I are talking to different gun control supporters. I dread running into the ones you speak of.


----------



## LOki (Mar 18, 2009)

Father Time said:


> Well Loki I guess you and I are talking to different gun control supporters. I dread running into the ones you speak of.


I'm willing to bet they're pretty much the same.

You should quiz them on: their position on children praying in a public school; their position on the notion of "hate crime"; their position on "hate speech"; their position on violence in cartoons; their position on an individual's choice of association; their position on fast food; their position on compulsory education at state institutions; their position on the relationship between "need" and "deserve"; their position on the relationship between "capability" and "obligation"; their position on "saving the planet"; their position on drinking liquor on Sunday; their position on smoking in public spaces; and their position on the supremacy of "the-common-good" over what's good for actual individual people.

I think you'll find that if you probe them deeply enough, if you refuse to be distracted by the patently obvious bullshit of their diversionary arguments, if you refuse to accept their superstitions as valid premises, if you dig into the meat of their actual premises, you'll discover that the ultimate deterrent to these folks imposing their sanctimonious will upon every aspect of your life (for your own good) is the prospect that you might be pushed just far enough to shoot them right in their authoritarian nanny statist faces.


----------



## HideTheRum (Mar 19, 2009)

Burp said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > The recent slaughter in Alabama could and would have been avoided if there were strict laws making the owning of automatic weapons and handguns illegal punishable by 10 to 20 years in prison.
> ...





Yukon said:


> Burp,
> 
> Your's is a failed arguement, the one put forward by the wack-jobs at the NRA. Ban GUNS now, save lives ! Barack will do it.




It is not a failed argument. Wake the fuck up! Pot and LSD are illegal, you tried them, so have I, But did that stop us from getting a hold of them?


----------



## Yukon (Mar 19, 2009)

LOKI,

I would like to know if you are coloured ?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Mar 19, 2009)

Yukon said:


> LOKI,
> 
> I would like to know if you are coloured or are you a wigger?



What business is it of yours?


----------



## Yukon (Mar 19, 2009)

Tech,

I didnt ask you so please mind your own business.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Mar 19, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Tech,
> 
> I didnt ask you so please mind your own business.



You know us lawyers, always sticking our nose in where it isn't welcome. 

And on a technical note, you must not know how this site works, if you want to ask a private question, you PM someone. Otherwise, if you post it to a thread everyone can answer.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 19, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Tech,
> 
> I didnt ask you so please mind your own business.



If your skid marks are your private business, then don't dry your underwear on the front lawn.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 19, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Tech,
> 
> I didnt ask you so please mind your own business.



This is a public forum, numbnuts.  That sort of makes it the business of anyone reading the thread.  Duhhh.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 19, 2009)

Yukon said:


> LOKI,
> 
> I would like to know if you are coloured ?



you dont have many Blacks up there do ya McKenzie?.....


----------



## LOki (Mar 20, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > LOKI,
> ...


Yukon,

I'm interested in your answer to Tech's question; I'm more interested in the point of of your question--I'm pretty certain it's not to highlight the racist foundations of the gun contol movement in the U.S.


----------



## Father Time (Mar 20, 2009)

LOki said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



I think it has to do with your avatar. In all honesty I'm curious if that's you or not.


----------



## Eightball (Mar 20, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Tech,
> ...



Aye!  Motion seconded and carried.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 20, 2009)

Yukon isn't strong enough to handle it ...


----------



## Wolfmoon (Mar 20, 2009)

Yukon said:


> It's time that Americans woke up, smelled the coffee and too their collective heads out of the sad. Be smart, be modern, wake up and REPEAL the 2ND AMENDMENT




*BIG NO! *

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- James Madison


*----*

Our Founding Fathers gave the people of this nation powers to *rid themselves of a tyrant government*. One of the powers to over throw a tyrant government is the Second Amendment, ``A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.''

The Founding Fathers gave the people the right to keep and bear arms so the people could form their own militias should the people ever need to rid themselves of a tyrant government. The price for freedom is paid in blood. It is better to live a short life as a free person than to grow old under a tyrant. *The armed, law-abiding citizen has never been a threat to law enforcement.* *A tyrant government is a more serious threat than any criminal.* Armed, law-abiding citizens enhance a nation's security, the communities' peace and tranquility.

SOURCE:

*http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2007/12/28/opinion/letters/129374.txt*


----------



## Yukon (Mar 21, 2009)

Mr. Loki,

I like to know with whom I exchange messages with. Coloured people have a different, more accepting attitude, toward drugs, murder, robbery, etc. They seem to be more understanind of the reasons behind crime. That's the reason why I asked if you are coloured (Negro).

Regards,
YUKON


----------



## LOki (Mar 21, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Mr. Loki,
> 
> I like to know with whom I exchange messages with.


My skin color is not who I am.



Yukon said:


> Coloured people have a different, more accepting attitude, toward drugs, murder, robbery, etc.


I'd like you to set aside the patent racism, and present the rational basis for each of these assertions.



Yukon said:


> They seem to be more understanind of the reasons behind crime.


If black folks understand the reasons behind crime, and based upon that greater understanding are more accepting of those crimes, shouldn't white folks then align their attitudes towards these crimes with understanding, rather than ignorance?



Yukon said:


> That's the reason why I asked if you are coloured (Negro).


I'd rather not be an accomplice to fueling your racist notions.


----------



## Yukon (Mar 21, 2009)

Mr. Loki,

I'm not a racist and your claim is offensive.


----------



## LOki (Mar 21, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Mr. Loki,
> 
> I'm not a racist and your claim is offensive.


Rather than offensive, my claim is valid.  Allow me to present your own words as evidence of your racism:





Yukon said:


> Coloured people have a different, more accepting attitude, toward drugs, murder, robbery, etc.



Particularly your notions that _"Coloured people have a different, *more accepting* attitude, toward . . . murder."_ and that _"Coloured people have a different, *more accepting* attitude, toward . . . robbery."_

Patently racist--and offensive.


----------



## Yukon (Mar 21, 2009)

My comment was factual. Black people statistically commit more crime then white people. This most certainly demonstrates they have a more accepting attitude toward crime. I only state facts Mr Loki. You can dispuite my facts if you can but please don't tag me, a man who speak's God's truth, a racist because it is offensive and shows a complete lack of knowledge on your part.


----------



## LOki (Mar 21, 2009)

Yukon said:


> My comment was factual. Black people statistically commit more crime then white people.


More precisely, black folks are _*convicted*_ of crime more often that white people.



Yukon said:


> This most certainly demonstrates they have a more accepting attitude toward crime.


Or it demonstrates that white folks take crimes commited by black folks more seriously than crimes committed by white folks; that perhaps white people are less accepting of free black people.



Yukon said:


> I only state facts Mr Loki.


You presented a particular interpretation of facts Yukon. 



Yukon said:


> You can dispuite my facts if you can . . .


I don't disupute your actual facts, just your racist interpretation of them that leads you to the racist conclusion that black folks are more accpting of murder and robbery than white folks.



Yukon said:


> . . . but please don't tag me, a man who speak's God's truth, a racist because it is offensive and shows a complete lack of knowledge on your part.


I am not tagging you as a racist because it's offensive, or out of any ignorance on my part. Dispute these facts if you can: 
_"Coloured people have a different, more accepting attitude, toward . . . murder." _ is a racist statement.
_"Coloured people have a different, more accepting attitude, toward . . . robbery."_ is a racist statement.
You made those statements.
This is, of cousre, all beside your racist point that, for the purposes of this discussion, you would know me better if you knew what color my skin is, that you need to know the color of my skin--as if the color of my skin has ANY relationship to the validity of any point I make.


----------



## Silver Diva (Mar 21, 2009)

Here is what the second amendment says about bearing arms:

_"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"._

That "well regulated militia" is the US Armed Forces.  No one is arguing that the US Armed Forces should bear arms.  I really don't think anyone would want armed militias in their neighborhoods.

People say that it was a tragedy that an 8-yr old boy in AZ shot and killed his father.  In reality, it could have been much worse.  The boy could have killed innocent people outside his home, instead of the dumba$$ who taught an 8-yr old to shoot, and then left his guns unsecured!


----------



## LOki (Mar 21, 2009)

Silver Diva said:


> Here is what the second amendment says about bearing arms:
> 
> _"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"._
> 
> That "well regulated militia" is the US Armed Forces.


No.

The "well regulated militia" is every able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45 bearing arms in defense of themselves and the country.



Silver Diva said:


> No one is arguing that the US Armed Forces should bear arms.


Mostly because the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with arming the US Armed Forces.



Silver Diva said:


> I really don't think anyone would want armed militias in their neighborhoods.


The Framers of the Constitution did; I do.



Silver Diva said:


> People say that it was a tragedy that an 8-yr old boy in AZ shot and killed his father.


It was.

The tragedy is that he didn't use a news paper for a murder weapon--that way, instead of blaming the gun, morons would blame the newspaper and then they could attack the 1st Amendment rather than the 2nd.

Not that that would actually be less tragic, but rather it would demonstrate some intellectual integrity amonst the morons, and that would be a welcome change of pace.



Silver Diva said:


> In reality, it could have been much worse.


It could have been better too.



Silver Diva said:


> The boy could have killed innocent people outside his home, instead of the dumba$$ who taught an 8-yr old to shoot, and then left his guns unsecured!


The boy, carrying dumbass genetics, could have eliminated himself from the gene pool too--*2* less dumbasses on my planet; that would be better.


----------



## Yukon (Mar 21, 2009)

Mr Loki,

There really is no point in debating this topic with you and that is sad.


----------



## LOki (Mar 21, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Mr Loki,
> 
> There really is no point in debating this topic with you and that is sad.


You couldn't dispute the facts, could you?


----------



## necritan (Mar 21, 2009)

Yukon is a racist gun grabber.....wow.

I have a firm belief that most gun grabbers dont want a gun in their home due to the overwhelming chance that they (as a moron) will shoot themselves or someone else out of pure idiocy.....by not having a gun , they are attempting to extend their moronic rule for a much longer than acceptable time frame.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 21, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Mr. Loki,
> 
> I like to know with whom I exchange messages with. Coloured people have a different, more accepting attitude, toward drugs, murder, robbery, etc. They seem to be more understanind of the reasons behind crime. That's the reason why I asked if you are coloured (Negro).
> 
> ...



In other words, you're a racist, bigoted pig who makes assumptions about who and what a person is based on skin color, rather than simply reading his posts and basing your judgements on who his words and thoughts reveal him to be.  What kind of person assumes that knowing the amount of pigment in someone's skin equates to "knowing who he is"?

I'm not even going to touch this assumption that all black people are more tolerant of crime and criminals, but Loki should probably bitchslap your racist ass into next week on general principles.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 21, 2009)

Yukon said:


> My comment was factual. Black people statistically commit more crime then white people. This most certainly demonstrates they have a more accepting attitude toward crime. I only state facts Mr Loki. You can dispuite my facts if you can but please don't tag me, a man who speak's God's truth, a racist because it is offensive and shows a complete lack of knowledge on your part.



And of course we all know that all black people are alike.  They have the same skin color, so it's okay to lump them all together.

By that standard, are all Canadians racist dumbfucks like you?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 21, 2009)

Silver Diva said:


> Here is what the second amendment says about bearing arms:
> 
> _"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"._
> 
> ...



Sorry, but even the Supreme Court, which usually has its head up its collective ass, doesn't agree with your illiterate interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

The militia mentioned, and the definition of "militia" itself, is the citizenry itself, not the miitary.  Also, the 2nd Amendment merely mentions the militia as one reason.  It doesn't in any way restrict gun ownership to a specific group of people.


----------



## Yukon (Mar 21, 2009)

Cecilie,

Why must you resort to name-calling? You should refute my statements with logical data if you can find it. The prisons are overflowing with Negro people. Why is that?


----------



## necritan (Mar 21, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Cecilie,
> 
> Why must you resort to name-calling? You should refute my statements with logical data if you can find it. The prisons are overflowing with Negro people. Why is that?




Why dont you try and refute all the evidence stacked against you in this thread in reference to its original title "Guns must go".....with logical data of course??


----------



## Yukon (Mar 21, 2009)

Necritan,

OK babe. If there were strict gun controls that wack-job in Alabama would not have had the weapons necessary to slaughter innocent people.


----------



## necritan (Mar 21, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Necritan,
> 
> OK babe. If there were strict gun controls that wack-job in Alabama would not have had the weapons necessary to slaughter innocent people.



Babe?? Just cuzz my avatar is hot , doesnt mean I am a babe....nor does it make me a female...period.

There already is gun control...sadly. The type of gun control you speak of is the complete eradication of all guns in North and South America....cuzz thats the only way to eliminate the chance of a gun getting into the hands of a criminal.

Perhaps an all out ban on all guns is what you want...yes?? 

If so....you willingly wish to be a subject of your government...yes??

You wish to sell your freedom..??


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 21, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Cecilie,
> 
> Why must you resort to name-calling? You should refute my statements with logical data if you can find it. The prisons are overflowing with Negro people. Why is that?



Well, let me put it this way, screwboy:  why must you resort to DESERVING it?

Refute your statements?  One does not refute ignorant, Neanderthal racist morons.  One tells them that they are ignorant, Neanderthal racist morons, because to do otherwise is to imply that there is anythihng even vaguely intelligent or rational about their views and lend them legitimacy.  Besides, anyone whose opinion I would actually care about - hint:  racists are not among that number - already knows that racism is fucking stupid and doesn't need me to explain why.  Ignorant, Neanderthal racist morons, on the other hand, aren't bright enough to understand the refutation even if I were to lower myself to dignifying them with such, so it would be a waste of time.

When you're enough of a person to earn be treated with something other than sneering contempt, perhaps you'll see it.  While you act like ignorant, backwoods trash, you'll be spit upon as such.  Deal with it.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 21, 2009)

necritan said:


> Babe?? Just cuzz my avatar is hot , doesnt mean I am a babe....nor does it make me a female...



do you think my Avitar is HOT?.....


----------



## necritan (Mar 21, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> > Babe?? Just cuzz my avatar is hot , doesnt mean I am a babe....nor does it make me a female...
> ...



Yes I do......


----------



## necritan (Mar 21, 2009)

Yukon , 

I'll PM you my address....and you can come try to take this from me if you want.






or....perhaps you might want to take these??






or how bout this??






or this??






what about this??






Maybe all thats a bad idea cuzz I do lots of this....


----------



## BrianH (Mar 21, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Necritan,
> 
> OK babe. If there were strict gun controls that wack-job in Alabama would not have had the weapons necessary to slaughter innocent people.



Um....Wrong.

Criminals will get guns no matter what "gun-control" you have.  If we ban all guns, the crime rate will increase or stay the same.  The fact is, criminals already don't follow our laws, whether it's gun laws, theft, etc...  So what makes you think that they will follow the laws required in gun bans?  They'll continue to steal and smuggle firearms to do their work.  And unless you can track down every gun that has ever been sold (which you can't) then it won't work.  All you will do, is disarm law-abiding citizens while the criminals will carry on as they do now.  

Alabama already has firearm regulations.


----------



## necritan (Mar 21, 2009)

BrianH said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Necritan,
> ...



They would have to perform house to house search and seizures..... and I am willing to bet that wouldnt go down to swell.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 21, 2009)

Silver Diva said:


> Here is what the second amendment says about bearing arms:
> 
> _"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"._
> 
> ...




LOL....no Ma'am.  Here's the definition of a militia.  
mi·li·tia (m-lsh)
n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

militia - definition of militia by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

So you're 2nd Amendment arguemnt falls flat on it's face.  The 2nd amendment says that our rights to bear arms cannot be "infringed".  That means any attempt to prevent ownership is considered unconstitutional.


As far as the rest goes, you're right.  The father was a dumbass for leaving a gun where his 8 year old could get to it.  It's not the gun's fault that the 8 year old shot his dad, the kid could have easily grabbed a kitchen knife to do his work.  I believe there was  a story this morning in the news where a girl from Conn. or Mass. grabbed two kitchen knives and went after her parents because they took her cell phone away from her.  Should we ban knives because these parents taught their daughter that the knives were for cutting things?

   There are laws that require a gun-owner to keep firearms away from children.  If this father had not died, he's have been charged for negligence.  Regardless of what anti-gun people say, the subject is not black and white.  The problem, is that anti-gun people blame guns for stupid crap that people do.  A gun is an inanimate object, you can put a bullet in the chamber and set it on the table, and nothing will happen unless a human does something with it.  The same thing goes for an automobile, you can put keys in the ignition, start it up, leave it there, and the automobile will run itself out of gas unless it's operated by a human.  And considering vehicle deaths exceeds gun deaths, why is everyone worried about guns?  The problem, is that people teach their kids that guns are for killing people.  My dad never taught me that a gun was for killing someone, and he always got after my ass if I was ever careless with a firearm.  I had my first BB gun taken away from me for pointing it at a cat in the back yard.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 21, 2009)

necritan said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...




I agree, and I think it's retarded to even consider that banning guns is constitutional.


----------



## necritan (Mar 21, 2009)

BrianH said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



They dont care if its un-constitutional....they are treasonous pukes.


----------



## JohnStOnge (Mar 21, 2009)

Actually, I think the purpose of the Second Amendment has already been largely lost.  I think the purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent the National Goverment from having a monopoly on military weaponry.  The second Amendment doesn't refer to "guns." It refers to "arms," and "arms" is a lot broader term than "guns" is. 

I'll add that there is no way that the Second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms is limited to members of militia.  The reference to "militia" is a reason, not a limit.  

*"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."*

That is associated with the idea that the States are sovereign.  The Bill of Rights was intended to limit the power of the Federal government.  The Second Amendment was specifically intended to prohibit the Federal government from infringing upon the rights of the people of the States to bear _arms_, not just guns.  The idea was that the people would have the power to _resist_ the federal government if necessary.  That has been totally lost.


----------



## JohnStOnge (Mar 21, 2009)

Let me add that this country wasn't founded because people were thinking about public health and safety. It was founded because they were thinking about Liberty.  Sometimes, public health and safety and Liberty don't mix.  The idea that all of our decisions should be based on maximizing public health and safety is totally contrary to the point of this country.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 21, 2009)

BrianH said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



In all fairness, Yukon the Racist Drooler DID start this thread with the concept of repealing the 2nd Amendment, as opposed to merely passing gun bans.  Repealing the 2nd would require a new amendment, which would be frigging stupid but technically Constitutional.


----------



## raceright (Mar 21, 2009)

My wife and I were watching Wayne (NRA PRES) on Glenn Beck show She asked me if we have plenty of AMMO as she shoots and Deer Hunts with me and our sons and daughter.  I said I'm waiting for a gun show to pick up some more.  Only have about 500 rounds for her 30/30. about 1000 rounds for her 8mm. 200 rounds for her 35
2000 rounds for her 22.  I have about 1000 rounds for my 7mm remington Mag. and together we have about 3000 12 ga. for skeet. 
She is from brooklyn New York  so come on over and try to take them from her (better you than me) 
Oh I forgot I'm a Vietnam Vet try and take mine and it will be the last day both you and I spend on this earth.


----------



## LOki (Mar 22, 2009)

Yukon said:


> The prisons are overflowing with Negro people. Why is that?


Here's an explanation for you:
The police forces in the US are comprised of predominantly white folks.
The prosecuting attorneys in the US are comprised of predominantly white folks
The judges in the US are comprised of predominantly white folks.
The juries in the US are comprised of predominantly white folks.
The defending attorneys in the US are comprised of predominantly white folks.

If these white folks believe as you do that naturally darker skin pigmentation carries with it a natural predisposition to commit crime, then it is not at all surprising that white cops target black folks over white folks; that white prosecutors are more agressive prosecuting black folks than white folks; that white judges are less lenient in sentencing black folks than they are with white folks; that white juries are more likely to convict black folks than white folks; and white defending attorneys are less agreesive in their defense of balck folks than they are in their defense of white folks--it's not at all surprising that lots of black folks end up in jail.

It's also not surpising that most of the folks who are exonerated by DNA evidence are minorities--despite the conspiracies of racist white cops, prosecutors, judges, juries and defense lawyers, dark skin color is not a crime.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 22, 2009)

Sorry Loki, but most of what you claim is bullshit. Almost half our police force is black here, most prefer the nighttime patrols but they're sweeties and watch to make sure I am safe when I go for walks late sometimes. 

Attorneys don't care about the color of their clients skin, any good one will be more worried about getting a raise by winning more cases.

Ever watch Judge Joe Brown? Great show, I love him, he also makes no excuses because of being black nor allows others to, perhaps there's a reason.

Juries are filtered to prevent such prejudice ... and it works.

The primary reason more black people are in prison is because it just happens that more black people are in prison. The reasons why vary just as the reasons why the poorest whites can't get out or keep out. It's the cost of crime, you break the law you go to jail, unless you are OJ.


----------



## LOki (Mar 22, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Sorry Loki, but most of what you claim is bullshit.
> 
> _CRAP SNIPPED
> 
> (BTW: Really . . . where *you* are? A fucking "reality" TV show? *My* claims are bullshit?)​_


Much like the bullshit notions posted by Yukon that "Coloured people have a different, more accepting attitude, toward . . . murder." and that "Coloured people have a different, more accepting attitude, toward . . . robbery."

Have you caught up with the program yet?


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 22, 2009)

LOki said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry Loki, but most of what you claim is bullshit.
> ...



I passed you a long time ago.

Funny that you seem to be completely unable to prove my point wrong in any way, and yet you expect anyone to take what you say as more valid.


----------



## raceright (Mar 22, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



K K  we usually have similar views.  But the old dudes opinion although extreme he does have some accurate points...Believe it or not I generally voice my opinion not on Studies,Ideals, Media Points 
or opinions of the so called intelectuals..but on life experiences.
I served jury duty on a buy or bust drug case about 10 years ago,the white cops and white DA and white jury was trying to fry a Black guy and myself and Black women saw thru the DA's bullshit and held out for two days and got the guy off.  And the reasons the jury gave up and sided with myself and the black women was unbelievable
As follows-- I have to pay a babysitter,I'm gonna loose time at my job,I'm going on vacation and have alot to do first.  What bullshit.
It was easy for them to say guilty and get on with there lives than to dissect the case and find the truth.  When I asked the DA why she tried such a weak case she said well some times we win them
Jesus what a asshole.  And we want to give our government more power  Listen to me Old Black dude you do not want the government to have more power just because your black and the President is Black don't think the government is not going to still fry the wrong people.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 22, 2009)

raceright said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



Aah ... but there is what's wrong, in spite of what people want to think we ALL base our opinions more on real life experiences. So now I will share mine, well, the relevant parts.

I grew up in an area where there were only a few black people, to us they were never any different, and they were always treated exactly the same. They also didn't treat us any different or act the way they are often portrayed in rap videos and such. We just thought those stereotypes were just someone trying to make a buck. Eventually I wound up in Indiana, Indianapolis to be precise, and there I saw first hand real prejudice ... toward white people. Really bad prejudice to, blatant and open, and none of them ever got in trouble for it. Then I had made my way to Montana ... an odd place, at first it seemed much like Western Washington, jut bitter cold winters, but soon I saw the prejudice toward blacks. Oddly it was much more subversive and not nearly as bad. The reason it was so much more mild than the black against white racism I witnessed in Indiana was because of hate laws. So my experiences have shown two important facts, hate crime laws cause more problems than they fix, and that everyone is prejudice in some way. The only reason prejudice is hurting people is because both sides demonstrate it toward each other at the same time, then you have what we see in prisons happening, because both people are too busy blaming the other that neither side gets to work toward the truth. Following stereotypes alone is not a problem, it's allowing those stereotypes to dictate how you treat and react to other people that causes the worst mistakes we have.

A small recollection of something I witnessed to demonstrate this effect. A black kid was pulled over, one of those rapper kids with too much time on their hands. The cop wanted to do a routine search for drugs (just happens that most dealers in this area are rapper kid types). The kid didn't have any drugs but instead of just saying okay and gloating when the cop didn't find any he ranted and struggled, forcing the officer to do his job and restrain him. Which of course would annoy anyone who just wanted to make it a quick stop and check. So the cop assumed he was a drug dealer, hell I would have to at that point. Brought in the dogs and everything, did a complete search, found nothing. So then he goes back to the black kid about to let him go with just a warning to next time be a little nicer. The kid starts screaming at the cop again, calling him racist and saying he'll sue, the cop finally snaps and yells "shut the fuck up" back at the kid. This is where the kid only proves he needed to be arrested, he head barrels into the cop. Wound up going to jail for several charges at that point. Then a bunch of black protesters showed up ranting about how the cop was being racist ...

Then one of our more famous cases: A white man was beat to death at a celebration in the middle of Pioneer Square because the cops were too scared of being accused of racism for pulling off the 5 to 8 black kids beating the white one.


----------



## raceright (Mar 22, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> raceright said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Yes I understand and have witnessed similar things..
The main problem as I see it is many Blacks (not all) wish to reverse 
history with a get even attitude and not just lets forget color and be equal  it is a revenge factor and there fore leads whites to also
get revenge is self perpetuating and will never end.


----------



## LOki (Mar 22, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


You are so far behind, you just think you're ahead.



KittenKoder said:


> Funny that you seem to be completely unable to prove my point wrong in any way, and yet you expect anyone to take what you say as more valid.


All right dumbass, GAME ON!

First, you didn't make a fucking point.

Secondly, wherever the fuck you live is entirely irrelevent, as I am absoloutely sure that nation-wide the census of police officers is NOT 50% black and 50 % white, and is in fact, predominantly white.

Thirdly, prosecutors absoultely DO care about the color of their client's skin a) if they are racists, and b) if they think that skin color will have some effect on their success rate. And prosecuting attorneys get raises based on their political value of their convictions rather than rate of convictions. This is the primary reason these guys are not so enthusiastic about the findings of Project Innocence.

Fourthly, Judge Joe Brown; is that a real court room? Are you suggesting that because Judge Brown is a black man, the judges in this country are NOT predominantly white? Are you suggesting that because Judge Brown makes no excuses because of being black nor allows others to, that other judges, other white judges, simply cannot be racially biased and cannot make excuses because of being white or allows others to? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?

Fifthly, the jury selection process is notoriously ineffective at eliminating racists from the jury box.  If it's so effective, explain how so many white juries had the death penalty verdicts they passed on black men overturned by DNA evidence later--these cases were apparently so air-fucking-tight that 12 white people unanimously were willing to put a black man to death, and at the end of the day, the only thing particularly air-tight about the defendant was that he was black.

And finally, you obtuse retard, now that you have all that in response to your nothing; so that you can finally catch up with what I was actually about--I didn't play the white racist justice sytem card because I subscribe to the notion that it's valid, but rather to illuminate for dumbfuck Yukon (and now dumbfuck you) that there's a distinct difference between the facts of a matter, and the interpretation of those facts--one is objective and the other is subjective--and the subjective interpretation of facts are NOT the fucking facts of the matter.

So, just so you and Yukon can get it absolutely clear in your pointy idiot's heads: The population of black folks in prison is NO INDICATION that black skin causes people to commit crimes or that black people commit more crime, but rather that black people are convicted of crime more often. And do not fucking make the mistake that I'm sure you're about to--the undisputed fact that the police, the prosecutors, the judges, the juries and the defenders that are involved in convicting more blacks of crimes than whites are white, is NO INDICATION that white skin causes racism, or that white people are more racist than black people, but rather that where racism exists, any amount of racism in a community that is so predominantly white as ours is going to bias conviction rates towards black folks.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 22, 2009)

Loki: Hmm ... so if blacks ARE still a minority then you expect all blacks to become police officers just so it's even? Or are you instead admitting that black people are no longer a minority and therefore no longer need that status for protection, thus instead the white people now need minority status and therefore we should be the ones to get the protection instead?

Here's something about being a minority, it means there are not as many of that type as others, thus of course in most places there will be more of the majority than the minority, it's simple mathematics. So showing that more people of one type are in the police force nation wide only demonstrates the basic mathematical principle of percentages and odds, it does not demonstrate any form of prejudice. Showing that more black people are in prisons only demonstrates that more criminals are black, not that the legal system is being prejudice. The only possible way to prove it would be to actually show it, thus show a lot of innocent black people in prisons wrongly accused. Thing is that so far the evidence has shown that to not be true. Of those wrongfully convicted less than half are black (which again follows basic mathematics) and of those criminals still untried about 30% are black, but still only a third are white, which still follows the rule of odds accounting for all other races in the country. So, either you are only looking at a tiny portion of the data and excluding all other possible sources, or you are being dishonest to make someone else look bad (which has far worse implications). Which is it? To get an accurate picture you must first travel a lot (I did that myself) then use logic (I only use logic) and finally grasp mathematics (which I excel at).


----------



## raceright (Mar 22, 2009)

LOki said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



My friend there is a get even mentality in the USA , NOW in the PAST
and will continue in the future for as long as people have to get even nomatter what the situation and this will never change.  Ya can't level the playing field for anyreason and the goverment tries to do it all the time...Being force Being forced Being forced to do anything 
just creates revolt


----------



## Otter_Creek (Mar 22, 2009)

necritan said:


> I'll PM you my address....and you can come try to take this from me if you want.



Russian SKS?


----------



## Yukon (Mar 22, 2009)

LOki said:


> The police forces in the US are comprised of predominantly white folks.
> The prosecuting attorneys in the US are comprised of predominantly white folks
> The judges in the US are comprised of predominantly white folks.
> The juries in the US are comprised of predominantly white folks.
> ...



Mr Loki,

You "people" are still whinning and crying racism. You are so pathetic, so sad, so sickening. You'll never be anything else. All of the bad things that happen to the Negro - the jails, the executions, the lack of eduaction, bad jobs, etc, etc - it's all the fault of good ole "Whitey" isn't it Mr Loki?

Grow up..................


----------



## LOki (Mar 22, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Loki: Hmm ... so if blacks ARE still a minority then you expect all blacks to become police officers just so it's even? Or are you instead admitting that black people are no longer a minority and therefore no longer need that status for protection, thus instead the white people now need minority status and therefore we should be the ones to get the protection instead?


WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING ON ABOUT?



KittenKoder said:


> Here's something about being a minority, it means there are not as many of that type as others, thus of course in most places there will be more of the majority than the minority, it's simple mathematics.


Way to go Sherlock! Got any more amazing discoveries?



KittenKoder said:


> So showing that more people of one type are in the police force nation wide only demonstrates the basic mathematical principle of percentages and odds, it does not demonstrate any form of prejudice.


HOLY FUCK! You're just understaning that right now? You've come a long fucking way from "Asserting 'the police force is predominantly white' is bullshit, because where I'm from it's mostly 50/50." Way to go!



KittenKoder said:


> Showing that more black people are in prisons only demonstrates that more criminals are black, . . .


Showing that more black people are in prisons only demonstrates that more blacks are convicted of crime, NOT that more criminals are black. I hope you don't say somewhere in this post that you use logic and excel at mathmatics. 



KittenKoder said:


> . . . not that the legal system is being prejudice.


If criminal behavior is not caused by race, yet blacks are convicted of crimes by a predominantly white justice sytem more often than chance can account for, then I'd say it certainly suggests some kind of racial bias. 



KittenKoder said:


> The only possible way to prove it would be to actually show it, thus show a lot of innocent black people in prisons wrongly accused.


Over 70% of death-row convictions overturned by DNA evidence are convictions of minority members. Seems like alot of wrongfully accused right there. Considering that ~75% of the nation is white, and ~12% of the nation is black.  Or is 70% not "alot" mathematically?



KittenKoder said:


> Thing is that so far the evidence has shown that to not be true.


Really? What kind of evidence do you need? MTV's "The Real World?"



KittenKoder said:


> Of those wrongfully convicted less than half are black (which again follows basic mathematics) . . .


Do you say this because the accused can be innocent OR guilty, black OR white, wrongfully convicted OR rightfully convicted . . . this suggests it should all be about 50/50 to you?

How about this: If having black skin has NOTHING to do with being a criminal, and having white skin has NOTHING to do with not being a criminal; and skin color has NOTHING to do with conviction rates or sentencing either, then how do you explain how the incarceration rate for black folks is over 6 times the incarceration rate for white folks, and the death penalty is applied to black folks at 4 times the rate it's applied to white folks, when white folks outnumber blacks (as you have pointed out you're aware) by over 6 to 1? How do you account for that, you mathematical fucking genius?



KittenKoder said:


> . . . and of those criminals still untried about 30% are black, but still only a third are white, which still follows the rule of odds accounting for all other races in the country.


Where did you get this magical statistic regarding criminals not convicted? _"Oh there's criminals out there, and 30% are black and 30% are white. All 50/50 like I've been saying."_



KittenKoder said:


> So, either you are only looking at a tiny portion of the data and excluding all other possible sources, or you are being dishonest to make someone else look bad (which has far worse implications).


Well, I'm certainly not looking at the made-up sources to make someone else look bad . . .



KittenKoder said:


> Which is it?


I don't accept your bullshit false dichotomy.



KittenKoder said:


> To get an accurate picture you must first travel a lot (I did that myself) then use logic (I only use logic) . . .


Oh really? Like this gem? _"Loki: Hmm ... so if blacks ARE still a minority then you expect all blacks to become police officers just so it's even? Or are you instead admitting that black people are no longer a minority and therefore no longer need that status for protection, thus instead the white people now need minority status and therefore we should be the ones to get the protection instead?"_​


KittenKoder said:


> . . . and finally grasp mathematics (which I excel at).


Yeah, like 6:1 = 1:1. ur math skillz rox0r.


----------



## LOki (Mar 22, 2009)

Yukon said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > The police forces in the US are comprised of predominantly white folks.
> ...


Oh? You know this? My people don't know what "whinning" is--your people know so much.



Yukon said:


> You are so pathetic, so sad, so sickening.


Not so pathetic, sad, or sickening as a racist.



Yukon said:


> You'll never be anything else.


Which means we won't be racist retards, which is just fine with us.



Yukon said:


> All of the bad things that happen to the Negro - the jails, the executions, the lack of eduaction, bad jobs, etc, etc - it's all the fault of good ole "Whitey" isn't it Mr Loki?


I'm not sure that negros are interested in your "eduaction", but no, I'm not saying any of this.



Yukon said:


> Grow up..................


Evolve.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 22, 2009)

Logical ... if there are enough black people to make up a larger portion of these jobs then there is no way they could be a minority ... logic. If they are no longer a minority then why haven't they taken the time to get jobs?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 22, 2009)

LOki said:


> Showing that more black people are in prisons only demonstrates that more blacks are convicted of crime, NOT that more criminals are black. I hope you don't say somewhere in this post that you use logic and excel at mathmatics.



Actually given the stark minority which black folks represent and the percentage which they represent in prison, says that more black folks which are convicted of crimes; which extends to 'more black folks are committing more crime than are white folks, as a percentage....'  It's not even debatable Loki.  

While the issue is not their skin pigment, the propensity for the black person to be engaged in criminal activity is a result of the ideas which those criminal black folks bring to their lives... meaning their IDEOLOGY tends towards their being more than willing to violate the rights of others... to satisfy their own would-be needs.  

Hmmm... not what ideology questions the existance of the rights of the individual who HAS SOMETHING be infringed to satisfy the NEEDS of those who have not?

Take your time.. you're a bright boy...  I know you can do it.


----------



## Yukon (Mar 22, 2009)

Mr Loki,

If it weren't for Affirnative Action do you really think anyone would hire you? If you think they would then I suggest you lobby your Government Rep to have AA abolished. 

I don't need laws passed to get a job, I get a job based on skill and I progress based on performance. Do you Mr Loki ????


----------



## LOki (Mar 23, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Showing that more black people are in prisons only demonstrates that more blacks are convicted of crime, NOT that more criminals are black. I hope you don't say somewhere in this post that you use logic and excel at mathmatics.
> ...


It is debatable, though I'm not particularly interested in engaging in that particular debate here, that is the point being made--in particular, I'm trying to illustrate for the retards that when engaged in that debate, the interpretations if the facts of the matter ARE NOT the facts of the matter.

For their benefit, and so you can catch up, I will reprise:





LOki said:


> And finally, you obtuse retard, now that you have all that in response to your nothing; so that you can finally catch up with what I was actually about--I didn't play the white racist justice sytem card because I subscribe to the notion that it's valid, but rather to illuminate for dumbfuck Yukon (and now dumbfuck you) that there's a distinct difference between the facts of a matter, and the interpretation of those facts--one is objective and the other is subjective--and the subjective interpretation of facts are NOT the fucking facts of the matter.
> 
> So, just so you and Yukon can get it absolutely clear in your pointy idiot's heads: The population of black folks in prison is NO INDICATION that black skin causes people to commit crimes or that black people commit more crime, but rather that black people are convicted of crime more often. And do not fucking make the mistake that I'm sure you're about to--the undisputed fact that the police, the prosecutors, the judges, the juries and the defenders that are involved in convicting more blacks of crimes than whites are white, is NO INDICATION that white skin causes racism, or that white people are more racist than black people, but rather that where racism exists, any amount of racism in a community that is so predominantly white as ours is going to bias conviction rates towards black folks.





PubliusInfinitum said:


> While the issue is not their skin pigment, the propensity for the black person to be engaged in criminal activity is a result of the ideas which those criminal black folks bring to their lives... meaning their IDEOLOGY tends towards their being more than willing to violate the rights of others... to satisfy their own would-be needs.
> 
> Hmmm... not what ideology questions the existance of the rights of the individual who HAS SOMETHING be infringed to satisfy the NEEDS of those who have not?
> 
> Take your time.. you're a bright boy...  I know you can do it.


Well Cupcake, considering how gifts, grants and/or endowments can be legitimately withheld, abridged and/or recinded, it would be ANY idiology that insists that rights are some kind of gift, grant and/or endowment; such that the rights of the individual who HAS SOMETHING can be legitimately infringed to satisfy the NEEDS of those who have not.


----------



## LOki (Mar 23, 2009)

Yukon said:


> If it weren't for Affirnative Action do you really think anyone would hire you?


Affirmative action had absolutely NOTHING to with why I have been hired for any job.



Yukon said:


> If you think they would then I suggest you lobby your Government Rep to have AA abolished.


FYI Retard, I have no problem with supporting the abolishment of institutionalized racism.



Yukon said:


> I don't need laws passed to get a job, . . .


You sure do; I know I wouldn't hire you unless forced to.



Yukon said:


> I get a job based on skill and I progress based on performance.


"Pity" does not mean "appreciation of skill and performance."



Yukon said:


> Do you Mr Loki ????


People seek my skill and expertise, and that is how I get and keep my job(s).

This is, of cousre, all beside your racist point that, for the purposes of this discussion, you would know me better if you knew what color my skin is--that you need to know the color of my skin; as if the color of my skin has ANY relationship to the validity of any point I make.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 23, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Mr Loki,
> 
> If it weren't for Affirnative Action do you really think anyone would hire you? If you think they would then I suggest you lobby your Government Rep to have AA abolished.
> 
> I don't need laws passed to get a job, I get a job based on skill and I progress based on performance. Do you Mr Loki ????



I'd hire Loki over you any day of the week, but then I have a strict policy of requiring employees to have three-digit IQs.


----------



## Eightball (Mar 23, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Loki,
> ...



You do understand that liberals can not, I repeat can not be rascist in any way.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 23, 2009)

Eightball said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



Nope.  I understand that liberals are incapable of understanding how completely ignorant and hypocritical and pompous they sound, though.  On the other hand, they're incapable of understanding the definition of the word "is", so it's not really surprising.  Higher concepts are clearly beyond them.


----------



## necritan (Mar 23, 2009)

Otter_Creek said:


> Russian SKS?



Yup....


----------



## BrianH (Mar 24, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlnZ8yq6wJA]YouTube - Glenn Beck & Wayne LaPierre ( NRA ) discuss gun control and the 2nd Amendment on March 18, 2009[/ame]


----------



## LiveUninhibited (Mar 24, 2009)

BrianH said:


> YouTube - Glenn Beck & Wayne LaPierre ( NRA ) discuss gun control and the 2nd Amendment on March 18, 2009



Women being concerned about restrictions of gun ownership for law-abiding citizens is only logical. Guns are the equalizer if somebody more physically powerful tries to victimize you, after all. The right to gun ownership empowers women in that sense.


----------



## Yukon (Mar 28, 2009)

LiveUninhibited said:


> Women being concerned about restrictions of gun ownership for law-abiding citizens is only logical. Guns are the equalizer if somebody more physically powerful tries to victimize you, after all. The right to gun ownership empowers women in that sense.



Madness....................


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 28, 2009)

Yukon said:


> LiveUninhibited said:
> 
> 
> > Women being concerned about restrictions of gun ownership for law-abiding citizens is only logical. Guns are the equalizer if somebody more physically powerful tries to victimize you, after all. The right to gun ownership empowers women in that sense.
> ...



Hmm ... seems you don't care about women either. Good to know.


----------



## Yukon (Mar 28, 2009)

KittenKodder,

You don't need a weapon nor do you need to worry about men coming near you.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 28, 2009)

Yukon said:


> KittenKodder,
> 
> You don't need a weapon nor do you need to worry about men coming near you.



An asshole like you wouldn't get close enough to find out, especially if I had a gun.


----------



## Yukon (Mar 28, 2009)

KittenKodder,

As stated earlier "you don't need a weapon".


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 28, 2009)

Yukon said:


> KittenKodder,
> 
> As stated earlier "you don't need a weapon".



However ... I have had training, something most people don't.


----------



## Yukon (Mar 28, 2009)

KittenKodder,

Why are you so homophobic....do they frighten you?


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 28, 2009)

Yukon said:


> KittenKodder,
> 
> Why are you so homophobic....do they frighten you?



What the fuck does that have to do with anything.  Quit hiding behind the fact that you can't logically defend your argument.  There is not one single good argument for banning guns, zip, zero, nada.  But if you're going to make a feabile attempt at it maybe try making an argument grounded in some logic.


----------



## TheNilvarg (Mar 28, 2009)

Woo yeah! Ban guns! Revocation of basic freedoms is the way to go!


----------



## Father Time (Mar 28, 2009)

Yukon said:


> LiveUninhibited said:
> 
> 
> > Women being concerned about restrictions of gun ownership for law-abiding citizens is only logical. Guns are the equalizer if somebody more physically powerful tries to victimize you, after all. The right to gun ownership empowers women in that sense.
> ...



Damnit you had to set me up didn't you

[youtube]eZeYVIWz99I[/youtube]


----------



## Yukon (Mar 29, 2009)

Every time some lunatic decides that the way of the gun is best, Americans try to figure out why. How could this happen in my neighborhood, my schools, and in my nice quiet "white" community? Only those uncivilized blacks in those urban areas should be killing each other. This doesn't happen to us "whities", does it? Yes it does happen to you, and it will continue to happen until you get some sensible gun legislation in your country.


----------



## Father Time (Mar 29, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Every time some lunatic decides that the way of the gun is best, Americans try to figure out why. How could this happen in my neighborhood, my schools, and in my nice quiet "white" community? Only those uncivilized blacks in those urban areas should be killing each other. This doesn't happen to us "whities", does it? Yes it does happen to you, and it will continue to happen until you get some sensible gun legislation in your country.



Then why are there school shootings in Europe where they have "sensible" gun regulation?


----------



## Yukon (Mar 29, 2009)

Old people slaughtered in a NC oldage home by a madman who was able to LEGALLY purchase a gun.........you dont need gun controls.....*NOT !*


----------



## Father Time (Mar 29, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Old people slaughtered in a NC oldage home by a madman who was able to LEGALLY purchase a gun.........you dont need gun controls.....*NOT !*



Kids slaughtered in a Japanese school by a kid with a knife, we should ban knives as well.

Kids slaughtered in a U.S. school by a man with explosives.

Mr. Boddy killed in the Study by a mad colonel with a rope.

Need I go on?


----------



## BrianH (Mar 29, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Old people slaughtered in a NC oldage home by a madman who was able to LEGALLY purchase a gun.........you dont need gun controls.....*NOT !*



Notice that all of these shooting occur in areas where guns are prohibited....schools, colleges, malls, etc.... hm....


----------



## AssHatZombie (Mar 29, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Every time some lunatic decides that the way of the gun is best, Americans try to figure out why. How could this happen in my neighborhood, my schools, and in my nice quiet "white" community? Only those uncivilized blacks in those urban areas should be killing each other. This doesn't happen to us "whities", does it? Yes it does happen to you, and it will continue to happen until you get some sensible gun legislation in your country.



guns = freedom


----------



## AFWife (Mar 29, 2009)

AssHatZombie said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Every time some lunatic decides that the way of the gun is best, Americans try to figure out why. How could this happen in my neighborhood, my schools, and in my nice quiet "white" community? Only those uncivilized blacks in those urban areas should be killing each other. This doesn't happen to us "whities", does it? Yes it does happen to you, and it will continue to happen until you get some sensible gun legislation in your country.
> ...



That's pretty much all that needs to be said.

I'd love to see someone come over and try to take ANY of my guns....or any of my neighbors. I swear I live in the most heavily armed neighborhood I've ever seen in my life.


----------



## LiveUninhibited (Mar 29, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Old people slaughtered in a NC oldage home by a madman who was able to LEGALLY purchase a gun.........you dont need gun controls.....*NOT !*



I'm sure the person who slaughtered them would have had enough respect for gun control laws to obey them... 

For that matter, do you really need a gun to kill feeble and weak people? Household items to make a bomb would have worked, or even a big knife. 

If somebody at the home had a gun, however...


----------



## AFWife (Mar 30, 2009)

LiveUninhibited said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Old people slaughtered in a NC oldage home by a madman who was able to LEGALLY purchase a gun.........you dont need gun controls.....*NOT !*
> ...



Perhaps I'm misinformed, but I was told this gunman used an AK-47, which is not a legal weapon you can walk into any Cabela's and purchase.  All the gun control laws in the world wouldn't have made any difference here.

Has it escaped anyone's attention that a majority of gun crimes are committed in "gun-free zones"?  I am ready for schools and churches and hospitals and other places to allow people with a CHL (i.e RESPONSIBLE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS) to carry.  Open carry has been proposed in Texas, and I can't wait for that to get passed.


----------



## Yukon (Mar 30, 2009)

How many Americans were murdered last week?


----------



## BrianH (Mar 30, 2009)

Yukon said:


> How many Americans were murdered last week?



by cars? knives? poison? scissors? bats? clubs? tools? guns?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 30, 2009)

Yukon said:


> How many Americans were murdered last week?



What's that got to do with anything?  Last time I checked, guns don't jump up and shoot people on their own, so what are you gong to do? Outlaw other people?


----------



## Yukon (Mar 30, 2009)

In the week of March 22 through March 29, 2009 755 Americans were murdered with guns - 116 Caucasian, 31 Asian, 85 Latinos, and 523 Negros.


----------



## johnrocks (Mar 30, 2009)

Black on black crime caused in large part to the insane War on <some> Drugs , guns are a by product of that madness,not the cause.


----------



## LiveUninhibited (Mar 30, 2009)

Yukon said:


> In the week of March 22 through March 29, 2009 755 Americans were murdered with guns - 116 Caucasian, 31 Asian, 85 Latinos, and 523 Negros.



It's irrelevant partly because you're erroneously assuming that we can prevent criminals from having access to guns. Consider the drug war. The government seizes tons of marijuana each year, yet most teens say they could get marijuana if they wanted to. Obviously we can't keep drugs out of a relatively free society even with force, so why would guns be any different? 

Yet with guns, you're actually doing damage by passing laws against them because the people who will be disarmed are those who respect the law. People who misuse guns do not follow the law and would, in fact, be emboldened by the knowledge that their victims are unlikely to be armed.


----------



## LOki (Mar 31, 2009)

Yukon said:


> In the week of March 22 through March 29, 2009 755 Americans were murdered with guns - 116 Caucasian, 31 Asian, 85 Latinos, and 523 Negros.


How many of those "murdered" were not themselves engaged in violating someone's rights in the course of being "murdered"? How many of those were unarmed?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 31, 2009)

Yukon said:


> In the week of March 22 through March 29, 2009 755 Americans were murdered with guns - 116 Caucasian, 31 Asian, 85 Latinos, and 523 Negros.



Again, so the hell what?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 31, 2009)

LiveUninhibited said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > In the week of March 22 through March 29, 2009 755 Americans were murdered with guns - 116 Caucasian, 31 Asian, 85 Latinos, and 523 Negros.
> ...



I think the problem is that he erroneously thinks the guns are the reason people get murdered, rather than merely the method.  As though it's the existence of guns themselves that makes people violent and homicidal.  If guns had never been invented, we'd all be peaceful hippie types, holding hands and wearing flowers, dontcha know.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 31, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> LiveUninhibited said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...

















We would be....


----------



## Yukon (Apr 1, 2009)

LOki said:


> .


How many of those "murdered" were not themselves engaged in violating someone's rights in the course of being "murdered"? *(523 were engaged in illegal activity)* How many of those were unarmed?(*116 were minding there own business)* [/QUOTE]


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 1, 2009)

Yukon said:


> It's time that Americans woke up, smelled the coffee and too their collective heads out of the sad. Be smart, be modern, wake up and REPEAL the 2ND AMENDMENT
> 
> The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths (murders, suicides and accidents) among the world's 36 richest nations!!


Compare the number of gun-lreated deaths in the US to the number of guns
Do this for all 36 of the countries you mention.
You'll see that the rate un the US is about the same as all of the other countries.


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 1, 2009)

Yukon said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


You are a fool with their head stuck so high in the clouds you cannot see reality at all.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 1, 2009)

Recently, a young man (21 or 22) stabbed his sister to death with a kitchen knife, then beheaded his 5 year old sister withe same knife.  A police officer kicked down the door as he was finishing the job.  He didn't "traditionally" behead her, but slit her throat with such verocity and might, that it beaded her.  He was shot while attempting to attack his third sister.  

a kitchen knife....  these sick and disgusting people will commiut their crimes with or without guns.  I don't have the link, but it was on CNN this morning.  I'm sure it's on the internet site as well.


----------



## Burp (Apr 1, 2009)

Five officers in a Boston suburb are on paid leave and receiving counseling for stress and trauma after responding to a disturbance call only to walk in on a man decapitating his 5-year-old sister, Bianca, with a kitchen knife, The Boston Globe reports.

The killer, 23-year-old Kerby Revelus, who had already stabbed another sister, 17-year-old Samantha, to death, then ran to another room and attacked a third sister, 9-year-old Saraphina.

Milton police officers shot and killed Revelus, then grabbed Saraphina and rushed her to the hospital, where she is recovering today from multiple stab wounds, the paper reports.

Neighbors told police that Revelus, who was unemployed after serving jail time, had been "talking crazy" in recent days. One neighbor told The Globe he had been speaking with Revelus only about 10 minutes before the attack on Saturday.

Police shaken by killings, beheading - On Deadline - USATODAY.com

I know.  Kitchen knives need to be banned.


----------



## Yukon (Apr 2, 2009)

In many US states guns are allowed anywhere...the 2DN rules !


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 2, 2009)

Yukon said:


> In many US states guns are allowed anywhere...the 2DN rules !


Really.
What state allows guns in liquor establishments?


----------



## Yukon (Apr 2, 2009)

M14 Shooter said:


> What state allows guns in liquor establishments?




The State of Intoxication?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 2, 2009)

Yukon said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > What state allows guns in liquor establishments?
> ...



And in your case, the State of Insanity.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 2, 2009)

Yukon said:


> In many US states guns are allowed anywhere...the 2DN rules !



Have you ever even BEEN to the US, or will they not let you across the border?

Any establishment has the right to refuse to allow its patrons to bring guns onto the property, Second Amendment or no, because the Constitution ALSO grants them property rights.  So every state has places that won't allow guns.  And that's aside from the fact that every state has laws prohibiting the possession of firearms in certain places.

Moron.


----------



## HideTheRum (Apr 3, 2009)

As per my much earlier post, WE must really need knife control.... Ok, maybe just Ireland........ for now. Then we need to make sure only certified contractors have a license to buy a hammer, and only baseball players have access to bats. Then we need to monitor who buys fencing and housing material, cause those could be used as weapons and kill ppl too. 
Really, the govt needs to micro-manage all of our actions cause we are too ignorant to take care of ourselves. Shit, we MAY get hurt!

Knife crime is now out of control, warns judge - National News, Frontpage - Independent.ie

Too many people have died from car accidents. we should ban cars and go back to horses.

Because passing laws that ban things are bullet proof. Pun most certainly intended.


----------



## Agnapostate (Apr 3, 2009)

It would be a welcome step if people were to move beyond selective incorporation of raw data to support their claims. In my opinion, gun prevalence itself is not a sufficient factor in crime levels to warrant gun bans or prohibitions. But we can analyze the effects of increased gun ownership on lethality as with Duggan's _More Guns, More Crime_, for instance, which focuses on the homicide rate.



> This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one&#8208;third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993.



This is due to the existence of a secondary market in the U.S. which circumvents licensing procedure.


----------



## Yukon (Apr 3, 2009)

BrianH said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




What about the State of Bliss ?


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 3, 2009)

Yukon said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



So you admit ignorance ... good for you.


----------



## 52ndStreet (Apr 4, 2009)

People  that advocate repealing the 2nd amendment need to go. More people get killed on America's 
Highways, than are killed by Guns.Guns don't kill , People Kill!!.


----------



## Yukon (Apr 4, 2009)

So property rights gives one the right to ban someone for having a gun...correct? Does it also give one the right to ban someone becuase they are black.....I don't think so. So much for "property rights".


----------



## 52ndStreet (Apr 4, 2009)

Yukon said:


> So property rights gives one the right to ban someone for having a gun...correct? Does it also give one the right to ban someone becuase they are black.....I don't think so. So much for "property rights".



Hitler and the Nazis also banned all the Guns as soon as they gained Power.And then they
proceeded to slaughter 6 Million unarmed Jews. I don't trust people advocating Gun bans or any form of Gun control. It leaves the masses unprotected from  Government Tyranny.


----------



## elvis (Apr 4, 2009)

52ndStreet said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > So property rights gives one the right to ban someone for having a gun...correct? Does it also give one the right to ban someone becuase they are black.....I don't think so. So much for "property rights".
> ...



agreed.


----------



## Yukon (Apr 4, 2009)

52ndstreet said:


> yukon said:
> 
> 
> > so property rights gives one the right to ban someone for having a gun...correct? Does it also give one the right to ban someone becuase they are black.....i don't think so. So much for "property rights".
> ...



*wow !!*


----------



## elvis (Apr 4, 2009)

Yukon said:


> 52ndstreet said:
> 
> 
> > yukon said:
> ...



are you turned on by those thoughts, pervert?


----------



## 52ndStreet (Apr 4, 2009)

Yukon said:


> 52ndstreet said:
> 
> 
> > yukon said:
> ...



Not "WoW" , Mr. Gun Ban freak, something for you to think about, not unless you are some 
weirdo , Neo Nazi white supremacist, trying to disarm the masses so your White supreamacist brothers can take over.?!?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 4, 2009)

52ndStreet said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > 52ndstreet said:
> ...



Should have known it was going to turn into a race thread with you posting.  There are other nations who have banned their citizens from owning guns...and these people aren't even close to being "white."


----------



## gezztoo (Apr 4, 2009)

We should use diplomacy and negotiation to insure that all people, good and bad, mean and gentle, voluntarily turn over their guns to the State.  That is the Obummer approach to targets of our "overseas contingency ops...no reason it won't work here at home.


----------



## pagankmck (Apr 4, 2009)

52ndStreet said:


> People  that advocate repealing the 2nd amendment need to go. More people get killed on America's
> Highways, than are killed by Guns.Guns don't kill , People Kill!!.



I don't worry about people who want to repeal the 2nd Amendment.   Amending the Constitution and repealing amendments to the Constitution are a part of the Constitution. I do not think repealing the 2nd Amendment would have enough support to fly anyway.  I worry about the people who want to just ignore the 2nd Amendment.  If you ignore the      2nd Amendment you can ignore any of the others.  Not a good thionmg.  But a word ofwarning to those of you focused on the 2nd Amendment.  If you ignore the 1st and the 4th Amendments it makes it easier to ignore the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 4, 2009)

pagankmck said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> > People  that advocate repealing the 2nd amendment need to go. More people get killed on America's
> ...



If you get rid of the Second Amendment by any means, you can totally ignore all of the others.


----------



## pagankmck (Apr 4, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> pagankmck said:
> 
> 
> > 52ndStreet said:
> ...



NOt necessarily.  THere are countries that do fine (according to their standards) the tightly control guns.  My concern is that we have a process by which we attend to legal matters.  We should follow that process.  That process has been outlined for us in the Constituion, the Constitution even has a process by which Americans can amend it. It's  not perfect but it's still pretty good system.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 4, 2009)

It's funny people equate guns with "rights". Then they blather on about how bad it is to take guns away, as if we accept that. Well, until you get some inbred dingleberry tweeker  point one in your general direction,  when you forget your snub nosed 88 mm anti-tank pistol in the glove compartment of the  gas guzzling SUV, then all this sophistic crap doesn't do you much good, does it? Here's a thought, maybe we don't need firearms in a civilized society. Maybe? Think? Is this another self perpetuating argument?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 4, 2009)

pagankmck said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > pagankmck said:
> ...



I didn't say WOULD ignore.  I said CAN.  Although I think your addition of "according to their standards" is very telling.  You'll notice that none of us are flocking to live in those countries.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 4, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> It's funny people equate guns with "rights". Then they blather on about how bad it is to take guns away, as if we accept that. Well, until you get some inbred dingleberry tweeker  point one in your general direction,  when you forget your snub nosed 88 mm anti-tank pistol in the glove compartment of the  gas guzzling SUV, then all this sophistic crap doesn't do you much good, does it? Here's a thought, maybe we don't need firearms in a civilized society. Maybe? Think? Is this another self perpetuating argument?



What makes you think humanity is all that civilized?  Or ever will be?


----------



## pagankmck (Apr 4, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> pagankmck said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Standards are subjective. And many of those people aren't flocking to our country either.  THe people who flock to our country are often doing so because of violence and oppression in their own countries.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 4, 2009)

pagankmck said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > pagankmck said:
> ...



Many of those people ARE flocking to our country, and not just because of violence and oppression (hey, how do you think THAT happens?).  Some of them are just flocking here because of unparalleled freedom and opportunity.

I think my point about the 2nd Amendment being the guarantor of all of the others is that it doesn't really matter if the government will respect the other rights without the threat of an armed populace to defend them.  What matters is that I don't want to have to count on the government to be benevolent, moral, and just in order to have my civil rights.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 4, 2009)

Civilized  folks support gun ownership? To combat other uncivilized people? Now,  there is an argument. It is a self supporting and a vicious cycle. Because, all those bad guys  get firearms just as easily, so this whole argument just becomes vicious cycle. Let's break that cycle. Firearms are not a necessity in a world of people that respect each other. Beside, name the last time ANY of you actually used a gun to defend yourself.  And  factor in how often a criminal uses a firearm to further their aims. We all know that the 2ND amendment was never meant to empower criminals, but that is what is happening, not honest citizens. Sorry, call em' as I see them.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 4, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Civilized  folks support gun ownership? To combat other uncivilized people? Now,  there is an argument. It is a self supporting and a vicious cycle. Because, all those bad guys  get firearms just as easily, so this whole argument just becomes vicious cycle. Let's break that cycle. Firearms are not a necessity in a world of people that respect each other. Beside, name the last time ANY of you actually used a gun to defend yourself.  And  factor in how often a criminal uses a firearm to further their aims. We all know that the 2ND amendment was never meant to empower criminals, but that is what is happening, not honest citizens. Sorry, call em' as I see them.



Yes, dear, civilized people support gun ownership to combat uncivilized people.  What else can you do with them? Ever try to negotiate with an armed mugger or rapist?  And by the way, how do you think civilization came about?  By people holding hands and singing "Kum Ba Yah"?  Hell, no.  You get true peace through strength.  The only peace you get without it is the peace of utter surrender and enslavement.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 4, 2009)

Have you,Cecile? What do you know about it? Please. Yes, I have, I  don't have a problem with guns, just assholes. Too many of them get guns, and you just aren't getting your head around that concept. Now, try harder. I mean that , try harder.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 4, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Have you,Cecile? What do you know about it? Please. Yes, I have, I  don't have a problem with guns, just assholes. Too many of them get guns, and you just aren't getting your head around that concept. Now, try harder. I mean that , try harder.



You're an idiot if you think I'm going to believe you successfully negotiated with an armed thug who wanted your money or worse.  The only "negotiation" you get there is, "Please, sir, take whatever you want", and we all know it, so don't try to bullshit.

And legal gun ownership isn't responsible for criminals getting guns, you dimwit.  You think they're running down to the local guns and ammo shop and filling out the license forms before knocking over that convenience store or shooting that old lady for her purse?  Wrap YOUR head around THIS concept:  criminals don't observe the law.  That's why we call them "criminals".

Now try harder.  I mean that.  Try fucking harder.


----------



## Burp (Apr 4, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> SW2SILVERQUASI said:
> 
> 
> > Have you,Cecile? What do you know about it? Please. Yes, I have, I  don't have a problem with guns, just assholes. Too many of them get guns, and you just aren't getting your head around that concept. Now, try harder. I mean that , try harder.
> ...



And even if you say, "take whatever you want," they will probably kill you anyway. 

Responsible people who arm themselves for protection aren't the ones to worry about.  It's the idiots, or as SW2 so eloquently said, the assholes who we need to protect ourselves from. 

If they are armed, and we aren't, all is lost.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 4, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Civilized  folks support gun ownership? To combat other uncivilized people? Now,  there is an argument. It is a self supporting and a vicious cycle. Because, all those bad guys  get firearms just as easily, so this whole argument just becomes vicious cycle. Let's break that cycle. Firearms are not a necessity in a world of people that respect each other. Beside, name the last time ANY of you actually used a gun to defend yourself.  And  factor in how often a criminal uses a firearm to further their aims. We all know that the 2ND amendment was never meant to empower criminals, but that is what is happening, not honest citizens. Sorry, call em' as I see them.



July, 1964.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 4, 2009)

You are such a sweet talker Cecille. You guys are really ....amazing. Truly. You read what ever you want into my posts,  don't you? Ever consider that.. (shock) I am perhaps  just like you? So, if you would, please answer my question instead of insulting. HAVE YOU ever used a firearm to defend yourself? Skip the crap, please. Answer the bloody question if you have an ounce of integrity. Yes, or no, no bullshit.


----------



## Burp (Apr 4, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> You are such a sweet talker Cecille. You guys are really ....amazing. Truly. You read what ever you want into my posts,  don't you? Ever consider that.. (shock) I am perhaps  just like you? So, if you would, please answer my question instead of insulting. HAVE YOU ever used a firearm to defend yourself? Skip the crap, please. Answer the bloody question if you have an ounce of integrity. Yes, or no, no bullshit.



I'm just curious.  What difference does it make if she has or hasn't?  

There are many people who have?  Old Rocks for one.  

I know people who have.  I personally haven't and hope I never have to.  But I have a permit and carry in case I have to.  

I don't see what different it makes as it pertains to the discussion.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 4, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> You are such a sweet talker Cecille. You guys are really ....amazing. Truly. You read what ever you want into my posts,  don't you? Ever consider that.. (shock) I am perhaps  just like you? So, if you would, please answer my question instead of insulting. HAVE YOU ever used a firearm to defend yourself? Skip the crap, please. Answer the bloody question if you have an ounce of integrity. Yes, or no, no bullshit.



Not that it's any of your business, but yes.  I have also been the victim of a crime when I didn't have a gun to defend myself, and was very lucky to survive.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 4, 2009)

Burp said:


> SW2SILVERQUASI said:
> 
> 
> > You are such a sweet talker Cecille. You guys are really ....amazing. Truly. You read what ever you want into my posts,  don't you? Ever consider that.. (shock) I am perhaps  just like you? So, if you would, please answer my question instead of insulting. HAVE YOU ever used a firearm to defend yourself? Skip the crap, please. Answer the bloody question if you have an ounce of integrity. Yes, or no, no bullshit.
> ...



I did not have to pull the trigger, but had the safety off, and was aimed. Had I not had the shotgun, I do not believe I would be alive today. I am a gun owner, but this thing of putting guns on pedestals is getting to me. We should have some strong laws to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics. That we have ineffective laws and enforcement is obvious, given the five slaughters that we have seen in less than a month.

As stated, I am a gun owner, but those that oppose any kind of controls on who owns guns are creating a situation where the majority of the American People may well decide that my right to responsible gun ownership is more of a danger to them than gun control laws.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 4, 2009)

Cecilie, we are lucky too have you here, then. You are right, it's none of my  buisness. Well, Ditto, I am here because  of fate, god's will or random chance. A gun figures into this, in my case, anyway.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 4, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Cecilie, we are lucky too have you here, then. You are right, it's none of my  buisness. Well, Ditto, I am here because  of fate, god's will or random chance. A gun figures into this, in my case, anyway.



I consider being here because of a gun I used to be MY will, not God's or fate's.  Neither of THEM bought the gun or used it.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 4, 2009)

My father, he had one of those old M-1  carbines, those Garands. yep, that is what he did, he had a gun to defend freedom. He was wounded, received a PURPLE HEART. A hero of the great war.  Well he also had a heck of case of post traumatic stress syndrome.      . Another victim of the great war  , he ended up trying to shoot his son, a  innocent pawn that tried to do the right thing, that hated the scourge of alcohol and the shithead his father became. His son,  tried  to help him in he only way he could. I never understood the old man in  1971. He almost shot my ass. Well, since then I almost (key word, ALMOST)  got capped by mistaken figures TWICE and I don't have much love for the second Amendment crap anymore because it's just that, CRAP.  It is crap. It is a delusion. plain pure and simple.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 4, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> My father, he had one of those old M-1  carbines, those Garands. yep, that is what he did, he had a gun to defend freedom. He was wounded, received a PURPLE HEART. A hero of the great war.  Well he also had a heck of case of post traumatic stress syndrome.      . Another victim of the great war  , he ended up trying to shoot his son, a  innocent pawn that tried to do the right thing, that hated the scourge of alcohol and the shithead his father became. His son,  tried  to help him in he only way he could. I never understood the old man in  1971. He almost shot my ass. Well, since then I almost (key word, ALMOST)  got capped by mistaken figures TWICE and I don't have much love for the second Amendment crap anymore because it's just that, CRAP.  It is crap. It is a delusion. plain pure and simple.



So you're blaming the Second Amendment and its defenders because your family didn't take care of its business?  It's OUR fault that you and/or your mother didn't get him some help, have him institutionalized, or at least take his fucking gun away?  We've all got to face the thugs of the world unarmed because you can't handle your personal business?

Get some therapy and learn to stop projecting your guilt onto everyone else.


----------



## Burp (Apr 4, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> My father, he had one of those old M-1  carbines, those Garands. yep, that is what he did, he had a gun to defend freedom. He was wounded, received a PURPLE HEART. A hero of the great war.  Well he also had a heck of case of post traumatic stress syndrome.      . Another victim of the great war  , he ended up trying to shoot his son, a  innocent pawn that tried to do the right thing, that hated the scourge of alcohol and the shithead his father became. His son,  tried  to help him in he only way he could. I never understood the old man in  1971. He almost shot my ass. Well, since then I almost (key word, ALMOST)  got capped by mistaken figures TWICE and I don't have much love for the second Amendment crap anymore because it's just that, CRAP.  It is crap. It is a delusion. plain pure and simple.



I'm very sorry this happened.

I have to say though - the gun didn't do all this.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 4, 2009)

You are MY family, BURP.


----------



## pagankmck (Apr 4, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> pagankmck said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I work with Refugees and Immigrants on Crime Prevention issues.  THe people who flock to this country are coming from areas of Oppression and violence, some come here for the economic oppurtunities, some come here because their families are here.  Many of them come here against their will.  Europeans (from western Europe), Canadians, Australians, Kiwis and others from first world countries  are not flocking here.  There are some coming over here.  There are some of us going over there.  Many of these countries have much stricter laws than we do.  They are happy. Each to his own.


----------



## pagankmck (Apr 4, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> SW2SILVERQUASI said:
> 
> 
> > Have you,Cecile? What do you know about it? Please. Yes, I have, I  don't have a problem with guns, just assholes. Too many of them get guns, and you just aren't getting your head around that concept. Now, try harder. I mean that , try harder.
> ...



If someone tries to rob you you give them what they want.  Unless you know what you are doing with a gun you are likely to hurt yourself.  Travel light so you don't lose that much and then call the cops.  It best to avoid the problem in the first place so if you know an area has problems don't go there, at least not by yourself.

And by the way I have had a gun pointed at me.  I was backing my car out of parking spot.  At the time I had a 1973 Chevy Caprice.  A very big car. It moved slowly.  As I was moving the car out of the spot I blocked another car driving very quickly down the street I lived on.  A woman jumped out of the car pointed a gun at me and said move "your fucking car".  I moved my car.  But I got the license plate and I called the cops.  Hell, even the drug dealers who lived next door to me thought I should call the cops and gave me the name of the woman.  THe cops came and impounded the car. Unfortunately, the cops did not arrest the woman who pointed the gun at me.  They didn't provide me with an incident number.  I contacted the Community Police Team office in my neighborhood and she could not track the case down.


----------



## Burp (Apr 4, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> You are MY family, BURP.



Sorry, I'm pretty quick and all, but you lost me on this one.


----------



## Agnapostate (Apr 4, 2009)

I see we've decided to focus on anecdotal speculation rather than empirical evidence. So be it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 4, 2009)

pagankmck said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > SW2SILVERQUASI said:
> ...



Why in the hell would anyone own a gun and not know what they're doing with it?  That's like buying a stove and not bothering to figure out what the little knobs do.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 4, 2009)

Peganmack. I wish you well. But a gun didn't help you then and sure as shit won't help anyone now. Side  note. Why is it all these  wonderful Conservatives  side with gun toting criminals, because of the 2ND amendment ? Criminals like the second amendment too. They depend  on all those loud mouthed Conservatives to support them. You guys like gun toting criminals THAT much? it seems that way .


----------



## Burp (Apr 4, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Peganmack. I wish you well. But a gun didn't help you then and sure as shit won't help anyone now. Side  note. Why is it all these  wonderful Conservatives  side with gun toting criminals, because of the 2ND amendment ? Criminals like the second amendment too. They depend  on all those loud mouthed Conservatives to support them. You guys like gun toting criminals THAT much? it seems that way .



You missed it on this one. 

The criminals will always have guns. 

The pro-gun people just want to equal the playing field - legally.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 4, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Peganmack. I wish you well. But a gun didn't help you then and sure as shit won't help anyone now. Side  note. Why is it all these  wonderful Conservatives  side with gun toting criminals, because of the 2ND amendment ? Criminals like the second amendment too. They depend  on all those loud mouthed Conservatives to support them. You guys like gun toting criminals THAT much? it seems that way .



Who's siding with criminals, you ignorant schmuck?  We believe in the right to bear arms to COMBAT criminals.  No one here has supported the right of criminals to own guns, you putz.  And criminals don't depend on conservatives to "support" them, because they aren't paying attention to gun control laws, anyway.  They are actually depending on LIBERALS to support them by taking guns out of the hands of their potential victims so they can't fight back.

Get some frigging help and quit blaming everyone else because your father was a nut and you let him get away with it.  That's YOUR issue, not ours, and this is NOT your group therapy session.  Stop spewing on us.


----------



## pagankmck (Apr 4, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> pagankmck said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



That is a good question.  But they do.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 4, 2009)

pagankmck said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > SW2SILVERQUASI said:
> ...



Oh, by the way.  As a woman, the thing that armed thug might want to steal from me may be something I'm not willing to "give him and then call the cops", all right?  So you'll excuse me if I choose to fight back instead of being a victim.


----------



## pagankmck (Apr 4, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Peganmack. I wish you well. But a gun didn't help you then and sure as shit won't help anyone now. Side  note. Why is it all these  wonderful Conservatives  side with gun toting criminals, because of the 2ND amendment ? Criminals like the second amendment too. They depend  on all those loud mouthed Conservatives to support them. You guys like gun toting criminals THAT much? it seems that way .



I never claimed a gun did help me.  But, in my line of work, I have dealt with a lot of situations with the potential of violence and I have dealt with the aftermath of violent action.  I will repeat, if someone points a gun at you the best thing to do is give them what they want and carry as little of value with you as possible.

Conservatives do not take the side of gun toting criminals.  They just do not think that the  solution to dealing with crimes involving crime is solved by outlawing guns.  THat is not my concern.  My concern is a Constitutional one.  The Constitution protects gun ownership.  The recent Supreme court  on gun ownership in DC ruling solidifies this position.  

Where I get frustrated with Conservatives is the fact that they don't seem to have a problem with Bush's Warrantless wiretaps, another clear violation of the Constitution.


----------



## pagankmck (Apr 4, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> pagankmck said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



As a woman, I can understand your concern.  But if you don't know what you are doing, that gun may be taken from you.  Have you ever been in a position of pointing a gun at someone?  

I do a lot of personal safety trainings.  If someone comes after you we often tell people to make a lot of noise.  We also tell people if they are going to use personal safety devices train with them.  Many women carry pepper spray.  When they have been accosted they tried to use the pepper spray and it has been taken from them or the wind has blown the spray back into their face.


----------



## Agnapostate (Apr 4, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, by the way.  As a woman, the thing that armed thug might want to steal from me may be something I'm not willing to "give him and then call the cops", all right?  So you'll excuse me if I choose to fight back instead of being a victim.



O RLY? Let's see what Felson and Krohn have to say about that in _Motives for Rape_.



> We develop a socio-sexual model and a punishment model of rape, borrowing from the theoretical literature on other forms of violence. Preliminary tests of these models are performed using victimization data from the National Crime Survey. *In support of the socio-sexual model, younger women are more likely to be raped than older women during a robbery, suggesting a preference for younger women even when opportunity is controlled.* In addition, nonstrategic violence is less likely during rapes involving younger offenders and victims, suggesting that these crimes are more likely to be sexually motivated. There is also evidence for the punishment model: Injury is more likely when the offender and victim are an estranged couple, suggesting that some men use rape and violence during rape to punish the victim for some grievance. Further, in contrast to robbery, offenders with weapons are more likely to injure victims, suggesting the nonstrategic use of violence.



Try again, dear.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 4, 2009)

I want guns out of the hands of criminals. You ? Who is the  schmuck  here? Guns are immaterial. It's about something else.Apparently, some of you don't , cant or won't ever get it. I  don't pity you. It's easier to cast  aspersions than to use a gun .Apparently, some of you don't , cant or won't ever get it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 4, 2009)

pagankmck said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > pagankmck said:
> ...



Really?  Prove that this is even vaguely widespread or remotely common, please.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 4, 2009)

pagankmck said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > pagankmck said:
> ...



The nice thing about a gun is that the bullet doesn't blow back in your face.  And you are far more likely to come out of the situation successfully than you are to have your gun taken from you.  Guns are used millions of times every year in this country to foil crimes, usually without even firing them.  By contrast, it is quite rare for a potential victim who is armed to be disarmed and have his own weapon used against him.

I'll stick with the odds, thanks.  And I prefer to go with defending myself, rather than relying on someone else to rescue me via "making lots of noise".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 4, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> I want guns out of the hands of criminals. You ? Who is the  schmuck  here? Guns are immaterial. It's about something else.Apparently, some of you don't , cant or won't ever get it. I  don't pity you. It's easier to cast  aspersions than to use a gun .Apparently, some of you don't , cant or won't ever get it.



Everyone wants guns out of the hands of criminals, except the criminals.  The difference is, I don't think that laws controlling legal gun ownership will accomplish that, since I know they don't own them legally, anyway.  So that would make YOU the schmuck.

I get it.  You need industrial-strength therapy to deal with the fact that your daddy was an insane asshole, your mother was an ineffectual wimp, and you'd rather blame an inanimate object than deal with your childhood trauma.

I don't have time to play Dr. Freud here.  You're dismissed until you deal with your issues.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 4, 2009)

When is the last time YOU wre robbed at gunpoint, Cecllie? What do you actualy know about this..Hmm?


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 5, 2009)

Adios, amigos, I am outa here . As if anyone cares or anything like that. Bye bye.


----------



## eots (Apr 5, 2009)

bye-bye..



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67qQDLLlLJ8]YouTube - Teaching kids to safely shoot a submachine gun[/ame]


----------



## pagankmck (Apr 5, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> pagankmck said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



According to the Center for Disease Control  28, 685 people died due to firearm violence in 2004, throughout the USA.  Of those deaths 229 were justifiable homicides by armed civilians (fire arms and other weapons) according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2004. (page 24 of the PDF).  If you only count firearms that number is 170.  Of that number 139 of the guns were handguns, 14 rifles, 7 shotguns, 10 unspecified firearms.

You are more likely to suffer violence from someone you know.  And as a woman you are statistically more likely to be killed by your husband or boyfriend then by a stranger. YOu are also more likely to be raped by an acquaintance  then by a stranger. 

Young Men between the ages of 15 to 25 are most likely to be victims of crime.  They are also most likely to be the perpetrators of crime.


----------



## eots (Apr 5, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLEqdGxS2xc]YouTube - full metal jacket war face this is my rifle this is my gun[/ame]


----------



## Meister (Apr 5, 2009)

pagankmck said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > pagankmck said:
> ...




Looking at your numbers...I would say that having a firearms has paid off for the civilians.  I sure am glad that we have the 2nd Amendment to protect our rights.  The criminals will always have the guns.
FYI...The second Amendment was set up for civilians to defend themselves from no other than our own government.  Our founding Fathers were far smarter than anyone in government today.  They had the insight to foresee what the capablities of what our government could do in the future.


----------



## Yukon (Apr 5, 2009)

Your founding fathers were old men living in a different time. The same type of people used to remove blood from a person who had high-blood pressure. I guess that was correct too?


----------



## Meister (Apr 5, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Your founding fathers were old men living in a different time. The same type of people used to remove blood from a person who had high-blood pressure. I guess that was correct too?




understanding science and understanding government are two completely unrelated subjects...idiot.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 5, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Your founding fathers were old men living in a different time. The same type of people used to remove blood from a person who had high-blood pressure. I guess that was correct too?



That's why modern technology cannot create Greek fire???  Cause those Greeks were old stupid people living in a different time?  Don't discredit wisdom and inginuity because it was in a different time.  

The founding fathers new more about government and how it should be run than anyone "running" our government today.  They'd seen, first-hand, what a government with too much power could do.  History proves that a decrease(banning) of firearms does not equal a decrease in crime.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 5, 2009)

pagankmck said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > pagankmck said:
> ...



You know why young men are more likely to be victims of violent crime?  Because they're more likely to be violent themselves.  They're more likely to be gang members, drug dealers, criminals of every stripe.

Be that as it may, you might want to learn to read statistics a little better.  While it is true that statistics such as the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports say that people are more likely to suffer violence from "someone they know", what does that actually mean?  "Murderers who know their victims" is a huge category, encompassing categories like rival gang members who, obviously, are acquainted with each other.  And in larger urban areas, where most murders occur, the majority of murders ARE gang-related.  Funny, that.

So you'll excuse me if, statistics aside, I'm more concerned about protecting myself from people who aren't my husband.    And should HE happen to take it into his head to try to hurt me, well, then I'll shoot him, too.  (I also notice that you neglected to cite any source for these statistics, or to cite how many women are raped every year in general in your rush to assure us that women don't need to carry guns to protect themselves from rapists.)

By the way, did you know that the Dept. of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey shows that people who resist assault using a gun are injured 3.6% of the time, as opposed to 5.4% of those who run away, 12.6% of those who screamed or made noise, 13.6% of those who threatened the attacker without a gun, and 55/2% of those who offered no resistance?  Thanks for recommending the path that's most likely to get me hurt.  I appreciate that.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 5, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Your founding fathers were old men living in a different time. The same type of people used to remove blood from a person who had high-blood pressure. I guess that was correct too?



You're a halfwit living in a different country.  Guess who I'm more likely to listen to?


----------



## Yukon (Apr 5, 2009)

It can be argued that your 'founding fathers' were in fact traitors to their country - Great Britain.


----------



## pagankmck (Apr 5, 2009)

Meister said:


> pagankmck said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I would not come to that conclusion about those numbers.  Out of all of the shootings that occured in 2004, only 170 of them were justifiable homocides (The 229 reflects all justifiable homicides by any means).  I don't think that number supports the notion that guns will keep you safe.  

I did not include the number of accidental shootings or suicides.  Which can be found with a little work.  There are many people who have guns who do not know what to do with them or how to handle them, or how to secure them.  Those people should either learn what to do with those guns or get rid of them.   People bent on committing suicide will do it one way or the other.  They need professional mental health assistance to deal with their depression.  

As a crime prevention specialist, I do not buy the argument that guns make good crime prevention.  It is better to look towards things like Crime Prevention therough Environmental Design and Risk and protective factors that lead to crime.  Getting old is also a good way of preventing crime.  As people get older they are less likely to commit a crime.

However, I do not buy the notion that we should ban guns, either.  It's in the Constitution.  Parts of the Constitution should not be ignored.  I do not think that there is support for repealing the 2nd amendment.  

I grew up in a home with guns in it.  My father is a charter member of the NRA.  My brother is a lifetime member of the NRA.  I don't understand their fascination with guns.  But it doesn't frighten me either.


----------



## Meister (Apr 5, 2009)

pagankmck said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > pagankmck said:
> ...



I really could care less what your conclusion is with those numbers, Pagen.  I really don't care what you think of my conclusion is either.  There were 170 civilians saved by the gun.  
I just wonder how many crimes were diverted because of the possiblity have a civilian having a gun???  Hard to put a number on it.  But, the NRA magazine used to show numbers that reflected that specific topic.


----------



## Yukon (Apr 5, 2009)

Guns are designed to KILL. Why would anyone want to own a gun and NOT use it for its designed purpose?


----------



## Father Time (Apr 5, 2009)

Yukon said:


> It can be argued that your 'founding fathers' were in fact traitors to their country - Great Britain.



Why yes and they made it clear to George exactly why they were rebelling against him, it was government overstepping its bounds, and wouldn't you know it they were also trying to take guns away from them.


----------



## manu1959 (Apr 5, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Guns are designed to KILL. Why would anyone want to own a gun and NOT use it for its designed purpose?



display......target shooting.....


----------



## Father Time (Apr 5, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Guns are designed to KILL. Why would anyone want to own a gun and NOT use it for its designed purpose?



As an insurance in case of criminals, also shooting galleries where you shoot at it inanimate objects.


----------



## manu1959 (Apr 5, 2009)

Father Time said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > It can be argued that your 'founding fathers' were in fact traitors to their country - Great Britain.
> ...



you forgot religous persecution....


----------



## pagankmck (Apr 5, 2009)

Meister said:


> pagankmck said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



The NRA is not an objective source, anymore than the Anti-gun violence folks are.  They both have axes to grind.


----------



## pagankmck (Apr 5, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Guns are designed to KILL. Why would anyone want to own a gun and NOT use it for its designed purpose?




My father who owns many guns, hunts.  Well that is killing.  But he also enjoys target practice.    He has never shot another person.

Do you have a problem with hunting?  Are you a vegetarian?  Do you have a problem with going out on a range for target practice?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 5, 2009)

pagankmck said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > pagankmck said:
> ...



Of course you don't, because you keep deliberately ignoring the fact that MOST times that a gun is used to prevent a crime, the gun isn't discharged at all.  I think this is the third time you've avoided addressing that, which tells me you're dishonest.



pagankmck said:


> I did not include the number of accidental shootings or suicides.  Which can be found with a little work.



Why would you?



pagankmck said:


> There are many people who have guns who do not know what to do with them or how to handle them, or how to secure them.  Those people should either learn what to do with those guns or get rid of them.   People bent on committing suicide will do it one way or the other.  They need professional mental health assistance to deal with their depression.



I believe I asked you earlier to prove that this is any kind of significant problem, and I'm pretty sure I didn't mean "ignore it for a couple of posts, and then simply restate it as established fact without an iota of substantiation" when I did.  So either cough it up, or stop bringing it up.



pagankmck said:


> As a crime prevention specialist, I do not buy the argument that guns make good crime prevention.



I wasn't selling it.  I was citing facts, which you apparently can only "refute" by saying, "Well, I'm an expert, and I don't agree."  That and five bucks'll buy you a cup of coffee.



pagankmck said:


> It is better to look towards things like Crime Prevention therough Environmental Design and Risk and protective factors that lead to crime.  Getting old is also a good way of preventing crime.  As people get older they are less likely to commit a crime.



Better based on what?  And oh, hey.  I just LOVE your advice of "Just survive longer, and your odds of survival will go up."  That's the pithiest piece of utterly useless, bullshit advice I have ever been given in my life.  You might as well tell me that the secret to a long life is not dying.



pagankmck said:


> However, I do not buy the notion that we should ban guns, either.  It's in the Constitution.  Parts of the Constitution should not be ignored.  I do not think that there is support for repealing the 2nd amendment.



Well, how generous of you, particularly since you have squat in the way of evidence that they aren't useful.



pagankmck said:


> I grew up in a home with guns in it.  My father is a charter member of the NRA.  My brother is a lifetime member of the NRA.  I don't understand their fascination with guns.  But it doesn't frighten me either.



Didn't ask, don't care, I'll call you when I feel the urge to write your biography.


----------



## Yukon (Apr 5, 2009)

Pagan,

No problem with hunting or target shooting at all. I have a problem with PISTOLS !


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 5, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Guns are designed to KILL. Why would anyone want to own a gun and NOT use it for its designed purpose?



Maybe that's why you keep finding targets painted on your t-shirts.  But hey, can't blame your mother for trying.


----------



## Burp (Apr 5, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Pagan,
> 
> No problem with hunting or target shooting at all. I have a problem with PISTOLS !



Show me numbers that indicate how many deaths have been caused by pistols.


----------



## Otter_Creek (Apr 5, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Pagan,
> 
> No problem with hunting or target shooting at all. I have a problem with PISTOLS !



Most of the (I lost count) wild hogs I've shot on our land were shot with a pistol.
Dozens of poisonous snakes have been removed too, so my grandchildren have a safe place to play and learn.

Any more stupid things you'd like to spew?


----------



## pagankmck (Apr 5, 2009)

Otter_Creek said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Pagan,
> ...



People, often target shoot with pistols.  And I think some people view pistols (as well as other fire arms) as art (the shape the form the history)

Speaking of hogs, I am hungry, I am off to get food before I respond to the rest of the posts.


----------



## Otter_Creek (Apr 5, 2009)

pagankmck said:


> Otter_Creek said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



Yes, Target shooting is a lot of fun. IMO more people should take a safety class and give it a try.
We used to target shoot here a lot, then the kids grew up and left me no shooting buddys, Except my wife and she just practices each year before she has to re-qualify for her work.
Got a while to go before the grandkids will be old enough to shoot.


----------



## necritan (Apr 5, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > SW2SILVERQUASI said:
> ...



How do you establish who is a friggin lunatic or criminal?? If their background check pops up as them being a felonious violent criminal....one has to ask themself..."Has the justice system fucked me??" .

Why are known criminals allowed to walk amongst us??? That is the real problem.


----------



## necritan (Apr 5, 2009)

pagankmck said:


> Where I get frustrated with Conservatives is the fact that they don't seem to have a problem with Bush's Warrantless wiretaps, another clear violation of the Constitution.



Real conservatives do have a problem with that. Neo-cons don't.


----------



## necritan (Apr 5, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Pagan,
> 
> No problem with hunting or target shooting at all. I have a problem with PISTOLS !



What if I want to hunt with a MP-5???


----------



## necritan (Apr 5, 2009)

Burp said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Pagan,
> ...




Handguns are the leading firearms related killer in the USA.....and for good reason too. They are easily concealable...they are effective in close quarters...and they operate well in a retention situation as well.

I love handguns.....


----------



## necritan (Apr 5, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> My father, he had one of those old M-1  carbines, those Garands.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## BrianH (Apr 6, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Guns are designed to KILL. Why would anyone want to own a gun and NOT use it for its designed purpose?



Sure, but you can kill a deer for food.  So you're right.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 6, 2009)

You can kill a deer for food. Yes, there's a thought. Yep, all those supermarkets, all this abundance of food, we gotta trek out into into the wilderness and shoot Bambi  instead. That's  a powerful argument for guns. I have  bullet lodged in my garage, another in my roof. Now, I doubt the numb nuts that put them there even have the slightest idea what the fudge  the constitution is, let alone the second amendment. But, they got firearms, though.  I like guns. I don't like people that much, especially all you intelligent ones that rationalize being irrational, plus we get all that nifty gun porn. You guys are  intelligent, I must say. And particularly adept  at self delusion.  But as far as the second amendment goes, it's a antique and we don't need firearms anymore, this isn't the frontier and the redcoats are LONG gone.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 6, 2009)

Nectarian: my dear old pop fought in WWII and was wounded, he got a honorable discharge and  received a a purple heart. His brother, My Uncle, was killed in the pacific. I understand we need to arm ourselves against foreign threats, but domestically, the criminals have firearms and I don't think arming EVERYONE is going to stop crime. I wish it was that simple. I think of Bernard Madof, he stole billions with nothing more than pen or the click of a mouse. Guns don't  stop criminal like that, do they?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 6, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> You can kill a deer for food. Yes, there's a thought. Yep, all those supermarkets, all this abundance of food, we gotta trek out into into the wilderness and shoot Bambi  instead. That's  a powerful argument for guns. I have  bullet lodged in my garage, another in my roof. Now, I doubt the numb nuts that put them there even have the slightest idea what the fudge  the constitution is, let alone the second amendment. But, they got firearms, though.  I like guns. I don't like people that much, especially all you intelligent ones that rationalize being irrational, plus we get all that nifty gun porn. You guys are  intelligent, I must say. And particularly adept  at self delusion.  But as far as the second amendment goes, it's a antique and we don't need firearms anymore, this isn't the frontier and the redcoats are LONG gone.



Bambi??  Really?  You think all the deer are named Bambi?  You must be a city boy.

As far as a bullet lodged in your garage, it's a good thing the asshole that fired the gun didn't come into your house and "lodge" the bullet into your chest, or into a member of your family.  We'll see how you feel about "not needing guns" when someone threatens your life in your home.  

I use my guns for recreational shooting mostly.  I hunt and target shoot every now and then.  I have do have a firearm for personal protection, but thankfully, I've never had to use it.

The fact is, banning guns will not work.  Banning drugs has not worked.  Criminal will acquire firearms whether they are banned or not.


----------



## FoxDog (Apr 6, 2009)

Yes and how about i wait in line for twenty years waiting in line for a kidney even while i have enough money for the procedure and a doner i cant cus i have to wait in line eh? fuck you 
besides your not even looking into why Second Ammendment was put in so that the people could control the goverment or do you want to live in china? your an ignorant ass that doesnt know what the meaning of the idea of "long term" is, so if you want to deal with all these violent crimes start a war or maybe simply promote a better cultural atmosphere with more respect for echother not take away another right k?


----------



## Seraega (Apr 6, 2009)

necritan said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Burp said:
> ...


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 6, 2009)

Banning guns won't work? What is that based on? Please. I live near Columbine HS. It's kind of a hollow and empty question. We won't ever know will we?


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 6, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Banning guns won't work? What is that based on? Please. I live near Columbine HS. It's kind of a hollow and empty question. We won't ever know will we?



Without going into detail: because then only criminals and cops would have them ... period. Bad idea, there are many more reasons but that's the biggest one. It would be like a city with gang problems nation wide.


----------



## manu1959 (Apr 6, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Banning guns won't work? What is that based on? Please. I live near Columbine HS. It's kind of a hollow and empty question. We won't ever know will we?



didn't they ban guns in dc......


----------



## Yukon (Apr 6, 2009)

DC is populated by non-caucasian people who tend to be more criminally inclined. Guns had to be banned in DC for that reason. However, banning guns in every jurisdiction would virtually eliminate homicide. The crime rate dropped dramatically in DC for two reasons:

1. Banning guns - fewer guns available to non-caucasian people.
2. Legalized abortion - fewer criminals being born


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 6, 2009)

Before we knock banning guns, lets do it and see what happens. Given the current alternative, what do we have to lose? Oh, I am 100% American. Not a Canuck. I like Canadians, though,  they mean well. God love em', anyway. They care that much to create this thread after all, then it shows they care, I wish us yanks  would show that same concern.


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 6, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Before we knock banning guns, lets do it and see what happens. Given the current alternative, what do we have to lose? Oh, I am 100% American. Not a Canuck. I like Canadians, though,  they mean well. God love em', anyway. They care that much to create this thread after all, then it shows they care, I wish us yanks  would show that same concern.



That kind of social experiment is a huge mistake, even if we couldn't see that the risks of such an experiment would make it inhumane to perform.


----------



## Burp (Apr 6, 2009)

Yukon said:


> 2. Legalized abortion - fewer criminals being born



Have you read Freakonomics?


----------



## necritan (Apr 6, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Banning guns won't work? What is that based on? Please. I live near Columbine HS. It's kind of a hollow and empty question. We won't ever know will we?



Arent schools gun free zones...???


----------



## Burp (Apr 6, 2009)

necritan said:


> SW2SILVERQUASI said:
> 
> 
> > Banning guns won't work? What is that based on? Please. I live near Columbine HS. It's kind of a hollow and empty question. We won't ever know will we?
> ...



They are. 

And we know how everyone follows the rules.


----------



## necritan (Apr 6, 2009)

Seraega said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


----------



## Father Time (Apr 6, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Before we knock banning guns, lets do it and see what happens. Given the current alternative, what do we have to lose? Oh, I am 100% American. Not a Canuck. I like Canadians, though,  they mean well. God love em', anyway. They care that much to create this thread after all, then it shows they care, I wish us yanks  would show that same concern.



We should never ban anything just to see what happens. Peoples rights and freedoms should not be taken away that easily.

Other nations have banned guns. D.C. has banned guns and they had a spike in crime.


----------



## pagankmck (Apr 6, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> You can kill a deer for food. Yes, there's a thought. Yep, all those supermarkets, all this abundance of food, we gotta trek out into into the wilderness and shoot Bambi  instead. That's  a powerful argument for guns. I have  bullet lodged in my garage, another in my roof. Now, I doubt the numb nuts that put them there even have the slightest idea what the fudge  the constitution is, let alone the second amendment. But, they got firearms, though.  I like guns. I don't like people that much, especially all you intelligent ones that rationalize being irrational, plus we get all that nifty gun porn. You guys are  intelligent, I must say. And particularly adept  at self delusion.  But as far as the second amendment goes, it's a antique and we don't need firearms anymore, this isn't the frontier and the redcoats are LONG gone.



I never hunt, I grocery shop.  But really, how healthy is the food in the store.  This additve  that additive.  This hormone that hormone.  It seems to me that those who actually go out and hunt have a lot more respect for the food they get than those of us that jump into our car and pick up the meat that has been butchered and dressed for us.  To some extent the gun vs no gun issue is a rural urban issue.    Going to the store can be a mindless activity.


----------



## necritan (Apr 6, 2009)

The 2nd amendment is there to protect us from an oppresive government...pure and simple. 

Its not for hunting...or target practice...or gun-porn threads or any of that shit. Its there to insure our right to kill as many tyranical bastards as possible if the time comes...and the need arises.

If a few people die here and there , it doesnt change the uber-importance of this right.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 6, 2009)

Yukon said:


> DC is populated by non-caucasian people who tend to be more criminally inclined. Guns had to be banned in DC for that reason. However, banning guns in every jurisdiction would virtually eliminate homicide. The crime rate dropped dramatically in DC for two reasons:
> 
> 1. Banning guns - fewer guns available to non-caucasian people.
> 2. Legalized abortion - fewer criminals being born



Okay, seriously.  Put down the crack pipe and back away from it.

The crime rate didn't drop in DC after guns were banned.  It skyrocketed until DC became the Murder Capital of the US.  And legalized abortion does NOTHING to lower crime rates.  It can legitimately be argued that it has actually increased the crime rate.


----------



## Agnapostate (Apr 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Okay, seriously.  Put down the crack pipe and back away from it.
> 
> The crime rate didn't drop in DC after guns were banned. It skyrocketed until DC became the Murder Capital of the US.



Are you interested in selective incorporation of raw data, or are you interested in sound empirical evidence that isolates the gun effect?  



Cecilie1200 said:


> And legalized abortion does NOTHING to lower crime rates.  It can legitimately be argued that it has actually increased the crime rate.



There is significant evidence of legalized abortion reducing social "ills" that rightists typically argue lead to increased crime rates. For instance, we could analyze Ananat et al.'s _Abortion and Selection_. Consider the abstract:



> Abortion legalization in the early 1970s led to dramatic changes in fertility. Some research has suggested that it altered cohort outcomes, but this literature has been limited and controversial. In this paper, we provide a framework for understanding selection mechanisms and use that framework to both address inconsistent past methodological approaches and provide evidence on the long-run impact on cohort characteristics. Our results indicate that lower-cost abortion brought about by legalization altered young adult outcomes through selection. In particular, it increased likelihood of college graduation, lower rates of welfare use, and lower odds of being a single parent.



So it seems that rightists would be forced to concede that decreased likelihood of college graduation, higher rates of welfare use, and higher odds of being a single parent have no especially significant link to crime if they wish to allege that abortion legalization idid not lower crime rates.


----------



## eots (Apr 7, 2009)

Yukon said:


> DC is populated by non-caucasian people who tend to be more criminally inclined. Guns had to be banned in DC for that reason. However, banning guns in every jurisdiction would virtually eliminate homicide. The crime rate dropped dramatically in DC for two reasons:
> 
> 1. Banning guns - fewer guns available to non-caucasian people.
> 2. Legalized abortion - fewer criminals being born



don't you people all need guns to get your bear meat and seal blubber for the winter ??


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 7, 2009)

eots said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > DC is populated by non-caucasian people who tend to be more criminally inclined. Guns had to be banned in DC for that reason. However, banning guns in every jurisdiction would virtually eliminate homicide. The crime rate dropped dramatically in DC for two reasons:
> ...



I don't think Yukon is an Eskimo.  And I would imagine he has plenty of blubber of his own.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 7, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Banning guns won't work? What is that based on? Please. I live near Columbine HS. It's kind of a hollow and empty question. We won't ever know will we?



Why don't you look at the crime rates in cities/countries where gun bans are/were in effect.

The D.C. gun ban didn't work.  They had the highest crime rate in the nation.

DC proves gun bans don&#39;t work (OneNewsNow.com)


Gary Mauser SFU Professor

Countries that have gun bans have more crime.  This is also proven in other countries such as England and Japan.  Japan has the highest suicide rate in the world.   

Banning guns will not decrease crime, it has been proven over and over again by a trial basis.


----------



## Agnapostate (Apr 7, 2009)

I'm so sick of selective incorporation of raw data. But if you insist on maintaining an anti-empirical bias...


----------



## BrianH (Apr 7, 2009)

pagankmck said:


> SW2SILVERQUASI said:
> 
> 
> > You can kill a deer for food. Yes, there's a thought. Yep, all those supermarkets, all this abundance of food, we gotta trek out into into the wilderness and shoot Bambi  instead. That's  a powerful argument for guns. I have  bullet lodged in my garage, another in my roof. Now, I doubt the numb nuts that put them there even have the slightest idea what the fudge  the constitution is, let alone the second amendment. But, they got firearms, though.  I like guns. I don't like people that much, especially all you intelligent ones that rationalize being irrational, plus we get all that nifty gun porn. You guys are  intelligent, I must say. And particularly adept  at self delusion.  But as far as the second amendment goes, it's a antique and we don't need firearms anymore, this isn't the frontier and the redcoats are LONG gone.
> ...



I almost brought this point up, but didn't want to sound like a back-woods hick. lol.  I do most of my shopping in town ,and get most of our food at the grocery store.  I, however, refuse to buy fish from the store, because 1. I enjoy fishing, and 2. Why pay for it when I can catch it for free.  I also can feed my family for several sittings (throughout the year) by killing a couple of deer per year, and usually a few wild hogs).  I'm not a gung-ho "natural-food" guy, but can see the benefits when food prices soar.


----------



## Yukon (Apr 7, 2009)

BrianH said:


> "...I almost brought this point up, but didn't want to sound like a back-woods hick. lol.  I do most of my shopping in town ,and get most of our food at the grocery store.  I, however, refuse to buy fish from the store, because 1. I enjoy fishing, and 2. Why pay for it when I can catch it for free.  I also can feed my family for several sittings (throughout the year) by killing a couple of deer per year, and usually a few wild hogs).  I'm not a gung-ho "natural-food" guy, but can see the benefits when food prices soar."



Brian,

You should ask God to forgive you my son. Lies are evil and violate the Commandments.


----------



## necritan (Apr 7, 2009)

Yukon said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > "...I almost brought this point up, but didn't want to sound like a back-woods hick. lol.  I do most of my shopping in town ,and get most of our food at the grocery store.  I, however, refuse to buy fish from the store, because 1. I enjoy fishing, and 2. Why pay for it when I can catch it for free.  I also can feed my family for several sittings (throughout the year) by killing a couple of deer per year, and usually a few wild hogs).  I'm not a gung-ho "natural-food" guy, but can see the benefits when food prices soar."
> ...



Do you try to sound stupid?? Cuzz its working....


----------



## Burp (Apr 7, 2009)

necritan said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



That is what is so enjoyable about Yukon.

He isn't trying.  He just does it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 7, 2009)

Burp said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



Doesn't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy to see someone find their real niche in life?


----------



## Burp (Apr 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > necritan said:
> ...



Shhhh...don't tell anyone but...I heard that guy who flew from Canada to Missouri yesterday was Yukon's brother.

He had to get away from him.


----------



## raceright (Apr 7, 2009)

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.    From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 
    ------------------------------ 

In 1911, Turkey established gun control.    From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 Million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 
    ------------------------------ 

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. 
    ------------------------------ 

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated 
    ------------------------------ 

Guatemala established gun control in 1964.   From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 
    ---- ------------- ------------- 

Uganda established gun control in 1970.   From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 
    ------------------------------ 

Cambodia established gun control in 1956.   From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 
    ----------------------------- 

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century  after  gun control  was established:  56 million.      
    ------------------------------ 

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.     The first year results are now in: 

List of 7 items: 

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent. 

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent   (yes, 44 percent)! 

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.    Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns! 

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. 

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY.    Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.    The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. 

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. 

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. 

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! 

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. 

With guns, we are 'citizens'.      Without them, we are 'subjects'. 

During WWII , one reason  the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED! 

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.


The purpose of fighting is to win.    There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either.      The final weapon is the brain.       All else is supplemental.  
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!      SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. 
 SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!! 
IT'S A NO BRAINER!      DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.      

I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment! 
If you are too, please forward.


----------



## Yukon (Apr 7, 2009)

Only a moron could possibly believe that gun control isn't required in the USA.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 8, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Only a moron could possibly believe that gun control isn't required in the USA.



Why yes you're right we do need some gun control here.

For instance we need to try to make sure that crazies and criminals cannot acquire guns, and there are people who we probably shouldn't give concealed carry to.

That qualifies as gun control and I think we all ready have that here (don't know the laws so don't quote me on that).

Total gun bans are not needed though.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 8, 2009)

Yukon said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > "...I almost brought this point up, but didn't want to sound like a back-woods hick. lol.  I do most of my shopping in town ,and get most of our food at the grocery store.  I, however, refuse to buy fish from the store, because 1. I enjoy fishing, and 2. Why pay for it when I can catch it for free.  I also can feed my family for several sittings (throughout the year) by killing a couple of deer per year, and usually a few wild hogs).  I'm not a gung-ho "natural-food" guy, but can see the benefits when food prices soar."
> ...



????  I'm not lying.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 8, 2009)

Raceright:  All those examples of gun control are a little deceptive. Stalin used violence to overthrow the Tsar. The Tsar used violence to suppress the peasants. And firearms were neither here nor there, in fact, what if the Tsar banned guns? No Communism? I don't think it's that easy, either way. The examples you use  refer to an abuse of power. It seems that people with guns are paranoid. Paranoid of other people WITH guns. I don't have a gun, I am afraid of all the violent thugs with them and all you wise and  wonderful folks that are so thoughtful as to help them in your paranoid obsession with a piece of metal. Perhaps you should be a little more concerned with flesh and blood?


----------



## frazzledgear (Apr 9, 2009)

Yukon said:


> It's time that Americans woke up, smelled the coffee and too their collective heads out of the sad. Be smart, be modern, wake up and REPEAL the 2ND AMENDMENT
> 
> The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths (murders, suicides and accidents) among the world's 36 richest nations!!
> 
> ...




Here is a real novel idea that I guess just didn't cross your mind Yukon:  how about we punish the crime instead of the freedom, huh?  

The fact that a tiny minority has always and will always abuse freedoms and commit crimes against society -is absolutely NO justification for depriving EVERYONE in society of any of their freedoms and rights.   It doesn't save lives and it makes absolutely no one any "safer" in any way.   So the real question is just who or what would REALLY benefit from such an act?  But in spite of your naive and dangerous belief -it has never ONCE in any country  been "we the people" who benefitted from forfeiting any of their rights and freedoms.


----------



## Yukon (Apr 9, 2009)

You people are paranoid. Do you check under your Trailer every night for commies, hippies, and Negros................


----------



## Father Time (Apr 9, 2009)

It's an insurance we hope we never have to use. It's like a fire extinguisher.

You buy it hoping you never have to use it but you know you may have to so you keep it.


----------



## pagankmck (Apr 9, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Only a moron could possibly believe that gun control isn't required in the USA.


  I have to ask, why do you care since you are a Canadian not an American.


----------



## Yukon (Apr 9, 2009)

Why are so many pro-gun advocates hopelessly clinging to a mirage of a "right" that's never, in this history of the USA, been approved by the federal courts, just so people can keep being murdered by firearms?

The American people are tired of gun violence. They're tired of dealing with it, and they're tired of half-baked solutions to end it. Banning the sale and possession of handguns will work. It's a definite step towards ending the violence that's killing thousands and thousands across the United States every year. 

The United States is the number one exporter of small arms in the world, and while the gun lobby claims criminals won't listen to legislation, the gun industry will. Legislation is just what is needed and NOW !


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 9, 2009)

Yukon said:


> You people are paranoid. Do you check under your Trailer every night for commies, hippies, and Negros................



No, just ignorant Canadians.  They're always turning over the trash cans, looking for a meal.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 9, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Why are so many pro-gun advocates hopelessly clinging to a mirage of a "right" that's never, in this history of the USA, been approved by the federal courts, just so people can keep being murdered by firearms?



Because maybe in YOUR piece of shit country, rights are granted by federal courts, but that's not how it works in the US.  We don't need ANY court to approve of our rights for us to have them.  Possibly that's because WE have some stones.



Yukon said:


> The American people are tired of gun violence. They're tired of dealing with it, and they're tired of half-baked solutions to end it. Banning the sale and possession of handguns will work. It's a definite step towards ending the violence that's killing thousands and thousands across the United States every year.



You are going to speak to what the Amerian people think and feel?  YOU?!



Yukon said:


> The United States is the number one exporter of small arms in the world, and while the gun lobby claims criminals won't listen to legislation, the gun industry will. Legislation is just what is needed and NOW !



Yeah, the solution to lawless people is to go after the law-abiding ones.  Brilliant.  Tell me, if you went to the doctor with appendicitis, would you insis the surgeon remove your kidney instead?  That seems about your level of "logic".

No wonder they keep turning you back at the border.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 9, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Why are so many pro-gun advocates hopelessly clinging to a mirage of a "right" that's never, in this history of the USA, been approved by the federal courts, just so people can keep being murdered by firearms?
> ...



Not only that but the federal courts HAVE given us the right to guns when they threw out the D.C. handgun ban as unconstitutional.

So your premise that 'courts didn't grant us the rights therefore that's a good reason not to have them' is not only stupidly faulty but not even based on a true premise.


----------



## DvDud1 (Apr 9, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Why are so many pro-gun advocates hopelessly clinging to a mirage of a "right" that's never, in this history of the USA, been approved by the federal courts, just so people can keep being murdered by firearms?
> 
> The American people are tired of gun violence. They're tired of dealing with it, and they're tired of half-baked solutions to end it. Banning the sale and possession of handguns will work. It's a definite step towards ending the violence that's killing thousands and thousands across the United States every year.
> 
> The United States is the number one exporter of small arms in the world, and while the gun lobby claims criminals won't listen to legislation, the gun industry will. Legislation is just what is needed and NOW !



Banning the sale and possession of handguns will NOT work. It will ensure that law-abiding citizens won't own handguns...but for those who are comfortable circumventing the law, there will always be options.
Which would leave the criminals with guns and law-abiding citizens without...yeah, that sounds like a great idea...for the criminals.
Personally, I support laws that encourage the owners of firearms to be responsible-trigger locks, gun safes, permits for carrying in public contingent on passing a firearms course, etc. Background checks are certainly reasonable too.
But banning firearms isn't the answer.
We are a violent culture...as cliche as it might sound, it's not guns that are responsible...it's people.


----------



## Burp (Apr 9, 2009)

DvDud1 said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Why are so many pro-gun advocates hopelessly clinging to a mirage of a "right" that's never, in this history of the USA, been approved by the federal courts, just so people can keep being murdered by firearms?
> ...



You will go far here grasshopper.


----------



## necritan (Apr 9, 2009)

DvDud1 said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Why are so many pro-gun advocates hopelessly clinging to a mirage of a "right" that's never, in this history of the USA, been approved by the federal courts, just so people can keep being murdered by firearms?
> ...



I dont support legislation in regards to condition I keep my gun in. Use trigger locks and safes if YOU want to.....dont mandate it.


----------



## Burp (Apr 9, 2009)

necritan said:


> DvDud1 said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



No one would know.  It's behind closed doors.  I bought a Taurus .45 last week - they gave me a gun lock.  I'm not using it. 

I don't even have a gun safe.  Just me here.  Not worried about someone grabbing the gun and playing with it. 

If saying that people must have gun locks or gun safes will keep the anti-gun people happy and leave me along, I'll tell them whatever they want to hear.


----------



## pagankmck (Apr 9, 2009)

DvDud1 said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Why are so many pro-gun advocates hopelessly clinging to a mirage of a "right" that's never, in this history of the USA, been approved by the federal courts, just so people can keep being murdered by firearms?
> ...



I agree Dave.  I don't think there is any anergy in this country to repeal the 2nd amendment anyway.


----------



## necritan (Apr 9, 2009)

Burp said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> > DvDud1 said:
> ...



I understand the logic...but I fear they have no end to the little regulations they tag on here and there. Its their attempt to neuter our rights into obscurity. I try to fight it all...every last bit of it. They want control.

Pretty soon....they'll want to have limitations on how much we wipe our own asses....you know...to save trees n shit.


----------



## DvDud1 (Apr 9, 2009)

Burp said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> > DvDud1 said:
> ...



As you point out, "behind closed doors"...
The reason I support trigger locks and gun safes is because there are just too damn many incidents where kids are getting their hands on loaded firearms...with tragic results.

We had one rocket scientist in my area who kept his handgun stashed in the-get this-cookie jar in a cupboard in the kitchen. His little boy got his hands on it one day when sneaking after a cookie and killed himself.

So-how you keep your firearms behind closed doors may still be essentially a matter of preference, but stronger legislation-and stronger penalties for those who don't exercise common sense-might encourage people in living situations where children could potentially have access to take appropriate and sensible precautions.


----------



## necritan (Apr 9, 2009)

Burp said:


> No one would know.  It's behind closed doors.  I bought a Taurus .45 last week - they gave me a gun lock.  I'm not using it.
> 
> I don't even have a gun safe.  Just me here.  Not worried about someone grabbing the gun and playing with it.
> 
> If saying that people must have gun locks or gun safes will keep the anti-gun people happy and leave me along, I'll tell them whatever they want to hear.



Oh....and congratulations on the new purchase. Is this your first handgun?? 

Stock up on the ammo while you can.....


----------



## Burp (Apr 9, 2009)

necritan said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > No one would know.  It's behind closed doors.  I bought a Taurus .45 last week - they gave me a gun lock.  I'm not using it.
> ...



Thanks.

Not my first.  Glock 19, the new Taurus .45 and a Walther .22

Between the three, I have close to 2000 rounds in the closet.  I try to shoot every week (but at least every other) - probably 5 clips each so I use around 200 rounds every time I shoot.  I try to keep a good stock, but as you know, ammo is flying off the shelves.


----------



## necritan (Apr 9, 2009)

DvDud1 said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > necritan said:
> ...



Dude....there are 1,000,000 ways a kid can kill themself in a house. Is there "Regulation" on poisons and chemicals being locked up in the house??

Are electrical outlets mandated by law to be locked down or covered at all times??

Are swimming pools "regulated" to be sealed by hard covers at all times when not in use??

The answer is no.....

The reason is that those items pose no threat to the government.....they could give two shits how many kids die each year as a result of anything.....except guns of course.


----------



## necritan (Apr 9, 2009)

I spend countless hours making sure my kids havent gotten into something dangerous....swallowing lego's....falling down the stairs...jumping off the bed....goofing off in the bathtub....

I have no fear they will shoot themself though....and my house has a god damn arsenal in it.


----------



## necritan (Apr 9, 2009)

Burp said:


> Not my first.  Glock 19, the new Taurus .45 and a Walther .22
> 
> Between the three, I have close to 2000 rounds in the closet.  I try to shoot every week (but at least every other) - probably 5 clips each so I use around 200 rounds every time I shoot.  I try to keep a good stock, but as you know, ammo is flying off the shelves.



I sure like those G-19's.....they're the AK's of the handgun realm. True work horses.

Save that ammo though. One trick I use is that whenever I go get ammo to shoot , I stock half of it and shoot the rest. I never grab from the stock pile...so it just grows and grows.


----------



## Burp (Apr 9, 2009)

necritan said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > Not my first.  Glock 19, the new Taurus .45 and a Walther .22
> ...



You are right about the 19.  So sweet.  Accurate.  Feels perfect in the hand.  It is my fave.

My range always has ammo for all three.  They are reloads but that is ok.  Since I am a member, I get it at a discount.  

I take a box of each in case they are out (which at times, they have been).  

Of course, half of my 9 and .45 are hollow points so they don't go to the range.


----------



## DvDud1 (Apr 9, 2009)

necritan said:


> DvDud1 said:
> 
> 
> > Burp said:
> ...



Actually, there are plenty of regulations that are passed in the name of child safety. They didn't start mandating car seats because of any threat posed to the government...same with child-proof caps on drugs and other harmful products...and there are laws that mandate reasonable precautions to try to keep kids away from unattended swimming pools, laws to try to keep adults from recklessly endangering children, etc.

None of them were passed because of any threat posed to the government.

I definitely mistrust government, but there's no sense to being paranoid about it...if you think they're coming to get ya you can always take off the trigger locks, and lock and load...


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 9, 2009)

Burp said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> > Burp said:
> ...



I trust people with a gun license far more than a drivers license ... cool for you.


----------



## Burp (Apr 9, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > necritan said:
> ...



I have had my carry permit for many years. 

Thank you.


----------



## Yukon (Apr 10, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> "...I trust people with a gun license far more than a drivers license ..."




I bet you you'd put your life in-their-hands if they smoked ?


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 10, 2009)

Yukon said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > "...I trust people with a gun license far more than a drivers license ..."
> ...



Well duh ... you'd be more willing to put your hands in a Catholic priests than a Mormon missionary right? Same thing.


----------



## THEODORE (Apr 10, 2009)

Never, but never give up your weapon or means to protect yourself.  I understand ppl die from guns alot.  Those numbers are not very great when you compare them to deaths cause by wars...in which both sides are financed by the same banker families.  Hell not only do they finance wars, they actually (without anyones consent) direct countries into war..of course they control media..so dumb ppl just go along and thinking they are patriotic...fuel the propaganda of the elites.  I promise you one thing.  If ppl give up their arms...it's game over..and ppl will be enslaved even more.  Wake up ...the enslavement is made so comfortable , until you like it, you think its the way life is suppose to be...Do me a favor next time you endorse anyone...check out the family history...the dirt...the seed dosen't fall far from the tree.  These natzi's have already been running our country with them old played out tactics they use over and over again...wake up ppl...please!  They always create a catastrophy...then wait for us to beg them for the solution...which always take away our rights....Stop being so scared ppl....nothing to be afraid of...before the elites ever thought of the concept of currency....no race, country...ever really had big wars...all we did was freakin trade....think on that


----------



## frazzledgear (Apr 10, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Why are so many pro-gun advocates *hopelessly clinging to a mirage of a "right" that's never, in this history of the USA, been approved by the federal courts*, just so people can keep being murdered by firearms?
> 
> The American people are tired of gun violence. They're tired of dealing with it, and they're tired of half-baked solutions to end it. Banning the sale and possession of handguns will work. It's a definite step towards ending the violence that's killing thousands and thousands across the United States every year.
> 
> The United States is the number one exporter of small arms in the world, and while the gun lobby claims criminals won't listen to legislation, the gun industry will. Legislation is just what is needed and NOW !



I have shocking news for you -but the function of US federal courts is not to decide what "rights"  government will ALLOW Americans to have.  It is to interpret the law as it is written -not make law.  The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution and insure the laws passed by government are in accordance with the Constitution -as it actually exists.  Not as some wished it was.  The Constitution is not a list of suggestions, but a CONTRACT that spells out the terms by which the people of this nation have AGREED to be governed.  As part of that agreement is the RIGHT of citizens to own guns with government specifically forbidden from interfering with that right or any of the other ones in the Bill of RIGHTS.   *Which is why the Supreme Court recently struck down the gun ban in Washington, DC as a violation of the Constitutional rights of those residents.*   If simply passing a law would strip everyone of this right, that would mean it was never a right at all but just a privilege -along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.  But rights aren't something government GIVES -it is something people CLAIM for themselves and that government cannot take from them.  Which is why our contract with government, our Constitution - specifically forbids government from interfering with any of these rights.   

Stripping Americans of a right listed in the Bill of Rights would require a Constitutional Amendment.  Which would require the majority of people in at least 38 states voting to voluntarily forfeit this right -no matter what may happen in the future, no matter what crisis may occur.  No matter what.  As difficult as it would be to strip Americans of any of their Constitutional rights -it would still be far more difficult to get it back again.  If you think that is something even a simple majority of people would agree to do in this country anytime in the foreseeable future -then you are not occupying space in reality.   Time for you anti-gun whackos to get over it and realize the answer for the tiny minority who abuse rights and commit crimes in any society - is to enforce laws that punish the crime and criminal.  You do NOT punish the freedom and rights of the hundreds of millions guilty of NOTHING by stripping all of this right.   Quit making up bullshit about this.  It is a fact that *gun ownership is not the cause of the homicide rate in this country *.  That rate has never changed as the result of tighter gun control laws.   That you just keep insisting and PRETENDING it would will never justify some Canadian demanding that hundreds of millions of law-abiding Americans be stripped of their rights!  Your contention that gun ownership causes our homicide rate is PROVABLY WRONG and a lie.

But even if some Supreme Court allowed Congress to violate the Constitution and upheld a law that stripped all Americans of this right -how do you propose government go about enforcing it?  At least 50% of all households in this country are believed to own at least one gun with literally hundreds of millions of legally owned guns in this country.  You don't seriously believe even a majority of these owners would just meekly turn them all over to government just because Congress abused its authority, violated the Constitution and stripped them of their rights, do you?  So in order to enforce this law, it would eventually require government to kick in the doors of otherwise law-abiding citizens and forcibly take their guns.  In which case, it would only prove the founders were justified in fearing government and totally prove their point that all governments have the potential to turn on its own citizens.    Which is why the right to bear arms was one of the rights in our Constitution in the first place!  LOL

The terms by which Americans have consented to be governed is a CONTRACT by which those doing the governing MUST abide by -with the Supreme Court charged with the duty, authority and power of insuring IT DOES.   No branch of government has the authority to alter the Constitution and therefore Congress has NO authority to pass any law that strips Americans of this right.  This isn't a right that was "given" by Congress  but a right Americans CLAIMED for themselves.   Something you apparently just cannot grasp.  But in this country, ultimate power is supposed to lie with the PEOPLE -not those doing the governing.  WE have the right to decide who will govern and the right to replace those who govern with others of our choice, the right to decide what laws we will be governed by, the right to peacefully remove those who passed laws we disagree with and put in others who will revoke those unwanted laws.  The day that is no longer true is the day Americans have the right to take down the existing government and replace it with another -even if they must use violence to do it.  Even our military takes an oath to support and defend our CONSTITUTION and our country.  But no oath to defend our government.  All because *no one has a right to govern, no one has a right to rule over others and no one has the right to strip others of their rights just because they personally have no use for that right.* 

Government is NOT our master and this country already waged a war once about that.   But apparently you think government should be the master because you have this weird belief that government -which is just run by other people -always knows far better what is in people's best interests over their own judgment. Sucks to be you then, huh.  

Are you under some misguided belief that the US is the largest legal arms exporter, legally selling arms primarily to militaries of our allies - only because Americans have the right to bear arms?  ROFLMAO  Oh sure.  Must explain why among the top 18 legal arms exporting nations of the world -only 4 are nations whose citizens have a right to bear arms and those other 3 are way down the list.  The fact that most arms exporters are nations whose citizens cannot own guns gives lie to that one.  So what's your next tactic going to be?   Insisting that there is this "massive" flow of US guns into Mexico and claim that 90% of all the guns used in criminal activities in Mexico came from the US  -even though that is also a proven lie?


----------



## Burp (Apr 10, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Of course he would.  He has years of experience.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 11, 2009)

necritan said:


> DvDud1 said:
> 
> 
> > Burp said:
> ...



Swimming pools, hell.  Do you know how many kids drown in mop buckets?  Where's the legislation to regulate the ownership and usage of THOSE deadly weapons?


----------



## Yukon (Apr 11, 2009)

Fools, your constitution is a shambles thanks to "national security" measures resulting from what might well be U.S. government sanctioned terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington D.C., provocations which were designed to justify a malevolent, poisonous, oil-based military economy.

How many of you give the slightest damn about the totalitarian measures your government is taking to keep its secret meetings, grubby files and treasonous activities from your eyes?


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 11, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Fools, your constitution is a shambles thanks to "national security" measures resulting from what might well be U.S. government sanctioned terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington D.C., provocations which were designed to justify a malevolent, poisonous, oil-based military economy.
> 
> How many of you give the slightest damn about the totalitarian measures your government is taking to keep its secret meetings, grubby files and treasonous activities from your eyes?



Which is all masked by getting morons like you riled up against gay marriage, science in schools, and smoking bans ...


----------



## frazzledgear (Apr 12, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Fools, your constitution is a shambles thanks to "national security" measures resulting from what might well be U.S. government sanctioned terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington D.C., provocations which were designed to justify a malevolent, poisonous, oil-based military economy.
> 
> How many of you give the slightest damn about the totalitarian measures your government is taking to keep its secret meetings, grubby files and treasonous activities from your eyes?



Ours is not as much a shambles as YOURS is.  Is that why you demand the US imitate and adopt the historically PROVEN failure of a system Canada has decided to go with?  Every day I give thanks in this order:  that I wasn't born to Muslim parents in the Middle East; I wasn't born French; I wasn't born Canadian.  

Maybe you Canadians should provide for your own national defense instead of being parasites and expecting the US to do it for you -like more than 1/4 of the world does.  That would sure help out with our budget deficit and the wild spending socialist Obama is out of control with, huh?


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 12, 2009)

frazzledgear said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Fools, your constitution is a shambles thanks to "national security" measures resulting from what might well be U.S. government sanctioned terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington D.C., provocations which were designed to justify a malevolent, poisonous, oil-based military economy.
> ...



There is only one problem, we need to keep Canada in the hands of the morons lest someone with more ambition and intellect gains such an advantageous point to threaten us ...


----------



## frazzledgear (Apr 12, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Fools, your constitution is a shambles thanks to "national security" measures resulting from what might well be U.S. government sanctioned terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington D.C., provocations which were designed to justify a malevolent, poisonous, oil-based military economy.
> 
> How many of you give the slightest damn about the totalitarian measures your government is taking to keep its secret meetings, grubby files and treasonous activities from your eyes?



Fascism with a smiley face showed up in YOUR country before it showed up in ours.  But yes, once again -fascism is here.  And once again will prove that fascism is the natural outcome of LIBERALISM, not American conservatism.  I say "American conservatism" because the word "conservative" means different things in different countries.  A conservative in Russia has little in common with American conservatives -but plenty in common with American liberals.

Fascism seems to be a political philosophy that western civilization is absolutely intent on adopting.  No matter the fact that history has repeatedly proven it cannot succeed and results in utter disaster and increased human misery.  Liberals just can't get enough of those faceless strangers insisting they know what is in our best interests MUCH better than we, as individuals - possibly could.  I wouldn't turn over ANY decisions in my life to anyone living on my street -but liberals have no problem insisting that faceless strangers thousands of miles away are far more competent to make those decisions.  Excuse me while I puke.

But Yukon -Americans are still far more resistant to a NANNY GOVERNMENT (which can only naturally turn to fascism with a smile) while Canadians are lining up to give it a blow job.  Canadians haven't a clue about the natural rights of an individual human being.  Those Canadians that actually understand this concept -have ended up becoming a naturalized citizen of this country.  Canada only continues to exist as an independent nation because the most powerful nation on earth doesn't use its extraordinary power and wealth to conquer it and claim it for its own -along with trying to conquer the world.  Think that would be true if the former Soviet Union had been your southern neighbor instead of the US?  ROFL

Maybe they don't teach this in Canadian schools -but a nation that has amassed this kind of wealth and power yet did NOT use that wealth and power to try and conquer the world - is actually unhheard of.  EXCEPT for the US.  Maybe it would benefit the entire WORLD to figure out why that is and then try to imitate us - instead of some whiny, still-pissing-in-his-pants and mommy-needs-to-wipe-his-chin juvenile Canadian like you pretending he alone holds all the answers to the problems of the world and Americans are stupid and uneducated and the US should imitate some nation that has adopted a historically known failure of a system.   I think that might be FAR more beneficial for mankind itself over reading the crap from someone like you whining about the fact that Americans claimed they had a right to own guns and expect government to honor that claim.  And how about you stop with the bullshit you are repeating by pretending the US homicide rate is due to gun ownership when it is provably NOT TRUE! 

You clearly have little understanding of US history -much less any understanding of the real lessons from world history.  Which is really too bad for your descendants.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 12, 2009)

ah yes liberals are the only ones who induce fascism.

God knows the conservatives griping about porn, the right to privacy and people not obeying God and blah blah blah, are perfectly fine.

There's bullshit tyranny from both sides of the fence you fool.


----------



## Yukon (Apr 12, 2009)

frazzledgear said:


> "...Yukon -Americans are still far more resistant to a NANNY GOVERNMENT (which can only naturally turn to fascism with a smile)...



You put your money in Government owned banks, buy your Insurance from Government owned insurance companies, and drive cars purchased from Government owned Auto Manufacturers. 

Oh yes, I almost forgot, I live in Socialist Canada becuase I have Medicare and you live in the free-market, capitalistic United Soviets of America. 

My, my but out of the mouths of babes..........................


----------



## Burp (Apr 12, 2009)

Yukon said:


> frazzledgear said:
> 
> 
> > "...Yukon -Americans are still far more resistant to a NANNY GOVERNMENT (which can only naturally turn to fascism with a smile)...
> ...



Ummm..no. 

We had our money taken away from us by a President many people are disappointed in.  He put it in government owned banks. 

AIG isn't even in the top five of insurance companies - and again, the government put our money into it.  We didn't. 

I drive Fords (and Ford co-owned) vehicles.  Also, Ford DID NOT take any funds.

Yeah...I've heard stories about your medical situation up there.  Why do you think we are fighting against nationalized medical. 

We don't want to be like you.  Yours is a disaster.


----------



## Yukon (Apr 12, 2009)

Burp,

There is no point whatsoever trying to debate with intellectual inferiors like you. Go play some B-Ball...........


----------



## Burp (Apr 12, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Burp,
> 
> There is no point whatsoever trying to debate with intellectual inferiors like you. Go play some B-Ball...........



Ooooh.   Good come back.

Don't debate the points.  Just come back with a lameness.

Go play with your stone and broom.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 12, 2009)

Burp said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Burp,
> ...



In support of all the anti-gun tightasses out there I decided to add to my collection and bought a Taurus Tracker .357 Magnum, stainless with a 4 in. barrel yesterday.  And before you go whining about my 6-shooter, it holds 7.

If it makes any of you snivelers happy, a police check was done by phone prior to my being able to purchase the weapon.  Shamefully, I came up clean and could not be deprived of my 2nd Amendment Right.


----------



## Otter_Creek (Apr 12, 2009)

The one thing that "Must Go" in this country is obama.
Then go after the ones who put him there.


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 12, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



I love the look and feel of a 6 shooter (no perv jokes now). Never fired one but I've held one before, they feel so ... western to me. Dad was a rancher who loved Clint Eastwood, go figure.


----------



## necritan (Apr 13, 2009)

Gunny said:


> In support of all the anti-gun tightasses out there I decided to add to my collection and bought a Taurus Tracker .357 Magnum, stainless with a 4 in. barrel yesterday.  And before you go whining about my 6-shooter, it holds 7.
> 
> If it makes any of you snivelers happy, a police check was done by phone prior to my being able to purchase the weapon.  Shamefully, I came up clean and could not be deprived of my 2nd Amendment Right.



Congrats!! Aren't those ported?? You should get the Taurus "Judge"....revolver that shoots 45 LC and chambers 410 shotshells too.

I brought home two more AR's about a week ago...that outta make my gun-taking buddies out there real happy.

P.S. - Should have the AK built here soon enough too......


----------



## necritan (Apr 13, 2009)

Father Time said:


> ah yes liberals are the only ones who induce fascism.
> 
> God knows the conservatives griping about porn, the right to privacy and people not obeying God and blah blah blah, are perfectly fine.
> 
> There's bullshit tyranny from both sides of the fence you fool.



I think some of those things are generally attributed to the efforts of Evangelical Extremists and Neo-Cons......not true American Conservatives.


----------



## Yukon (Apr 14, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> "...I love the look and feel of a 6 shooter..."




Is yours battery operated ?


----------



## Gunny (Apr 14, 2009)

necritan said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > In support of all the anti-gun tightasses out there I decided to add to my collection and bought a Taurus Tracker .357 Magnum, stainless with a 4 in. barrel yesterday.  And before you go whining about my 6-shooter, it holds 7.
> ...



Yes, it's ported.  A very nice piece.

I'm not keep on handguns that fire shotgun shells.  I prefer the more traditional looking handguns.

I've thought about getting an AR a time or two, but for half the price, I have a Remingotn Model 700 in 7mm Mag with a 10x scope.  It works like a charm.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 14, 2009)

Yukon said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > "...I love the look and feel of a 6 shooter..."
> ...



Lame.


----------



## frazzledgear (Apr 14, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Fools, your constitution is a shambles thanks to "national security" measures resulting from what might well be U.S. government sanctioned terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington D.C., provocations which were designed to justify a malevolent, poisonous, oil-based military economy.
> 
> How many of you give the slightest damn about the totalitarian measures your government is taking to keep its secret meetings, grubby files and treasonous activities from your eyes?



And you know all about these secret meetings, grubby files and treasonous activities that are hidden from the eyes of Americans -because you are a participant and it happens in front of YOUR eyes?  LOL

Liberals have always taken the cake when it comes to paranoia -and it would be funny if it weren't just such a sad commentary on their critical thinking skills.  But your problem Yukon is you want to pretend something that isn't even remotely true at all -is a fact.  It is a fact that the US has one of the most transparent governments in the world where tightly held secrets are far and few between.  Or do you just keep forgetting all those classified intelligence leaks that are so routine in this country?  It is so many of those countries you liberals admire far more than the US -and also seem to think would all be joining hands and singing Kumbaya with the entire world were it not for the existence of the US -that operate under a cloak of secrecy and deception.

Is our system the one envisioned by our founders?  No.  Federal government is much, much larger and FAR more powerful than they ever intended.  But do I still possess every Constitutionally guaranteed right I have had all my life?  Yes -haven't lost a single one at ANY time in my life.  Is the US a totalitarian system?  *ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?*  Throwing that word out there only tells me you don't even know what one is -or understand where on the linear scale different political ideologies and thought fall.

 First of all, let's get one term in particular straight.  A conservative in this country applies only to this country - American conservatism has nothing to do with or anything in common with Iranian conservatism or Russian conservatism etc., so do not use the word "conservative" interchangeably with whatever is meant by "conservative" in other countries.  A US conservative believes we should not significantly or radically deviate from the US Constitution as written -that is what makes them a conservative in the first place and the origin of the meaning of the word "conservative" when discussing US politics.     

On either end of the linear scale are the political extremes.  On the FAR right of political ideologies exists anarchy.  Anarchy is a state of society without government or law and therefore no government control of any kind.  On the FAR left exists totalitarianism -a state of society under the total authoritarian, autocratic government control which allows no political dissent and exercises dictatorial control over nearly every aspect of life.  Communism lies just slightly to the right of totalitarianism.   The US Constitution lies just slightly to the left of anarchy.  

Try really, really hard to wrap your mind around this one, ok?  If you think the US system of government has become a totalitarian system or becoming more of one in recent years - then it can only be due to those carrying out a far left liberal agenda.  Not a US conservative political agenda because US conservatives believe in a SMALLER government with LESS control.  A US conservative is the absolutely natural enemy of totalitarianism -and because communism is just shy of such a state, US conservatives are also the natural enemies of communism and its cousin, socialism.  

You can figure this one out Yukon.  Which political side in this country favors BIGGER government, an ever increasing nanny government, so admires socialism and/or communism they want to give it another whirl in this country and favor a government that has ever more regulatory powers? LIBERALS.  YOUR side -not mine.  

If you really think the US is a totalitarian country, then first of all you have a really deficient education because of all nations in the world, the US is one of the furthest from such a system even still.  But if and when it becomes one, it will be ENTIRELY due to liberals.  Not US conservatives who deplore and oppose having a government of that size and power to even be capable of becoming totalitarian in the first place!


----------



## necritan (Apr 15, 2009)

Chris said:


> Actually our conservatives have a lot in common with the Mullahs in Iran.
> 
> Bush and Ahmedinajad are very similar characters.





Dude.....please stop voting.....please.

You oppose the founding beliefs of this country??


----------



## frazzledgear (Apr 15, 2009)

Chris said:


> Actually our conservatives have a lot in common with the Mullahs in Iran.
> 
> Bush and Ahmedinajad are very similar characters.



Bullshit -just another leftist lie.  Liberals have FAR more in common with them.  Which explains why US conservatives are FAR more likely to consider Iran one of the most dangerous nations on earth -and why liberals are FAR more sympathetic to Iran and more likely to instead insist the US is to blame for the "misunderstanding" between the two nations.  US conservatives don't consider it a "misunderstanding" when Iran has a system of total government control over nearly every aspect of their citizens' lives and state approved sermons urge citizens to envision a world without the existence of either Israel or the US, insisting they are both the cause of all the world's ills.  Get real on this one -are liberals or conservatives more likely to agree with that bullshit?  US liberals naturally understand Iran's state control and government coercion because they also firmly believe in the use of state control and state coercion -even if the way in which the mullahs exercise total government control isn't the identical way liberals intend to do in this country.  *The USE of government control and coercion is far more important to liberals than how such government coercion is used.*  All cultures are equal and none superior to another according to US liberals -so OF COURSE US liberals sympathize with the Iranian mullahs exercising total and oppressive governmental control over their people.  Even when that state control means both political dissidents and rape victims alike are executed for "crimes of immorality" against the state.  

You stupid people insisted that Bush was some kind of conservative religious whacko when in fact his religion -United Methodist - is one of the most tolerant, liberal MAINSTREAM Christian religions in this country.  Are you really so stupid you ended up believing the lies and propaganda of your own side?  Because the bullshit the left put out for years insisting Bush claimed to have received instructions from God and was some kind of conservative religious whacko -was just that.  Total bullshit.  Bush was neither a political conservative nor a religious whacko.    

Bush only went to war over Islamofascism after thousands were slaughtered on OUR soil.  Until then Bush was quite content to continue with Clinton's failed policy of pretending Islamofascism didn't even exist -in spite of at least six major attacks on US interests under Clinton.  But once Bush decided to take actions to prevent it from happening again -conservatives understood and approved the need for that -while liberals promptly staged protests AGAINST it and shrilly demanded that all advantages should be given to those who have sworn to destroy us as a nation!   How many liberals have insisted that Bush somehow WASTED the sympathy of the world?  As if wallowing in useless victimhood was far more important than actually preventing another attack on our soil.   A mind bogglingly DANGEROUS mentality -that history has repeatedly proven to be a lethal mentality.   It is another topic entirely as to why liberals are reluctant to use force to protect this country's own citizens and instead are far more likely to respond by blaming the US for the existence of its enemies.  Even though EVERY nation IN HISTORY has enemies and always will.  Rather than understand the need to defend and protect the citizens of this country who have a far greater right to simply exist than our enemies have a right to kill us on our own soil - liberals are far more likely to write articles entitled "Why They Hate Us" instead.  Conservatives don't give a shit why they hate us -because we always have the greater right to exist without the threat of attack on our own soil by our enemies.  If our enemies believe otherwise -then taking them out is the only answer since THEY have ruled out peaceful coexistence.  Not us.  Gee, did we agonize over why Hitler and Nazi Germany hated us?  LOL

Can't figure out why conservatives so clearly understand why Iran is an enemy of this country even while some may PERSONALLY share some of the same social positions - and why liberals usually find themselves on the same side as some of the world's most brutal and oppressive regimes instead -including Iran?  I'll give you a major clue.  That difference has NOTHING to do with the religious beliefs of anyone and NOTHING to do with where individuals on either side may PERSONALLY  stand on social issues.

The difference between the two is only about *who each side thinks should decide these issues* -and that belief determines where those on each side fall.  On the side of the oppressors of a nation -or on the side of the people.    That's it.   

*Conservatives believe it is the people themselves, through their elected representatives who can be held accountable - who should decide those issues.*   Liberals believe their agenda is OH-SO "noble" and OH-SO "wonderful" that it justifies the use of government coercion and ramming it down the throats of the majority against their will.   And the Iranian mullahs believe the EXACT same thing.  _Naturally liberals are FAR more sympathetic with the Iranian mullahs than US conservatives. _ They both believe in the use of government COERCION and control of the majority against their will -all in the name of their oh-so "noble and righteous" political agenda.  Liberals believe their own agenda justifies the use of government coercion against the will of the majority and figure everyone else believes the same thing.  Wrong -conservatives do not believe ANY agenda justifies the use of government coercion and force against the will of the majority but believe that people have the right of self-determination to decide what rules and laws THEY will live by.  You either get that idea and understand it is the very foundation of political and economic freedom - or you don't get it.  And liberals really don't -with MANY liberals who just flat-out disagree with it.   Which can only mean such liberals believe that some people are so elite and special -that they have a greater "right" to rule over others than people have a right to their freedom and self-determination. 

I'd rather swim with the fishes than be a liberal.  Truly.  For reasons most liberals haven't the intelligence and critical thinking skills to even understand.


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 15, 2009)

Right now ... BOTH sides are sounding a lot like the Tzars ...


----------



## Gunny (Apr 15, 2009)

necritan said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Actually our conservatives have a lot in common with the Mullahs in Iran.
> ...



Fortunately, he doesn't vote here.  He's Canadian.


----------



## Dis (Apr 15, 2009)

Gunny said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Chrissy's all mouth and he can't even vote here?? 

LMFAO!


----------



## Yukon (Apr 16, 2009)

Conseravtaives are a lot like Mullahs. In fact they are a lot like Islamic fundamentalists. Both groups believe in strict adherance to a religious philosophy and both groups wnat their specific beliefs imposed on everyone. Live and let live is not in the Islamic or Conservative vocabulary. How sad.........


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 16, 2009)

jillian said:


> Saying "guns must go" is pretty silly. Whether I personally would want a gun or not, they're protected by the Second Amendment. The conditions of ownership aside, absent a  repeal of the second, it's entitled to the same protection as any other constitutional provision.



I'm guessing here, but is Yukon a right winger?  Because you are right.  Only a right winger would title a thread GUNS MUST GO.

Because Republicans can't win any argument or debate being honest.  They have to make it a wedge issue.  GOD GAYS AND GUNS.

Can you believe they are against gun registration?  They are so worried about Smith & Wesson's profits that they don't want the industry regulated?????


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 16, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Conseravtaives are a lot like Mullahs. In fact they are a lot like Islamic fundamentalists. Both groups believe in strict adherance to a religious philosophy and both groups wnat their specific beliefs imposed on everyone. Live and let live is not in the Islamic or Conservative vocabulary. How sad.........



I accused you of being a right winger Yukon!  Why did you title the thread GUNS MUST GO?

Do you believe guns must go or were you making a point. 

I thought anyone who would title the thread that way must be a right winger.  Unless you were being serious?  I'm confused.


----------



## Yukon (Apr 16, 2009)

In no way am I a right-winger, that is an insult to me. Handguns MUST go. I do not believe that people should be permitted to own or carry a handgun. Rid your country of these tools of the devil and your murder rate will drop a thousand fold.


----------



## LOki (Apr 16, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Handguns MUST go.


Why?



Yukon said:


> I do not believe that people should be permitted to own or carry a handgun.


Why?



Yukon said:


> Rid your country of these tools of the devil . . .


They are not "tools of the devil", they are tools for self-defense.

Unless, of course, you feel that self-defense is "the work of the devil."



Yukon said:


> . . . and your murder rate will drop a thousand fold.


This is demonstrably untrue.


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 16, 2009)

Yukon said:


> In no way am I a right-winger, that is an insult to me. Handguns MUST go. I do not believe that people should be permitted to own or carry a handgun. Rid your country of these tools of the devil and your murder rate will drop a thousand fold.



LOL ... okay, at least that's partially true ... you are nothing in the US, not left or right, certainly not a liberal (too much hatred, for a true liberal think hippy with brains) neither a conservative (you are too ignorant on how commercialism works to come close), just a fringe nutcase with no one on your side ....

... guns however were used by those christians who FOUNDED our country (along with the atheists, pagans, etc.) and all who founded the countries on this continent, even yours. Without them, our countries would NOT exist. They are tools, but tools have no soul and cannot be good or evil, so this idea of yours that they are "of the devil" is a cop-out answer and nothing more.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 16, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Can you believe they are against gun registration?  They are so worried about Smith & Wesson's profits that they don't want the industry regulated?????



Bobo nobody can be this fucking stupid?.....with guys like you and Chris this has to be an act.....that is not why they are against gun registration.....take your head out of the lefts collective ass and pay attention to at least 15 posts so far which have said WHY Gun owners are against this.....it has nothing to do with S&W's profits.....


----------



## daenterpri (Apr 17, 2009)

This has probably been said before, but I dont have time to read every post right now.

Here are some statistics from Australia after they banned guns and took them away from their citizens:

# Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

# Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

# Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

# In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;

# In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;

# There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

In response to the first post:

1. Right now in America way more people are dying from being fat. Being fat is the 2nd biggest cause of preventable death.

2. Accidents happen. You will never keep people from killing themselves or hurting themselves.

3. There will always be another thing that will cause accidents and kill people.

4. Bad guys will ALWAYS get guns. ALWAYS. Good guys need to protect themselves.

5. The 2nd amendment is crucial to our freedom. The United States is a Republic, a nation ruled by law, governed by the people. If the guns are taken away, it is no longer a nation governed by the people. The 2nd Amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The founding fathers understood that people, keeping and bearing arms, was crucial to keeping the states free. Free from terrorists, free from other countries, and also free from our own government, to keep it from abusing its powers.

6. A nation in which the citizens are unarmed are vulnerable to anything and everything. The citizens are no longer free, they are slaves. Nothing to stop opposing countries from invading, thieves from breaking into your home, or your government from taking away your rights.

If Osama bin Laden had more sense, he would have given everyone lifetime supplies of McDonalds gift certificates.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 17, 2009)

Yukon said:


> In no way am I a right-winger, that is an insult to me. Handguns MUST go. I do not believe that people should be permitted to own or carry a handgun. Rid your country of these tools of the devil and your murder rate will drop a thousand fold.



To Corporate America, the lives are not worth the money the gun manufacturers make.  America doesn't manufacture hardly anything anymore.  So imagine if we take this away.  

PS.  Notice that on every argument, the right wingers always start of denying there is a problem first.

Just like global warming, the collapsing economy, the quagmire in Iraq.  

First we always have to spend a month arguing with the right wingers that the problems even exist.  And then they have the balls to suggest they are the better party to fix the problem...that they didn't even admit existed until last second.

So why do people even listen to them anymore?

Anyways, last week the right wingers were denying that 95% of the illegal guns in Mexico are made in the USA and as of yesterday, that is a fact acknowledged by just about everyone.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 17, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > In no way am I a right-winger, that is an insult to me. Handguns MUST go. I do not believe that people should be permitted to own or carry a handgun. Rid your country of these tools of the devil and your murder rate will drop a thousand fold.
> ...


whos everybody Bobo?....hillery and barack


----------



## necritan (Apr 17, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > In no way am I a right-winger, that is an insult to me. Handguns MUST go. I do not believe that people should be permitted to own or carry a handgun. Rid your country of these tools of the devil and your murder rate will drop a thousand fold.
> ...



Who gives a shit about Mexico???


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 17, 2009)

Firearms, guns and second Amendment rights. Who would argue that? I would. After thirty years or so, so will you. After all the abuses. And no saving graces. I could have been blown away, I grabbed the gun away and chose NOT to use it.  I am not a statistic, I am a real breathing human being. Too bad that isn't a new kind of political party. We might amount to something. I grabbed a gun right out of the hands of someone that was a decent human being to, too bad he was to far gone by then from booze and the affects  of a war most of you forgot before you were born.


----------



## Burp (Apr 17, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Firearms, guns and second Amendment rights. Who would argue that? I would. After thirty years or so, so will you. After all the abuses. And no saving graces. I could have been blown away, I grabbed the gun away and chose NOT to use it.  I am not a statistic, I am a real breathing human being. Too bad that isn't a new kind of political party. We might amount to something. I grabbed a gun right out of the hands of someone that was a decent human being to, too bad he was to far gone by then from booze and the affects  of a war most of you forgot before you were born.



I understand your statement. 

I must counter one thing though.  And you have heard it before.  Had you not grabbed the gun away, the PERSON may have pulled the trigger and blown you away. The weapon would not have shot itself. 

Yes.  I agree.  It may have been too easy for him to get the gun.  I will agree there. 

But for your story, there are many where the gun saved someone.  Or even, the gun was never fired in self defense.  But was there just in case.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 17, 2009)

Australians and Canadians, I love em. But  on this topic, the Second  Amendmendment? Last year I had ten cops with guns shove my old ass in the snow outside my back door. Not the criminals. My old man almost shot me too. That thought   and irony of that  hasn't escaped me. And I get threats from illegal aliens, and I hear gunshots all the time here in the United States of Barrioland. Pop, pop pop, sometimes I hear  automatic weapons. I have had enough.


----------



## Burp (Apr 17, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Australians and Canadians, I love em. But  on this topic, the Second  Amendmendment? Last year I had ten cops with guns shove my old ass in the snow outside my back door. Not the criminals. My old man almost shot me too. That thought   and irony of that  hasn't escaped me. And I get threats from illegal aliens, and I hear gunshots all the time here in the United States of Barrioland. Pop, pop pop, sometimes I hear  automatic weapons. I have had enough.



So what are you going to do?  You think banning handguns will stop the pop, pop, pop? 

Of course you don't. 

Why don't you move?  Can't?  Then what?

I have been stopped several times by the police since I earned my concealed carry permit.  Each time I handed my license, insurance card, and permit to the officer.  Only once was I asked where my gun was.  I told him my glove compartment.  Nothing else was said. 

Everyone has a story.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 17, 2009)

Burp: Banning guns is BAD?  Dude? The cockles of my heart are not exactly  warming, ethier. Banning guns might stop all that " Pop pop pop".  I'm willing to give  a try any way. You?


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 17, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Burp: Banning guns is BAD?  Dude? The cockles of my heart are not exactly  warming, ethier. Banning guns might stop all that " Pop pop pop".  I'm willing to give  a try any way. You?



It has been tried, and it failed miserably.


----------



## Burp (Apr 17, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> SW2SILVERQUASI said:
> 
> 
> > Burp: Banning guns is BAD?  Dude? The cockles of my heart are not exactly  warming, ethier. Banning guns might stop all that " Pop pop pop".  I'm willing to give  a try any way. You?
> ...



Thanks KK...you beat me to it. 

Banning guns is not the answer. 

I wonder.  If this was asked of you before, I apologize - I missed the answer. 

Since you live in such a bad part of town, do you have any weapons in your house to protect yourself?


----------



## Father Time (Apr 17, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Burp: Banning guns is BAD?  Dude? The cockles of my heart are not exactly  warming, ethier. Banning guns might stop all that " Pop pop pop".  I'm willing to give  a try any way. You?



I'm never in favor of taking away people's freedoms in order to find out if taking away those same freedoms will help people.

 Rights should not be given away at the whims of people wanting to conduct experiments. I prefer people having real hard data before I even consider it.

There were people who tried to ban the sale of violent games to kids however they've failed repeatedly to prove they're harmful to kids and thus their bills and laws were thrown out. Why should guns be any different?

Oh and I also believe in both cases that taking away the rights of everyone just because some people are criminals or have mental problems is wrong.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 17, 2009)

Burp said:


> SW2SILVERQUASI said:
> 
> 
> > Firearms, guns and second Amendment rights. Who would argue that? I would. After thirty years or so, so will you. After all the abuses. And no saving graces. I could have been blown away, I grabbed the gun away and chose NOT to use it.  I am not a statistic, I am a real breathing human being. Too bad that isn't a new kind of political party. We might amount to something. I grabbed a gun right out of the hands of someone that was a decent human being to, too bad he was to far gone by then from booze and the affects  of a war most of you forgot before you were born.
> ...



I know this sounds cruel, but SW2's tearjerking little personal anecdote really amounts to the fact that he and his family couldn't handle their personal family problem and take care of business, so he wants everyone else to surrender their right to self-protection to make up for his lack of ability to deal.

The problem isn't that the Second Amendment gives too much freedom and access.  It's that there are too many people like SW2 who can't handle freedom on a personal level, and need the government to step in and take care of their problems for them.

Saying so may make me a coldhearted bitch, but it's still the truth and needs to be said.


----------



## Burp (Apr 17, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > SW2SILVERQUASI said:
> ...


----------



## necritan (Apr 18, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Firearms, guns and second Amendment rights. Who would argue that? I would. After thirty years or so, so will you. After all the abuses. And no saving graces. I could have been blown away, I grabbed the gun away and chose NOT to use it.  I am not a statistic, I am a real breathing human being. Too bad that isn't a new kind of political party. We might amount to something. I grabbed a gun right out of the hands of someone that was a decent human being to, too bad he was to far gone by then from booze and the affects  of a war most of you forgot before you were born.



Sounds like the boozed up man was the problem....not the gun. Sounds like someone is painting a big ole picture with a tiny little brush. Sounds like someone thinks their little life is somehow bigger than the (IMO) most important right in the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 18, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Burp: Banning guns is BAD?  Dude? The cockles of my heart are not exactly  warming, ethier. Banning guns might stop all that " Pop pop pop".  I'm willing to give  a try any way. You?



Naive and illogical.


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> SW2SILVERQUASI said:
> 
> 
> > Burp: Banning guns is BAD?  Dude? The cockles of my heart are not exactly  warming, ethier. Banning guns might stop all that " Pop pop pop".  I'm willing to give  a try any way. You?
> ...



After a while I gave up on expecting logic from the people who want guns banned ... seems to have escaped them at this point.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > SW2SILVERQUASI said:
> ...



I used to be on their side until I read a thread on a different site where people debated the same thing. I was convinced by someone on the anti gun-control crowd. So yeah, they're not entirely hopeless.


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 18, 2009)

Father Time said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



I stand corrected, some are though, you must admit.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



No doubt but the same can be said for every issue I'd imagine.


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 19, 2009)

Hmm ... triple stabbing just happened here ... should we ban all sharp objects now?


----------



## krotchdog (Apr 19, 2009)

Yukon said:


> It's time that Americans woke up, smelled the coffee and too their collective heads out of the sad. Be smart, be modern, wake up and REPEAL the 2ND AMENDMENT
> 
> The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths (murders, suicides and accidents) among the world's 36 richest nations!!
> 
> ...



Without the United States and its guns, there would be no canada. We protect canada.

Without our guns rates of crime sky rocket, the recent surge of deadly crime in Canada is evidence of this fact.

More children and teens were saved by guns than killed by guns. If more parents carried guns these number would be lower.

A child a die, saved by guns

More than 50 million dead in WW II, please do not believe all Canadians are morons.

Osama is not threatened by morons in Canada

Murder rates are out of control in Canada, all people murdered who did not own guns could of saved thier life if they owned a gun.

On a real serious note, I wish more women had conceal carry permits, I wish we heard stories like "woman kills would be rapist", 

Its time to get tough on crime, its time for women to protect themselves, the police cant. In 90% of all rapes no weapon is involved, police prevent less than .01 percent of all rape, men simply are stronger than women.

So, please, go buy guns all you women, save yourself, if not for you for your children. Men are the lousy people, we commit most crime, much simply because we are stronger.

By a gun, shoot a rapist, save your life.


----------



## 3mmartin (Apr 19, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Even at this early phase Im not surprised. Not a single one of you has been able to lodge a logical protest to my post. Sarcasm is the best you can do.



1) Obviously, a lot of people die due to violence, the weapon of choice being guns. Men killed each other over Money, Drugs, family, Religion, Philosophy and everything else under the sun long before guns came along. Removing guns would not stop the violence, it would simply take a different form.

2) Out lawing guns doesn't stop criminals from getting guns. The majority of gun related deaths are in drug wars, and they get legal and illegal guns as easily as they get legal and illegal drugs. Most of the deaths you oppose will continue.

3) Countries who make guns illegal have higher rates of crime (UK) Criminals know the populace is unarmed so they steal and maim and kill at will. Armed citizens thwart many crimes in the US every year.

4) The problem is not the tools and resources available to men, the problem is that people desire to and decide to kill. Once they decide to kill, man is resourceful, he will find the means. 

Man kills because he wants to kill, because he doesn't believe that he will ultimately be held accountable. He thinks he can get away with it, because he either doesn't believe in God, or He doesn't believe God will punish him for killing:

"You have heard it said, to Love your friend, and hate your enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemy, and bless those who persecute you, for if you love only those who love you, what reward is in that? Even scoundrels love those who love them. No, love your enemies, and then you will be like your Father in Heaven..."

Spoken by Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount.
God Bless you!


----------



## 3mmartin (Apr 19, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Conseravtaives are a lot like Mullahs. In fact they are a lot like Islamic fundamentalists. Both groups believe in strict adherance to a religious philosophy and both groups wnat their specific beliefs imposed on everyone. Live and let live is not in the Islamic or Conservative vocabulary. How sad.........



You want Guns to be banned, and you want that specific idea to be posed on everyone. Yukon, anyone who proposes anything to be made law is proposing to have his specific belief imposed on everyone. 

Your philosophy tells you "Guns are bad, ban them" What is the difference between religion and philosophy? Your "Philosophy" is another name for "Religion" or "Belief system"

Get a clue dude, your ideas are not inherently superiour just because they are not "Religious"


----------



## Father Time (Apr 19, 2009)

krotchdog said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > It's time that Americans woke up, smelled the coffee and too their collective heads out of the sad. Be smart, be modern, wake up and REPEAL the 2ND AMENDMENT
> ...



As much as I hate gun control a simple correlation doesn't prove cause and effect.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 19, 2009)

Father Time said:


> krotchdog said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



It's not just a simple correlation.  Among other things, criminals themselves will tell you that the more likely it is that a potential victim will be armed and able to fight back, the more likely they are to turn their attention to a "cold" crime, aka one without a victim present, like property crimes.  In fact, the same crime stats that show a decrease of violent crime every time concealed-carry laws are implemented shows a corresponding increase in property crime.  And common sense should tell you as much.  Criminals may be more reckless than the general population - as are cops, by the way - but there's no reason to believe they're any more suicidal than other people, or lacking in self-preservation instincts.

Aside from the anecdotal evidence provided by interviewing criminals, we have more research to go on than merely a correlation between the advent of broader gun ownership and a decrease in violent crime.  There is research that suggests that criminals actually move out of an area when concealed-carry laws come into effect, which would certainly contribute to a drop in crime.  And there are, in fact, reams of detailed studies that suggest that in this case, correlation IS because of causation.


----------



## Dr Grump (Apr 19, 2009)

daenterpri said:


> This has probably been said before, but I dont have time to read every post right now.
> 
> Here are some statistics from Australia after they banned guns and took them away from their citizens:
> 
> ...



You stats have nothing to do with the gun situation in Australia. Where did you get your stats from BTW?


----------



## Yukon (Apr 19, 2009)

The stats posted re. Australia are from the NRA.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 19, 2009)

WOW. Pro-gun folks: You fine  people have turned self delusion into an art form. This board is at about 47 pages, and growing . So much anger and defensiveness, so much  hostility, makes me nervous that you folks see yourselves as the ones that are rational and need firearms. I need some reassurance, not a bunch of tired sophistic crap. I am not kidding myself here, I know I can't change your mind, and as far as the "facts" go, I'm sure were ever you dredge up these "facts" you  can also prove the earth is flat. The only persons that NEED weapons are either military or  law enforcement officers. Nice try though. The second amendment is a relic of bygone times, and it  should be either repealed or changed to reflect the technology and the changes in morals in American culture. In my opinion . That's pretty scary to some of you.  Now, imagine society were the bad guys don't have firearms, then you guys couldn't indulge in this self-reinforcing argument that we need guns to protect ourselves from other people with guns. Oh, no we can't simplify the issue, we have to  obfuscate everything with overcomplicated logic. Or, then hide behind the flag, mom and apple pie and that sacrosanct antique, the second amendment.  Sorry, but that is how t looks to me.


----------



## Burp (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> WOW. Pro-gun folks: You fine  people have turned self delusion into an art form. This board is at about 47 pages, and growing . So much anger and defensiveness, so much  hostility, makes me nervous that you folks see yourselves as the ones that are rational and need firearms. I need some reassurance, not a bunch of tired sophistic crap. I am not kidding myself here, I know I can't change your mind, and as far as the "facts" go, I'm sure were ever you dredge up these "facts" you  can also prove the earth is flat. The only persons that NEED weapons are either military or  law enforcement officers. Nice try though. The second amendment is a relic of bygone times, and it  should be either repealed or changed to reflect the technology and the changes in morals in American culture. In my opinion . That's pretty scary to some of you.  Now, imagine society were the bad guys don't have firearms, then you guys couldn't indulge in this self-reinforcing argument that we need guns to protect ourselves from other people with guns. Oh, no we can't simplify the issue, we have to  obfuscate everything with overcomplicated logic. Or, then hide behind the flag, mom and apple pie and that sacrosanct antique, the second amendment.  Sorry, but that is how t looks to me.



The Second Amendment is a relic of bygone time?  

If the 2nd goes, so do the rest. 

Imagining a society where bad guys don't have firearms is just that - an imagination.  

It's too late - it will never happen.  

Your passion is against those who legally want to own guns because of some bad experiences. 

Now..imagine a society where the bad guys know that the next crime they commit could be there last - because their victim is legally armed.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI is dismissing facts and assuming they're wrong solely because they don't fit with his view and he has the nerve to call himself rational?

You can't just say they're wrong and leave it at that you have to have a fucking source you fool. 

And by the way it shouldn't be up to us to come up with a reason why we need guns it's up to you to think of a reason to take them away. The fact that criminals use guns is not good enough to take them away from everyone. That would be like saying a man can't eat steak because a baby can't chew it (I wonder if anyone knows what that quote was originally referencing).


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 19, 2009)

Burp, the Constitution was written by a bunch of well educated wealthy elitists. You know, they held that it was self evident that all men were created equal. And they owned slaves. Seems that even then there was a major disconnect  THEN and  some of you folks are  following in that fine tradition now.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Burp, the Constitution was written by a bunch of well educated wealthy elitists. You know, they held that it was self evident that all men were created equal. And they owned slaves. Seems that even then there was a major disconnect  THEN and  some of you folks are  following in that fine tradition now.



ZZZZ

Wake me up when you have an actual argument and not ad hominem fallacies.


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Burp, the Constitution was written by a bunch of well educated wealthy elitists. You know, they held that it was self evident that all men were created equal. And they owned slaves. Seems that even then there was a major disconnect  THEN and  some of you folks are  following in that fine tradition now.



You also realize that the loudest of us asking that the right to own guns is protected don't own guns but use logic to see how dangerous our country would be with the ban ... right?


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 19, 2009)

Oh, yes, Monday is the tenth anniversary of the slaughter at Columbine High. I live a few miles from Columbine. Should we arm every school kid ?  Were does this end? Guns are like cigarettes. When used as designed, they kill. We make up the morality and we are the ones that assign responsibility.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Oh, yes, Monday is the tenth anniversary of the slaughter at Columbine High. I live a few miles from Columbine. Should we arm every school kid ?  Were does this end? Guns are like cigarettes. When used as designed, they kill. We make up the morality and we are the ones that assign responsibility.



You can use guns and not kill things, quite easily. The Columbine kids got their guns illegally, and I don't think more gun control would've helped. They planned this event, they had homemade bombs and everything, it wasn't some spur of the moment thing, so I bet they just would've gotten their guns from the black market.


----------



## Burp (Apr 19, 2009)

Father Time said:


> SW2SILVERQUASI said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, yes, Monday is the tenth anniversary of the slaughter at Columbine High. I live a few miles from Columbine. Should we arm every school kid ?  Were does this end? Guns are like cigarettes. When used as designed, they kill. We make up the morality and we are the ones that assign responsibility.
> ...



I believe they made their bombs from designs they found on the internet. 

Maybe that's the problem - this damn Internet.


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 19, 2009)

Father Time said:


> SW2SILVERQUASI said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, yes, Monday is the tenth anniversary of the slaughter at Columbine High. I live a few miles from Columbine. Should we arm every school kid ?  Were does this end? Guns are like cigarettes. When used as designed, they kill. We make up the morality and we are the ones that assign responsibility.
> ...



It doesn't seem to stop the anti-gunnuts from politicizing the tragedy for some reason, or any other tragedy. They only latch onto one fact while ignoring all the others.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 19, 2009)

Thus proving....my point. Delusions, folks, and obfuscations, and debating with you is pointless. That is what this debate proves.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Oh, yes, Monday is the tenth anniversary of the slaughter at Columbine High. I live a few miles from Columbine. Should we arm every school kid ?  Were does this end? Guns are like cigarettes. When used as designed, they kill. We make up the morality and we are the ones that assign responsibility.



SW....when the day comes when you can explicitly trust the govt.,AND criminals dont have guns....then you can start spewing your tired old Brady bullshit.....and that responsibility you talk about,99% of gun owners exercise that responsibility.....the criminal element can care less about "GUN LAWS and REGULATIONS".....and guns are not like cigarettes.....you been talking to Chris haven't ya......your argument is ridiculous...


----------



## Burp (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Thus proving....my point. Delusions, folks, and obfuscations, and debating with you is pointless. That is what this debate proves.



Tell us about your Avatar.  The one with the guy carrying a rifle and a sidearm.


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Thus proving....my point. Delusions, folks, and obfuscations, and debating with you is pointless. That is what this debate proves.



No, this debate has proven:

1. You want to politicize the tragic deaths for "shock value" even though they prove nothing.

2. You want to ignore logic and assume that if law abiding citizens are disarmed that somehow magically the criminals will give up their guns as well.

3. You believe your fantasy world of "everyone getting along" is reality.

4. You ignore the other implements of death just because you have an agenda that doesn't match any logic or reality.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Thus proving....my point. Delusions, folks, and obfuscations, and debating with you is pointless. That is what this debate proves.



the only thing this debate proves is your another Chris.....go join him and his buds....just look for a VERY crowded asshole,im sure you can get your head up there....


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 19, 2009)

I am not trying to politicize anything, what are you "TRYING" to do, kitty?  What happened at Columbine IS shocking and I hesitated to bring it up. So, should we give children firearms to defend themselves? What is the answer, Kitty?


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 19, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> SW2SILVERQUASI said:
> 
> 
> > Thus proving....my point. Delusions, folks, and obfuscations, and debating with you is pointless. That is what this debate proves.
> ...



WOW. Nice, you are   not hostile and angry, and you really need a gun to protect yourself , yep. People like me need to be SHOT.


----------



## Burp (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> I am not trying to politicize anything, what are you "TRYING" to do, kitty?  What happened at Columbine IS shocking and I hesitated to bring it up. So, should we give children firearms to defend themselves? What is the answer, Kitty?



Columbine was shocking.  But again, blaming firearms is not the answer.  There are shocking airplane crashes; shocking bus accidents, etc.  

It wasn't the "vehicle" that did the killing.  

There is a group of people who think teachers should be armed.  I find that interesting.  Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois University, Santana High School and yes, Columbine High School might all have turned out different had a teacher been armed.


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> I am not trying to politicize anything, what are you "TRYING" to do, kitty?  What happened at Columbine IS shocking and I hesitated to bring it up. So, should we give children firearms to defend themselves? What is the answer, Kitty?



It has nothing to do with gun control laws, that's why it's considered politicizing. They were criminals, criminals don't obey the law no matter what you do. Often criminals are easily frightened when another gun is aimed at them, though not always because, get this, they are not thinking straight and nothing you do will stop them at that point. Also, no, they are not that shocking, it happens everywhere, in every country, even those with *gasp* complete bans on guns. The second amendment has many reasons for having been put into the constitution, one of the biggest reasons was to stop idiots from taking away our rights.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 19, 2009)

Kitty: I like guns. I like cars, I like machines in general. Look at the design. A bridge, a Hospital, a can opener, a computer.   Anything can be misused, but  firearms? The difference between positive and a negative is slim. They are not exactly something we NEED, and the harm they do VS the GOOD? Well I leave that to you to weigh. Be honest, with yourself, the hell with me.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 19, 2009)

The argument can be made that citizens do need firearms in case we need another revolution. Hey didn't the British try to take firearms away from the citizen rebellion?

But let's put that aside. Saying you don't NEED something is not a good enough excuse to try to take it away from people. Nobody needs alcohol, it causes a lot of deaths and yet I doubt that you want to ban that as well.

Just as people can responsibly consume alcohol, people can responsibly own guns. Punishing those people because criminals abuse guns isn't fair.


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Kitty: I like guns. I like cars, I like machines in general. Look at the design. A bridge, a Hospital, a can opener, a computer.   Anything can be misused, but  firearms? The difference between positive and a negative is slim. They are not exactly something we NEED, and the harm they do VS the GOOD? Well I leave that to you to weigh. Be honest, with yourself, the hell with me.



It was when I became honest with myself that I went from being against guns to being for protecting rights. I woke up from the dream world crafted by the innocence of youth and saw the hard facts and evidence. Yes, I was like you before, but then after I thought on it long, looked at the evidence objectively, and considered all the possibilities, I found that protecting this one right is probably one of the most important ones to protect ... I don't want to live in Russia, and any tool that will prevent it is a good tool, regardless of the very few who abuse it.


----------



## LOki (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Oh, yes, Monday is the tenth anniversary of the slaughter at Columbine High. I live a few miles from Columbine. Should we arm every school kid ?  Were does this end? Guns are like cigarettes. When used as designed, they kill. We make up the morality and we are the ones that assign responsibility.





			
				Darrell Scott said:
			
		

> . . .The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.
> 
> . . .And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties.
> 
> ...


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 19, 2009)

Kitty, read my posts again. You were once like me? You presume too much. I like guns, they are non judgmental. Guns have a setting called "safety". To bad people don't. We can't ban, control or otherwise redesign people, can we? Guns are, after all just machines, as beautiful and elegant as they are, the don't have a morality setting.  Until then, well, perhaps controlling them would be the next best thing, yes?


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Kitty, read my posts again. You were once like me? You presume too much. I like guns, they are non judgmental. Guns have a setting called "safety". To bad people don't. We can't ban, control or otherwise redesign people, can we? Guns are, after all just machines, as beautiful and elegant as they are, the don't have a morality setting.  Until then, well, perhaps controlling them would be the next best thing, yes?



We already have control in place, the only thing "more" you can do would be an illegal ban on them. The controls have worked, and in some places where social experiments were done, less control worked better than too much. There's a great example in another related thread, thanks to PC for posting it.


----------



## Yukon (Apr 19, 2009)

I must once again dispel the Kitten's outrageous comments with logic:



KittenKoder said:


> It was when I became honest with myself that I went from being against guns to being for protecting rights. *HOW ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH CAN YOU ASSOCIATE BEING AGAINST GUNS WITH PROTECTING RIGHTS? WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF THE INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING SLAUGHTERED ON A DAILY BASIS BY GUN LOVING, 2ND AMENDMENT FANATICAL WACK-JOBS? YOUR COMMENT IS NON-SENSICAL*.
> 
> I woke up from the dream world crafted by the innocence of youth and saw the hard facts and evidence. *YOU DO LIVE IN A DREAM WORLD IF YOU REALLY AND TRULY BELIEVE THAT CARRYING A PISTOL SOMEHOW IS A GOD GIVEN RIGHT RIGHT*.
> 
> ...


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 19, 2009)

Yukon said:


> I must once again dispel the Kitten's outrageous comments with logic:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You dispel nothing, but you do continue to reinforce your complete lack of independent or intelligent thought.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 19, 2009)

Guns protect rights? I thought God did that. Makes me feel snug and secure, that folks like you are protecting my rights. I keep hearing a faint  echo of Bin Laden and the crashing of planes in Manhattan. Religion, and extremism. Go hand in hand.


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Guns protect rights? I thought God did that. Makes me feel snug and secure, that folks like you are protecting my rights. I keep hearing a faint  echo of Bin Laden and the crashing of planes in Manhattan. Religion, and extremism. Go hand in hand.



Even those who believe in a god of any sort know we still have to act in order to make things happen, so yes, guns do protect our rights ... otherwise you are just continuing to blabber.


----------



## Yukon (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Guns protect rights? I thought God did that. Makes me feel snug and secure, that folks like you are protecting my rights. I keep hearing a faint  echo of Bin Laden and the crashing of planes in Manhattan. Religion, and extremism. Go hand in hand.





religion and extremism do go hand in hand but only when you are refering to extremist Muslims. Just ask any Baptist.


----------



## Burp (Apr 19, 2009)

Yukon said:


> SW2SILVERQUASI said:
> 
> 
> > Guns protect rights? I thought God did that. Makes me feel snug and secure, that folks like you are protecting my rights. I keep hearing a faint  echo of Bin Laden and the crashing of planes in Manhattan. Religion, and extremism. Go hand in hand.
> ...



We all were having a pretty decent conversation until you came along. 

Why do you care so much about what we feel about the 2nd Amendment?  You live in Canada.  

Don't tell me.  You think that 90% of all guns recovered in Canada come from the United States..


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 19, 2009)

Blabber is in the eye the beholder, kitty. This we might agree on. Yes?


----------



## Dr Grump (Apr 19, 2009)

I'm as anti-gun as you can get, but if I lived in the US I'd probably get one too. The US is a prett violent place...


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 19, 2009)

You folks that support guns are blathering. You can express yourselves. It is your right. Rights yer fellow HUMANS  observe, and GOD has nothing to do with. Not GOD given rights, freedom of speech, or to bear freekin ARMS for that matter. Most of us never owed slaves or needed firearms until all you other well meaning folks spoke up for us. Nope, sorry. Freedom of speech? Oh, yes, we coming up on an other infamous anniversary, the Oklahoma city bombing. I see a common thread here.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 19, 2009)

Yukon said:


> I must once again dispel the Kitten's outrageous comments with logic:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you advocate punishing everyone because some wackjobs murder people? How is that fair or moral?


----------



## Burp (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> You folks that support guns are blathering. You can express yourselves. It is your right. Rights yer fellow HUMANS  observe, and GOD has nothing to do with. Not GOD given rights, freedom of speech, or to bear freekin ARMS for that matter. Most of us never owed slaves or needed firearms until all you other well meaning folks spoke up for us. Nope, sorry. Freedom of speech? Oh, yes, we coming up on an other infamous anniversary, the Oklahoma city bombing. I see a common thread here.



I don't recall the Murrah Building being brought down by a handgun.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 19, 2009)

Nope, it wasn't No handguns, just extremist. Like the twin towers.  Extremism kills. Moderation never hurt anyone, has it, Burp my brother?


----------



## Burp (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Nope, it wasn't No handguns, just extremist. Like the twin towers.  Extremism kills. Moderation never hurt anyone, has it, Burp my brother?



And every person who believes in the 2nd Amendment is an extremist?  

Or just the people on this board?


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 19, 2009)

No. No, not at all,  Burp. But times have changed. I like the second amendment, too.  But it doesn't fit the times, and I don't  say that because it sounds nice. We really don't NEED guns anymore. Now, since the Constitution was written do you think they had flash drives or needed cell phones? UZIS? Or say, depleted Uranium rounds or mini-guns?  Nukes? Technology has something to do with it. And the Fact the Brits are our friends now. God bless the Queen.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 19, 2009)

Putting aside the reasons why we might need guns, since when was 'you don't need it' a good reason for 'you shouldn't be allowed to have one'?

And are you in favor of banning alcohol? It's dangerous and nobody needs it.


----------



## Burp (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> No. No, not at all,  Burp. But times have changed. I like the second amendment, too.  But it doesn't fit the times, and I don't  say that because it sounds nice. We really don't NEED guns anymore. Now, since the Constitution was written do you think they had flash drives or needed cell phones? UZIS? Or say, depleted Uranium rounds or mini-guns?  Nukes? Technology has something to do with it. And the Fact the Brits are our friends now. God bless the Queen.



We are long past the "don't need guns anymore" stage.  It's because they are too easily attainable by the bad guys that people need to have the right to own then - for protection.

I'm not worried about Gordon Ramsey breaking into my house.  

Although there are probably some people who would hope that he did.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 19, 2009)

Putting aside reason. Let's do that.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 19, 2009)

Burp, when is the last time you used a gun to defend your rights? Never? Well, I suspect most of the rest of you noble heathens that support guns can say the same thing. Not that that means anything. Oh no, it means nothing at all.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Putting aside reason. Let's do that.



So do you have any arguments other than 'we don't need them' or not?


----------



## Burp (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Burp, when is the last time you used a gun to defend your rights? Never? Well, I suspect most of the rest of you noble heathens that support guns can say the same thing. Not that that means anything. Oh no, it means nothing at all.



You are right.  The last time I used a good to defend myself, if at all, means nothing at all.

I've driven a car that can do over 200mph.  I never drove it that fast but I could have.

Using your logic, cars shouldn't be made to go that fast.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nothing about the right of the people to keep and bar Arms, only if they use them.


----------



## 3mmartin (Apr 19, 2009)

It is currently illegal for felons to own guns. There are additional penalties for people who commit crimes using guns. Yet even though it is illegal for felons to own guns, they still get them illegally. MAking guns illegal to them did not stop a thing. What do you say to this?


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 19, 2009)

Burp, lord love a duck. I don't despise pro gun folks. I get "IT". I got over "IT". and I have no doubt you will to, eventually. I like cars that go 200 MPH. I have sneaking admiration of a gun that can spit out a Million rounds a minute, too. Based on a nothing more than sheer  technical eleganance. But, does  Joe pedestrian need either?


----------



## Father Time (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Burp, lord love a duck. I don't despise pro gun folks. I get "IT". I got over "IT". and I have no doubt you will to, eventually. I like cars that go 200 MPH. I have sneaking admiration of a gun that can spit out a Million rounds a minute, too. Based on a nothing more than sheer  technical eleganance. But, does  Joe pedestrian need either?



Should that matter in determining whether or not Joe should be allowed to have them?

And do you think we should ban alcohol yes or no?


----------



## Burp (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Burp, lord love a duck. I don't despise pro gun folks. I get "IT". I got over "IT". and I have no doubt you will to, eventually. I like cars that go 200 MPH. I have sneaking admiration of a gun that can spit out a Million rounds a minute, too. Based on a nothing more than sheer  technical eleganance. But, does  Joe pedestrian need either?



Back to what Father Time said, just because someone doesn't "need" something, does that mean it needs to be outlawed?

Joe Pedestrian has the right to drive a Aston Martin Vanquish just as he has the right to own a Glock 19.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 19, 2009)

I don't have to answer that, in the end. I respect you enough. You can figure it out.


----------



## necritan (Apr 19, 2009)

Father Time said:


> The argument can be made that citizens do need firearms in case we need another revolution. Hey didn't the British try to take firearms away from the citizen rebellion?
> 
> But let's put that aside. Saying you don't NEED something is not a good enough excuse to try to take it away from people. Nobody needs alcohol, it causes a lot of deaths and yet I doubt that you want to ban that as well.
> 
> Just as people can responsibly consume alcohol, people can responsibly own guns. Punishing those people because criminals abuse guns isn't fair.



No arguement here....that IS what the 2nd is for. To give the people the power over the government.

The anti's like to say it is for hunting , self defense , target practice , competition blah blah blah.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 19, 2009)

Burp, I am having a Sam Adams right now. Scotch ale, to be exact and the temperature here in Denver is like 68 degrees fondly fahrenheit .


----------



## necritan (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> No. No, not at all,  Burp. But times have changed. I like the second amendment, too.  But it doesn't fit the times, and I don't  say that because it sounds nice. We really don't NEED guns anymore. Now, since the Constitution was written do you think they had flash drives or needed cell phones? UZIS? Or say, depleted Uranium rounds or mini-guns?  Nukes? Technology has something to do with it. And the Fact the Brits are our friends now. God bless the Queen.



As long as we have a government....we NEED guns. End of story.


----------



## necritan (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Burp, I am having a Sam Adams right now. Scotch ale, to be exact and the temperature here in Denver is like 68 degrees fondly fahrenheit .



Alcohol should be banned.


----------



## Burp (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Burp, I am having a Sam Adams right now. Scotch ale, to be exact and the temperature here in Denver is like 68 degrees fondly fahrenheit .



Samuel Adams.  A good man with excellent ideas.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 19, 2009)

Yep. Got that right.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 19, 2009)

I'm being honest, which seems to be in short supply on this  board.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > SW2SILVERQUASI said:
> ...



no people like you need to pull your head out of your ass.....


----------



## Father Time (Apr 19, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> I'm being honest, which seems to be in short supply on this  board.



What do you mean? Who was being dishonest here? I tried to be honest about what I believe.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 19, 2009)

Yukon said:


> I must once again dispel the Kitten's outrageous comments with logic:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 19, 2009)

Jesus Christ . I am so glad you are honest . It is about  time already. I am honest as the day is long, and it doesn't  seem to mater one way or the other.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 19, 2009)

Burp said:


> SW2SILVERQUASI said:
> 
> 
> > Burp, lord love a duck. I don't despise pro gun folks. I get "IT". I got over "IT". and I have no doubt you will to, eventually. I like cars that go 200 MPH. I have sneaking admiration of a gun that can spit out a Million rounds a minute, too. Based on a nothing more than sheer  technical eleganance. But, does  Joe pedestrian need either?
> ...



What I want to know is who made SW2 the Grand High Arbiter of what people do or don't need.  Where was I when he got appointed to that job?


----------



## Burp (Apr 19, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > SW2SILVERQUASI said:
> ...



Cleaning your handgun?


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 19, 2009)

Back to what Father Time said, just because someone doesn't "need" something, does that mean it needs to be outlawed?
Nope. It means nothing at all. Needs?  Food. Shelter, no, we NEED weapons? You will  me what it means, Burp. You guys are good at redefining what we NEED. Father time doesn't dictate my needs, either.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Apr 19, 2009)

That is just ducky, grand arbiter and all that. Nobody MADE me anything.It is my empire of dirt, to quote Kurt Cobain. If you want it, you can have it. It's all yours. I just post my witto bitty opinion, and that seems to intimidate some of you skaswags. It doesn't take much. BOO!


----------



## Yukon (Apr 20, 2009)

Americans are aroused by the thought of handling a gun and when they fire a gun it's almost like their first sexual encountered. Oh the thrill ! 

So sad, so pathetic they are. Why can't they fight with your fists? Why must they confront a person with a gun...is it cowardice? Perhaps...............


----------



## LOki (Apr 20, 2009)

Yukon said:


> I must once again dispel the Kitten's outrageous comments with logic:


You're going to fail.



Yukon said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > It was when I became honest with myself that I went from being against guns to being for protecting rights.
> ...


You can't. Being against keeping and bearing arms is being against rights.

So much for your logic.



Yukon said:


> *WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF THE INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING SLAUGHTERED ON A DAILY BASIS. . .*


Those who support the right to keep and bear arms, support the right of potential victims of violence to keep and bear guns . . . those who are against the right to keep and bear arms, are AGAINST the right of potential victims of violence to keep and bear guns.

So much for your logic.



Yukon said:


> *. . . BY GUN LOVING, . . .*


Loving one's life and liberty does not mean loving guns--yet guns are excellent tools for protecting one's life and liberty.  Those who are against rights--who are against regular folks protecting their lives and liberty--are the precise people who are against the 2nd Amendment, and against the keeping and bearing of arms.

So much for your logic.



Yukon said:


> *. . . 2ND AMENDMENT FANATICAL WACK-JOBS? YOUR COMMENT IS NON-SENSICAL*.


The slaughter of innocent people is not a right enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, nor is  it described in the 2nd Amendment--*YOUR COMMENT IS NON-SENSICAL.*

So much for your logic.



Yukon said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > I woke up from the dream world crafted by the innocence of youth and saw the hard facts and evidence.
> ...



Carrying a pistol is a right protected by the U.S. Constitution. If you refuse to accept this fact out of some stically idiotic embrace of error of fact, then it is you who live in the dream world.



Yukon said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I was like you before, but then after I thought on it long, looked at the evidence objectively, and considered all the possibilities, I found that protecting this one right is probably one of the most important ones to protect ...
> ...


You're an idiot.



Yukon said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > I don't want to live in Russia, and any tool that will prevent it is a good tool, regardless of the very few who abuse it.
> ...


One with an intellect--an intellectual, if you will--would have been able to parse the notion that KK expressed the sentiment that she doesn't want to live in a place like Russia.

So much for your logic . . . and your fatuous -ahem- "intelect".


----------



## LOki (Apr 20, 2009)

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Guns protect rights?


No. But people with guns are better able to protect their rights than people without guns.



SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> I thought God did that.


Asserted as if you actually thought.



SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Makes me feel snug and secure, that folks like you are protecting my rights.


If your previous sentence has any validity for you, you actually think God protects rights.



SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> I keep hearing a faint  echo of Bin Laden and the crashing of planes in Manhattan. Religion, and extremism. Go hand in hand.


People with guns are better able to protect their rights from extremeists who would violate those rights, than people without guns.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 20, 2009)

Yukon said:


> It's time that Americans woke up, smelled the coffee and too their collective heads out of the sad. Be smart, be modern, wake up and REPEAL the 2ND AMENDMENT
> 
> The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths (murders, suicides and accidents) among the world's 36 richest nations!!
> 
> ...



You don't like our constitution?  Fine...its a win win situation.  We are americans and you aren't.


----------



## Yukon (Apr 20, 2009)

It shocks me that some Americans would rather have their own child mercilessly slaughtered at school rather than resrict handgun ownwership.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 20, 2009)

Yukon said:


> It shocks me that some Americans would rather have their own child mercilessly slaughtered at school rather than resrict handgun ownwership.



See you are not wearing your thinking cap.  High school is the best time to thin the herd.


----------



## LOki (Apr 20, 2009)

Yukon said:


> It shocks me that some Americans would rather have their own child mercilessly slaughtered at school rather than resrict handgun ownwership.


If it were at all true, I'd be shocked too.

I am not surprised that you would rather restrict handgun ownership for regular folks, and have your own children to be mercilessly slaughtered at school, for lack of any sensible human being present with a handgun who would shoot their murderers.

I am not surprised at all, because you clearly do not value your own life enough to defend it effectively--you can't possibly value your children's lives any more.

Here's a thought for you: Why not allow your children have the best tools for defending their own lives rather than enforce your patent disregard for their lives upon them? They can choose to disregard _their_ lives if they wish--but let _them_ decide whether or not their lives are worth defending with the best tools available.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 20, 2009)

Yukon said:


> It shocks me that some Americans would rather have their own child mercilessly slaughtered at school rather than resrict handgun ownwership.



Do you even know how pathetically low the odds are of a kid getting killed in a school shooting? More people get struck by lightning per year, and kids are more likely to drown than be the victim of a Columbine.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 20, 2009)

Father Time said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > It shocks me that some Americans would rather have their own child mercilessly slaughtered at school rather than resrict handgun ownwership.
> ...



Not to mention that it is the restrictions on gun ownership and carrying that make children at school so vulnerable to being shot.  Note that every single school shooter EVER has done so in violation of gun control laws currently in existence, and then try to tell me that gun control laws protect my child better than a legally-armed teacher or staff member would.  It's no accident that crazed shooters choose "gun-free zones" for their sprees.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 20, 2009)

Yukon said:


> It shocks me that some Americans would rather have their own child mercilessly slaughtered at school rather than resrict handgun ownwership.



It shocks me that a stupid cannuck thinks he has a say in american politics and gun ownership.


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 20, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Americans are aroused by the thought of handling a gun and when they fire a gun it's almost like their first sexual encountered. Oh the thrill !
> 
> So sad, so pathetic they are. Why can't they fight with your fists? Why must they confront a person with a gun...is it cowardice? Perhaps...............



Oh, you mean like the riots in Canada when a soccer (or was it hockey) game gets canceled and lay the town to waste? When a rock concert got canceled there a lot of people died, with or without guns, didn't make much of a difference then did it?


----------



## Yukon (Apr 20, 2009)

If one were to apply the twisted and perverse logic of the aveargae American red-neck everyone would be living in a Trailer Park and no one would be allowed out of the Trailer Park grounds unless they were armed. 

What the heck, why not give every student a pistol as they enter school for the day. They would then be safe and the red-neck lunatic fringe would be happy. My God but you people are border-line crazy.


----------



## raceright (Apr 20, 2009)

Yukon said:


> If one were to apply the twisted and perverse logic of the aveargae American red-neck everyone would be living in a Trailer Park and no one would be allowed out of the Trailer Park grounds unless they were armed.
> 
> What the heck, why not give every student a pistol as they enter school for the day. They would then be safe and the red-neck lunatic fringe would be happy. My God but you people are border-line crazy.



Go chop down a tree  hea hea


----------



## Fregretu (Apr 20, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Even at this early phase Im not surprised. Not a single one of you has been able to lodge a logical protest to my post. Sarcasm is the best you can do.



Google "crime rates higher in gun controlled countries"  You will find plenty of logic.

The U.S. has not been invaded by other foreign countries because of our gun control laws.  Japan being one of them.

Yukon, you can come visit me, I promise, I won't shoot you.


----------



## zvhorn (Apr 20, 2009)

Yukon....I realize this has already been said 100,000 times to you but obviously your not getting it.  No one really gives a jolly shit about what you or any other worthless Canadians think.  Your country is worthless and has never contributed anything worth talking about to the greater good of the world.  Canada has done nothing but make a perfect model of government for the rest of the world to AVOID.  On top of that list is governmental healthcare...which is completely broke and is one hell of a big joke.  So obviously the last thing we need is any type of advice from you weak, soft hearted pukes. Please shut up!  

Any talk about guns being only for the use of the militia is fine.  The militia is the "Citizen" of the United States.  Militia men were not part of the army..national guard...or any other governmental organization.  It was plain everyday citizens...so that argument is worthless! 

Finally it is a must for any tyrannical government to first disarm the people to prevent any type of resistance. (and yes by the way, the founding fathers included the 2nd ammendment simply for the people to have defense against a tyrannical government, and for protection for yourself, family, and property.)  Nazi Germany is a prime example.  Hitler shot on the scene as a leader who was able to take all the pain and suffering away if they citizens would simply lay down their arms....even you Canadians know the rest of the story I think.....(in case you don't)  IT BURNED THE GERMANS BAAAD! Idiot!


----------



## Yukon (Apr 20, 2009)

zvhorn,

Your response was almost worthy of a comment until you played the "Nazi" card. Americans always play either the "Nazi" or the "race" card when they can't respond logically and rationally. How pathetic you are, pathetic and sad.

You are a cowardly people now. There was a time not long ago when Americans were respected, they didn't back down, they could fight. But alas you have become a fat, lazy, politically correct people. You no longer have men to lead you. Sad, pathetic, pitiful, loud mouthed and weak little men..........


----------



## raceright (Apr 20, 2009)

Yukon said:


> zvhorn,
> 
> Your response was almost worthy of a comment until you played the "Nazi" card. Americans always play either the "Nazi" or the "race" card when they can't respond logically and rationally. How pathetic you are, pathetic and sad.
> 
> You are a cowardly people now. There was a time not long ago when Americans were respected, they didn't back down, they could fight. But alas you have become a fat, lazy, politically correct people. You no longer have men to lead you. Sad, pathetic, pitiful, loud mouthed and weak little men..........



Brave mother fucker on the webb  better stay in the snow
when was the last time you got you ass kicked  you need it again


----------



## zvhorn (Apr 20, 2009)

Once again I believe this site is call US (United States) message board.  Know one cares what you pathetic Canadians think about our government, or laws, or how we conduct ourselves.  Why don't you start a site called canadian message board where you can openly talk with other canadians about socialism, being cowards, not fighting for freedom, being gay or whatever else you canadians do.   Your opinion means nothing  to any American citizen!

By the way you have just perfectly described my view of Canada.  Thats the exact description I was looking for in my first post to you....minus the part of ever being respected of course!! haha!  Thanks for your help!


----------



## Yukon (Apr 20, 2009)

raceright,

There are people who post here who would protest and complain vehemently if you directed such a vile and putrid message to them. I do NOT complain. I am tough, I am CANADIAN !!!


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 20, 2009)

Yukon said:


> raceright,
> 
> There are people who post here who would protest and complain vehemently if you directed such a vile and putrid message to them. I do NOT complain. I am tough, I am CANADIAN !!!


----------



## Yukon (Apr 20, 2009)

As they say dear Kitten...."If the shoe fits, wear it?"


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 20, 2009)

Yukon said:


> As they say dear Kitten...."If the shoe fits, wear it?"



Keyboard commandoing does not make you tough.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 20, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > As they say dear Kitten...."If the shoe fits, wear it?"
> ...



Pukeon .....do you curtsy when the old bag Queen comes to see her SUBJECTS and collect money so she and hers can live good?....just askin?


----------



## Meister (Apr 20, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



Hey Harry, ask him if he wants to borrow your AK47 for some target practice.


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 20, 2009)

Meister said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



He's too scared of guns, would probably blow his own foot off.


----------



## krotchdog (Apr 20, 2009)

Father Time said:


> krotchdog said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



Yet many times a simple correlation does prove cause and effect.


----------



## Father Time (Apr 21, 2009)

krotchdog said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > krotchdog said:
> ...



What I meant was that correlation itself is not sufficient proof for cause and effect.


----------



## Yukon (Apr 21, 2009)

Swine.


----------



## Meister (Apr 21, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Swine.



Yukon, I thought I would do some trolling just like you.  *You suck, man.*


----------



## Father Time (Apr 21, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Swine.



Are you even trying?

Sheesh just because we think people should be allowed to own guns (excluding criminals, the mentally insane and children) doesn't mean we're Ok with people being murdered or shot, nor do we (or at least I) believe that not banning guns equals more murder.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 21, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



i think he has already blown his pecker off....he put a loaded pistol down his waist band.....oh wait,i now hear it went off....but missed....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 21, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Swine.



homo says what?....


----------



## Yukon (Apr 22, 2009)

Father Time said:


> "...(excluding criminals, the mentally insane and children)..."



You've referenced about 99% of the population of the USA.


----------



## raceright (Apr 22, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Swine.



Shit head


----------



## KittenKoder (Apr 22, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > "...(excluding criminals, the mentally insane and children)..."
> ...



Nope, that better reflects non-US Catholics now ...


----------



## Yukon (Apr 26, 2009)

Kitten,

Do you have a problem with us Roman Catholics? We will accept all kinds even blasphemors.....!


----------



## necritan (Apr 26, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Swine.



You sir...are a little bitch. A scared little child talking big behind a keyboard. Oh how I would love to watch your fat dumb head bounce off the asphalt....


----------



## Yukon (Apr 27, 2009)

Necritan,

I'm saddened to read your hate filled message, saddened indeed. But I still love you my child and I will pray for you.


----------



## Yukon (Jun 27, 2009)

necritan said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Swine.
> ...



Why do you post such vile and disgusting messages?


----------



## Douger (Jun 27, 2009)

Move to England.


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 27, 2009)

*GUNS must GO 
*

I can't remember if I said this before on this thread and I damn sure am not going to re-read this stupid thread.

Yucon...Go fuck yourself.  Stay out of america...stay out of american affairs.  You stay in your cheezy little no balls country where you belong.  This is my country not yours.  We like our guns...don't ask why.  It's none of your business.


----------

