What kind of horrible, dangerous places do these people live that hey have to go out armed?

[Daryl Hunt]

I don't think "flagging" is reasonable or legal.
You can't take guns from someone without creating a 2 tiered society, or those with full rights and those with less than that.
If someone is dangerous and can be proven to be dangerous in court, than a judge should issue a warrant for his arrest, not for his legal guns. All that is going to do is ensure he will obtain illegal guns and do what they were concerned with.
Confiscating legal guns does not at all reduce the ability to get illegal ones any more than the War on Drugs eliminated illegal drugs.
The only hope of society is to lock up bad people, not all the possible means by which they could do bad, because that obviously is impossible.

I don't mean flagging literally. I mean once it has been determined or discovered that a firearm owner has become a prohibited person. For example in the case that I cited, the workplace shooter WAS a prohibited person who apparently was not honest on one of the forms that he was required to fill out. However once the discrepency was discovered via a federal background check to my understanding, instead of confiscating his weapon or issuing a warrant for failure to comply with a surrender order, they instead relied on him to voluntarily surrender his weapons.

In my state, if person who owns firearms has a protection order taken out against them (also known as a no contact/restraining order in some jurisdiction), they're required to turn in their weapons but in many cases no one follows up to see if they actually do.

Here's a flowchart of the domestic violence circumstances under which a person can be required to surrender their firearms but apparently except in very few cases, no one is enforcing the requirement

https://wscadv.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/order-to-surrender-flowchart.pdf​

Ok, but my point is that it likely is not rational or legal to make second class citizens out of people who are not incarcerated or wards of the state.
It is not going to stop them from committing crimes, by making legal weapons access illegal. If they intend crimes more serious then the weapons violations, you can be they will then just get the arms illegally.
If a person is dangerous, then prove it in court and lock them up or put them under supervision.
Nothing else makes any sense and is just bound to increase the problem grseatly.

Maybe you can walk me through this?

We have laws that say that a prohibited person cannot lawfully possess firearms, yet we don't enforce them (utilizing the honor system is the same as not enforceing them for the most part) yet we have a certain faction of society that is constantly clamoring for additional and more restrictive laws surrounding the right to keep & bear arms.

There is a real problem with real people involved in violent criminal activity, yet instead of concentrating on them, they instead keep going after people who are lawful gun owners, essentially creating a new group of people who have never used their weapons to harm anyone, but were instead just suddenly legislatively made into criminals.

This makes no sense to me and I suspect that the people doing this know that it makes no sense but just don't care because they want someone to pay for the suffering that they've experienced even if the people they're going after are not responsible for their suffering.

I and others have stated this earlier in the thread, but Democrats don't care about us owning guns. What bothers them is that we have the ability to defend ourselves with them.

Democrats rely on government dependents. If they were ever to strip our rights to gun ownership, that would leave us with a society where only the criminals and cops have firearms. That would make the rest of us victims since we couldn't defend ourselves.

We would have to rely on government for protection which as we all know, would be a complete failure. If we ever evolved into a society where people didn't "need" government, the only time you'd hear of the Democrat party is in history books.

I don't think "flagging" is reasonable or legal.
You can't take guns from someone without creating a 2 tiered society, or those with full rights and those with less than that.
If someone is dangerous and can be proven to be dangerous in court, than a judge should issue a warrant for his arrest, not for his legal guns. All that is going to do is ensure he will obtain illegal guns and do what they were concerned with.
Confiscating legal guns does not at all reduce the ability to get illegal ones any more than the War on Drugs eliminated illegal drugs.
The only hope of society is to lock up bad people, not all the possible means by which they could do bad, because that obviously is impossible.

I don't mean flagging literally. I mean once it has been determined or discovered that a firearm owner has become a prohibited person. For example in the case that I cited, the workplace shooter WAS a prohibited person who apparently was not honest on one of the forms that he was required to fill out. However once the discrepency was discovered via a federal background check to my understanding, instead of confiscating his weapon or issuing a warrant for failure to comply with a surrender order, they instead relied on him to voluntarily surrender his weapons.

In my state, if person who owns firearms has a protection order taken out against them (also known as a no contact/restraining order in some jurisdiction), they're required to turn in their weapons but in many cases no one follows up to see if they actually do.

Here's a flowchart of the domestic violence circumstances under which a person can be required to surrender their firearms but apparently except in very few cases, no one is enforcing the requirement

https://wscadv.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/order-to-surrender-flowchart.pdf​

Ok, but my point is that it likely is not rational or legal to make second class citizens out of people who are not incarcerated or wards of the state.
It is not going to stop them from committing crimes, by making legal weapons access illegal. If they intend crimes more serious then the weapons violations, you can be they will then just get the arms illegally.
If a person is dangerous, then prove it in court and lock them up or put them under supervision.
Nothing else makes any sense and is just bound to increase the problem grseatly.

Maybe you can walk me through this?

We have laws that say that a prohibited person cannot lawfully possess firearms, yet we don't enforce them (utilizing the honor system is the same as not enforceing them for the most part) yet we have a certain faction of society that is constantly clamoring for additional and more restrictive laws surrounding the right to keep & bear arms.

There is a real problem with real people involved in violent criminal activity, yet instead of concentrating on them, they instead keep going after people who are lawful gun owners, essentially creating a new group of people who have never used their weapons to harm anyone, but were instead just suddenly legislatively made into criminals.

This makes no sense to me and I suspect that the people doing this know that it makes no sense but just don't care because they want someone to pay for the suffering that they've experienced even if the people they're going after are not responsible for their suffering.

I and others have stated this earlier in the thread, but Democrats don't care about us owning guns. What bothers them is that we have the ability to defend ourselves with them.

Democrats rely on government dependents. If they were ever to strip our rights to gun ownership, that would leave us with a society where only the criminals and cops have firearms. That would make the rest of us victims since we couldn't defend ourselves.

We would have to rely on government for protection which as we all know, would be a complete failure. If we ever evolved into a society where people didn't "need" government, the only time you'd hear of the Democrat party is in history books.

 

[hadit]

Stress training is different than weapons training. It doesn't matter how much time on a range you spend.

Not true. The more you train, the more muscle memory you develop, which in turn improves your performance when the chips are down. Stress training helps you make better DECISIONS, it doesn't help you implement those decisions.

Which applies to a tiny miniscule of gun owners – the vast majority of whom have no idea what to expect or how to use a gun for self-defense.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that citizens shouldn’t exercise their right to carry firearms; it does mean, however, that gun owners should be aware of their extensive limitations and use a firearm for self-defense only in response to an imminent and deadly threat, not to act as ‘law enforcement,’ or to otherwise ‘fight crime.’

Which is exactly what they do. The vast majority of guns never harm a person, and the vast majority of gun owners never shoot another human being.

The vigilantes are very few and far between.

Then why have guns at all, if you're not using them for hunting or because you live on a farm?

In the case of that JGalt guy and most other gun nuts, they buy guns to make up for their personal lack of balls.

More juvenile insults. Are you really out of substantive arguments?

 

[Blues Man]

Stress training is different than weapons training. It doesn't matter how much time on a range you spend.

Not true. The more you train, the more muscle memory you develop, which in turn improves your performance when the chips are down. Stress training helps you make better DECISIONS, it doesn't help you implement those decisions.

Which applies to a tiny miniscule of gun owners – the vast majority of whom have no idea what to expect or how to use a gun for self-defense.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that citizens shouldn’t exercise their right to carry firearms; it does mean, however, that gun owners should be aware of their extensive limitations and use a firearm for self-defense only in response to an imminent and deadly threat, not to act as ‘law enforcement,’ or to otherwise ‘fight crime.’

Which is exactly what they do. The vast majority of guns never harm a person, and the vast majority of gun owners never shoot another human being.

The vigilantes are very few and far between.

Then why have guns at all, if you're not using them for hunting or because you live on a farm?

Why buy life insurance when you're young? The vast majority will never use it.

Target shooting is fun. Skeet shooting is fun. Collecting is fun. There are a lot of reasons why people own guns. Self defense is an important, but far from the only, reason.

The only reason to buy life insurance when you're young is that you can get it at a much lower premium

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Sorry, but if you think you need to be armed at a little girl's soft ball game, you're nuts.

If one of those little girls is yours and you feel responsible for her safety then why is it "nuts" to carry a concealed weapon? Let me guess, Bulldog...you're one of those naïve people who thinks that the Police will protect you from the crazies?

I'm one of those people who think the craziest among us shouldn't be allowed to have guns, and certainly shouldn't be allowed to prance around with one just to make a fashion statement.

What does that have to do with someone who's completely sane and completely law abiding having the right to carry a firearm to protect themselves and their loved ones?

Go back and read the posts by gun nuts here, especially that galt nut, and tell me they aren't too crazy and hoping for a confrontation to be armed

You don't have to be "crazy" to be concerned about what will happen if you DO have a confrontation with a violent person who wants to do you or your loved ones harm, Bulldog! I don't carry because I'm LOOKING for a confrontation...I carry because I want to be ready if one comes looking for me! I understand that the Police can't protect us from violent criminals. They might or might not bring them to justice after the fact but that's not much comfort if you've been killed or someone you love has been killed. It's my belief that I have a responsibility as an adult to be able to protect myself and those I love to the best of my abilities. And if I just so happen to be in a location that has an active mass shooter killing people then I might be the person who saves your life or the life of someone you love!

The I suggest you go get the training to go with the fantasy just in case your fantasy ever becomes a reality. Otherwise, it might turn into a real nightmare. You think just carrying the weapon (notice I said weapon not gun) is being ready. It's only part of it. It's like putting your car engine back together and thinking all those extra bolts and things aren't necessary.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yours.

I see you are still unable to admit to any responsibility. It's every citizens fault. So stand up here with me, shoulder to shoulder and accept the blame like a Man or a Woman.

No it's not my fault I haven't voted anything but 3rd party for 20 years

Doing a throwaway vote is worse than not voting at all.

So it's the old catch 22.

If I vote for incumbents or anyone from the two major established parties I'm not doing anything to change the system and if I vote for a third party I'm throwing away a vote and doing nothing to change the system

So tell me why I should vote at all

In more than 40 years of voting, voting at least once every two years, I’ve never voted ‘for’ anyone – only against.

Most Americans have made peace with the lesser of two evils nature of American politics.

What would happen if entire Districts and States started picking candidates other than the two losers that the 2 parties provided for them to pick. That is how it's supposed to work. It starts out at the bottom and works it way to the top. Instead, today, it starts at the top and stays there.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I am neither. I am a private citizen and have always been. I just was also a serious firearms competitor, and fencer, and that introduced me to many people in the Spec Ops community. Earnest Emerson, Bill Bagwell and i are on a first name basis, and have been for decades. It was through my friendship with Bagwell that I got the gig to train the Green Berets.

Stress training is different than weapons training. It doesn't matter how much time on a range you spend.

Not true. The more you train, the more muscle memory you develop, which in turn improves your performance when the chips are down. Stress training helps you make better DECISIONS, it doesn't help you implement those decisions.

Which applies to a tiny miniscule of gun owners – the vast majority of whom have no idea what to expect or how to use a gun for self-defense.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that citizens shouldn’t exercise their right to carry firearms; it does mean, however, that gun owners should be aware of their extensive limitations and use a firearm for self-defense only in response to an imminent and deadly threat, not to act as ‘law enforcement,’ or to otherwise ‘fight crime.’

Which is exactly what they do. The vast majority of guns never harm a person, and the vast majority of gun owners never shoot another human being.

The vigilantes are very few and far between.

Then why have guns at all, if you're not using them for hunting or because you live on a farm?

According to the Supreme Court, it's constitutional to have them to protect your Home. Anything past that, it's up to the townships, counties or state. Hunting is another matter and really isn't covered under the 2nd Amendment at all. It's a given that we have always just accepted. I guess you can call it a Tradition or a Custom far older than the Bill of Rights.

 

[hadit]

Not true. The more you train, the more muscle memory you develop, which in turn improves your performance when the chips are down. Stress training helps you make better DECISIONS, it doesn't help you implement those decisions.

Which applies to a tiny miniscule of gun owners – the vast majority of whom have no idea what to expect or how to use a gun for self-defense.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that citizens shouldn’t exercise their right to carry firearms; it does mean, however, that gun owners should be aware of their extensive limitations and use a firearm for self-defense only in response to an imminent and deadly threat, not to act as ‘law enforcement,’ or to otherwise ‘fight crime.’

Which is exactly what they do. The vast majority of guns never harm a person, and the vast majority of gun owners never shoot another human being.

The vigilantes are very few and far between.

Then why have guns at all, if you're not using them for hunting or because you live on a farm?

Why buy life insurance when you're young? The vast majority will never use it.

Target shooting is fun. Skeet shooting is fun. Collecting is fun. There are a lot of reasons why people own guns. Self defense is an important, but far from the only, reason.

The only reason to buy life insurance when you're young is that you can get it at a much lower premium

Or you have a family you want to protect and you realize even young people die. But just like life insurance for the young is rarely needed, a gun for self defense will probably not be needed. But if it is, you're glad it's there.

 

[Blues Man]

Which applies to a tiny miniscule of gun owners – the vast majority of whom have no idea what to expect or how to use a gun for self-defense.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that citizens shouldn’t exercise their right to carry firearms; it does mean, however, that gun owners should be aware of their extensive limitations and use a firearm for self-defense only in response to an imminent and deadly threat, not to act as ‘law enforcement,’ or to otherwise ‘fight crime.’

Which is exactly what they do. The vast majority of guns never harm a person, and the vast majority of gun owners never shoot another human being.

The vigilantes are very few and far between.

Then why have guns at all, if you're not using them for hunting or because you live on a farm?

Why buy life insurance when you're young? The vast majority will never use it.

Target shooting is fun. Skeet shooting is fun. Collecting is fun. There are a lot of reasons why people own guns. Self defense is an important, but far from the only, reason.

The only reason to buy life insurance when you're young is that you can get it at a much lower premium

Or you have a family you want to protect and you realize even young people die. But just like life insurance for the young is rarely needed, a gun for self defense will probably not be needed. But if it is, you're glad it's there.

A young person is better off buying disability insurance as he is more likely to be injured than die

 

[Oldstyle]

If one of those little girls is yours and you feel responsible for her safety then why is it "nuts" to carry a concealed weapon? Let me guess, Bulldog...you're one of those naïve people who thinks that the Police will protect you from the crazies?

I'm one of those people who think the craziest among us shouldn't be allowed to have guns, and certainly shouldn't be allowed to prance around with one just to make a fashion statement.

What does that have to do with someone who's completely sane and completely law abiding having the right to carry a firearm to protect themselves and their loved ones?

Go back and read the posts by gun nuts here, especially that galt nut, and tell me they aren't too crazy and hoping for a confrontation to be armed

You don't have to be "crazy" to be concerned about what will happen if you DO have a confrontation with a violent person who wants to do you or your loved ones harm, Bulldog! I don't carry because I'm LOOKING for a confrontation...I carry because I want to be ready if one comes looking for me! I understand that the Police can't protect us from violent criminals. They might or might not bring them to justice after the fact but that's not much comfort if you've been killed or someone you love has been killed. It's my belief that I have a responsibility as an adult to be able to protect myself and those I love to the best of my abilities. And if I just so happen to be in a location that has an active mass shooter killing people then I might be the person who saves your life or the life of someone you love!

The I suggest you go get the training to go with the fantasy just in case your fantasy ever becomes a reality. Otherwise, it might turn into a real nightmare. You think just carrying the weapon (notice I said weapon not gun) is being ready. It's only part of it. It's like putting your car engine back together and thinking all those extra bolts and things aren't necessary.

Where did I ever claim that just carrying a weapon means that someone is "ready" to defend themselves. I grew up with firearms. Learned to shoot them...learned to use them safely. It's not a fantasy of mine to use a firearm on another human being. I don't enjoy killing things. If I ever do have to fire in self defense it will be as a last resort.

 

[BULLDOG]

Not true. The more you train, the more muscle memory you develop, which in turn improves your performance when the chips are down. Stress training helps you make better DECISIONS, it doesn't help you implement those decisions.

Which applies to a tiny miniscule of gun owners – the vast majority of whom have no idea what to expect or how to use a gun for self-defense.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that citizens shouldn’t exercise their right to carry firearms; it does mean, however, that gun owners should be aware of their extensive limitations and use a firearm for self-defense only in response to an imminent and deadly threat, not to act as ‘law enforcement,’ or to otherwise ‘fight crime.’

Which is exactly what they do. The vast majority of guns never harm a person, and the vast majority of gun owners never shoot another human being.

The vigilantes are very few and far between.

Then why have guns at all, if you're not using them for hunting or because you live on a farm?

In the case of that JGalt guy and most other gun nuts, they buy guns to make up for their personal lack of balls.

More juvenile insults. Are you really out of substantive arguments?

If it's an insult, it's coming from gun nuts. You should thumb back through this thread.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm one of those people who think the craziest among us shouldn't be allowed to have guns, and certainly shouldn't be allowed to prance around with one just to make a fashion statement.

What does that have to do with someone who's completely sane and completely law abiding having the right to carry a firearm to protect themselves and their loved ones?

Go back and read the posts by gun nuts here, especially that galt nut, and tell me they aren't too crazy and hoping for a confrontation to be armed

You don't have to be "crazy" to be concerned about what will happen if you DO have a confrontation with a violent person who wants to do you or your loved ones harm, Bulldog! I don't carry because I'm LOOKING for a confrontation...I carry because I want to be ready if one comes looking for me! I understand that the Police can't protect us from violent criminals. They might or might not bring them to justice after the fact but that's not much comfort if you've been killed or someone you love has been killed. It's my belief that I have a responsibility as an adult to be able to protect myself and those I love to the best of my abilities. And if I just so happen to be in a location that has an active mass shooter killing people then I might be the person who saves your life or the life of someone you love!

The I suggest you go get the training to go with the fantasy just in case your fantasy ever becomes a reality. Otherwise, it might turn into a real nightmare. You think just carrying the weapon (notice I said weapon not gun) is being ready. It's only part of it. It's like putting your car engine back together and thinking all those extra bolts and things aren't necessary.

Where did I ever claim that just carrying a weapon means that someone is "ready" to defend themselves. I grew up with firearms. Learned to shoot them...learned to use them safely. It's not a fantasy of mine to use a firearm on another human being. I don't enjoy killing things. If I ever do have to fire in self defense it will be as a last resort.

So you oppose the gun nuts here who claim they would love to shoot someone. Good for you.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I see you are still unable to admit to any responsibility. It's every citizens fault. So stand up here with me, shoulder to shoulder and accept the blame like a Man or a Woman.

No it's not my fault I haven't voted anything but 3rd party for 20 years

Doing a throwaway vote is worse than not voting at all.

So it's the old catch 22.

If I vote for incumbents or anyone from the two major established parties I'm not doing anything to change the system and if I vote for a third party I'm throwing away a vote and doing nothing to change the system

So tell me why I should vote at all

You vote on the local level in the party. You make changes at the local level which, if done enough, will change the national level. Too many people blindly follow, vote 3rd party which draws votes away from the other candidate or don't vote at all. So the small room full of white haired old guys gets to choose for you.

So you want me to vote the way you tell me to?

If you want to change the system you change it first at the local level where third party candidates have more of a chance you don't keep voting for the same two parties locally as you are only continuing the same old 2 party corruption we have now

Your first line is that of a fruitcake. Try again and try to stop telling me how I think. You have no idea what is going on inside my head. Trust me, there are times you really don't want to be in there anymore than I do.

Your second part is good. I agree. Can you imagine if enough people at a local Dem or Rep gathering were to say, "Enough" and break away from the crap they are offered and presented alternatives? Wow, the power of such a thing. Wow again. That's the way it's supposed to be. Imagine cleaning up Washington one Congress Critter at a time that way instead of keep sending the same corrupt person over and over year after year?

Pick a party. The problem is, you are going to either be uninvited or end up in the nose bleed seats. I went to a Republican Gathering years ago. The bottom seats were all reserved. If you wanted seating, you ended up in the Bleachers or the Nose Bleed seats where you went unheard. This is a Red dominant area. I don't see how any change can be made as long as there is so much corruption at the local level. I imagine in the Blue dominant areas the same thing is happening. But in a red dominant area, go to a Democrat meeting you and you might end up being either a Candidate or at least a Delegate. The smaller gathering is much easier to change. The Larger gathering will be the hardest as it's going to have the most developed corruption.

Yes, I know, if you are part of that corruption you are going to get mad at that statement. But remember, the other side that is in the majority in an area is doing exactly the same thing. This is when we are in a situation where we allow the two parties to control themselves and them control the voting system.

 

[Blues Man]

No it's not my fault I haven't voted anything but 3rd party for 20 years

Doing a throwaway vote is worse than not voting at all.

So it's the old catch 22.

If I vote for incumbents or anyone from the two major established parties I'm not doing anything to change the system and if I vote for a third party I'm throwing away a vote and doing nothing to change the system

So tell me why I should vote at all

You vote on the local level in the party. You make changes at the local level which, if done enough, will change the national level. Too many people blindly follow, vote 3rd party which draws votes away from the other candidate or don't vote at all. So the small room full of white haired old guys gets to choose for you.

So you want me to vote the way you tell me to?

If you want to change the system you change it first at the local level where third party candidates have more of a chance you don't keep voting for the same two parties locally as you are only continuing the same old 2 party corruption we have now

Your first line is that of a fruitcake. Try again and try to stop telling me how I think. You have no idea what is going on inside my head. Trust me, there are times you really don't want to be in there anymore than I do.

Your second part is good. I agree. Can you imagine if enough people at a local Dem or Rep gathering were to say, "Enough" and break away from the crap they are offered and presented alternatives? Wow, the power of such a thing. Wow again. That's the way it's supposed to be. Imagine cleaning up Washington one Congress Critter at a time that way instead of keep sending the same corrupt person over and over year after year?

Pick a party. The problem is, you are going to either be uninvited or end up in the nose bleed seats. I went to a Republican Gathering years ago. The bottom seats were all reserved. If you wanted seating, you ended up in the Bleachers or the Nose Bleed seats where you went unheard. This is a Red dominant area. I don't see how any change can be made as long as there is so much corruption at the local level. I imagine in the Blue dominant areas the same thing is happening. But in a red dominant area, go to a Democrat meeting you and you might end up being either a Candidate or at least a Delegate. The smaller gathering is much easier to change. The Larger gathering will be the hardest as it's going to have the most developed corruption.

Yes, I know, if you are part of that corruption you are going to get mad at that statement. But remember, the other side that is in the majority in an area is doing exactly the same thing. This is when we are in a situation where we allow the two parties to control themselves and them control the voting system.

Do you know what a question mark represents????????????

My first line was a question. I wasn't telling you anything I was ASKING

You say you want to change the system yet you knuckle under to the two party system. You can't do both.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I'm one of those people who think the craziest among us shouldn't be allowed to have guns, and certainly shouldn't be allowed to prance around with one just to make a fashion statement.

What does that have to do with someone who's completely sane and completely law abiding having the right to carry a firearm to protect themselves and their loved ones?

Go back and read the posts by gun nuts here, especially that galt nut, and tell me they aren't too crazy and hoping for a confrontation to be armed

You don't have to be "crazy" to be concerned about what will happen if you DO have a confrontation with a violent person who wants to do you or your loved ones harm, Bulldog! I don't carry because I'm LOOKING for a confrontation...I carry because I want to be ready if one comes looking for me! I understand that the Police can't protect us from violent criminals. They might or might not bring them to justice after the fact but that's not much comfort if you've been killed or someone you love has been killed. It's my belief that I have a responsibility as an adult to be able to protect myself and those I love to the best of my abilities. And if I just so happen to be in a location that has an active mass shooter killing people then I might be the person who saves your life or the life of someone you love!

The I suggest you go get the training to go with the fantasy just in case your fantasy ever becomes a reality. Otherwise, it might turn into a real nightmare. You think just carrying the weapon (notice I said weapon not gun) is being ready. It's only part of it. It's like putting your car engine back together and thinking all those extra bolts and things aren't necessary.

Where did I ever claim that just carrying a weapon means that someone is "ready" to defend themselves. I grew up with firearms. Learned to shoot them...learned to use them safely. It's not a fantasy of mine to use a firearm on another human being. I don't enjoy killing things. If I ever do have to fire in self defense it will be as a last resort.

Sort of takes the Bravado out of the argument when I put it that way, doesn't it. And if you are carrying the weapon for the express reason for self defense then I suggest you get the training for that. Just knowing how to shoot a gun or safely handle a gun isn't the same thing as wielding a weapon.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Doing a throwaway vote is worse than not voting at all.

So it's the old catch 22.

If I vote for incumbents or anyone from the two major established parties I'm not doing anything to change the system and if I vote for a third party I'm throwing away a vote and doing nothing to change the system

So tell me why I should vote at all

You vote on the local level in the party. You make changes at the local level which, if done enough, will change the national level. Too many people blindly follow, vote 3rd party which draws votes away from the other candidate or don't vote at all. So the small room full of white haired old guys gets to choose for you.

So you want me to vote the way you tell me to?

If you want to change the system you change it first at the local level where third party candidates have more of a chance you don't keep voting for the same two parties locally as you are only continuing the same old 2 party corruption we have now

Your first line is that of a fruitcake. Try again and try to stop telling me how I think. You have no idea what is going on inside my head. Trust me, there are times you really don't want to be in there anymore than I do.

Your second part is good. I agree. Can you imagine if enough people at a local Dem or Rep gathering were to say, "Enough" and break away from the crap they are offered and presented alternatives? Wow, the power of such a thing. Wow again. That's the way it's supposed to be. Imagine cleaning up Washington one Congress Critter at a time that way instead of keep sending the same corrupt person over and over year after year?

Pick a party. The problem is, you are going to either be uninvited or end up in the nose bleed seats. I went to a Republican Gathering years ago. The bottom seats were all reserved. If you wanted seating, you ended up in the Bleachers or the Nose Bleed seats where you went unheard. This is a Red dominant area. I don't see how any change can be made as long as there is so much corruption at the local level. I imagine in the Blue dominant areas the same thing is happening. But in a red dominant area, go to a Democrat meeting you and you might end up being either a Candidate or at least a Delegate. The smaller gathering is much easier to change. The Larger gathering will be the hardest as it's going to have the most developed corruption.

Yes, I know, if you are part of that corruption you are going to get mad at that statement. But remember, the other side that is in the majority in an area is doing exactly the same thing. This is when we are in a situation where we allow the two parties to control themselves and them control the voting system.

Do you know what a question mark represents????????????

My first line was a question. I wasn't telling you anything I was ASKING

You say you want to change the system yet you knuckle under to the two party system. You can't do both.

No, you weren't asking. You were telling. Poor method of discussing. As for your last tirade, you go and do it again and this time without a question mark. I want to change the parties from within. Wasting a vote on a candidate that will garner absolutely no hop of winning isn't changing a thing. Get involved locally in one party or the other and get real unpopular fast but become a voice that others can hear. Sort of like me and the Gunnutters.

 

[hadit]

Which is exactly what they do. The vast majority of guns never harm a person, and the vast majority of gun owners never shoot another human being.

The vigilantes are very few and far between.

Then why have guns at all, if you're not using them for hunting or because you live on a farm?

Why buy life insurance when you're young? The vast majority will never use it.

Target shooting is fun. Skeet shooting is fun. Collecting is fun. There are a lot of reasons why people own guns. Self defense is an important, but far from the only, reason.

The only reason to buy life insurance when you're young is that you can get it at a much lower premium

Or you have a family you want to protect and you realize even young people die. But just like life insurance for the young is rarely needed, a gun for self defense will probably not be needed. But if it is, you're glad it's there.

A young person is better off buying disability insurance as he is more likely to be injured than die

I'm well aware of that, but that's deflecting from the point. The vast majority of young people will never use a life insurance policy, but the families of the few who do are very grateful they have it. Likewise, the vast majority of gun owners who carry weapons for self defense will never shoot another human being, but on the rare occasions when they need to, they're glad they had the option. Even most LEO will never shoot another human being, but we don't question their need to be armed.

 

[hadit]

Which applies to a tiny miniscule of gun owners – the vast majority of whom have no idea what to expect or how to use a gun for self-defense.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that citizens shouldn’t exercise their right to carry firearms; it does mean, however, that gun owners should be aware of their extensive limitations and use a firearm for self-defense only in response to an imminent and deadly threat, not to act as ‘law enforcement,’ or to otherwise ‘fight crime.’

Which is exactly what they do. The vast majority of guns never harm a person, and the vast majority of gun owners never shoot another human being.

The vigilantes are very few and far between.

Then why have guns at all, if you're not using them for hunting or because you live on a farm?

In the case of that JGalt guy and most other gun nuts, they buy guns to make up for their personal lack of balls.

More juvenile insults. Are you really out of substantive arguments?

If it's an insult, it's coming from gun nuts. You should thumb back through this thread.

You're really trying to say your insults aren't coming from you?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Which is exactly what they do. The vast majority of guns never harm a person, and the vast majority of gun owners never shoot another human being.

The vigilantes are very few and far between.

Then why have guns at all, if you're not using them for hunting or because you live on a farm?

In the case of that JGalt guy and most other gun nuts, they buy guns to make up for their personal lack of balls.

More juvenile insults. Are you really out of substantive arguments?

If it's an insult, it's coming from gun nuts. You should thumb back through this thread.

You're really trying to say your insults aren't coming from you?

Some of the worst insults do come from the gunnuters. Just like some of the worst insults come from the gungrabbers. You keep denying one side while condemning the other.

 

[hadit]

Then why have guns at all, if you're not using them for hunting or because you live on a farm?

In the case of that JGalt guy and most other gun nuts, they buy guns to make up for their personal lack of balls.

More juvenile insults. Are you really out of substantive arguments?

If it's an insult, it's coming from gun nuts. You should thumb back through this thread.

You're really trying to say your insults aren't coming from you?

Some of the worst insults do come from the gunnuters. Just like some of the worst insults come from the gungrabbers. You keep denying one side while condemning the other.

I'll plead guilty to that. It's not right to single out one poster while ignoring others.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

In the case of that JGalt guy and most other gun nuts, they buy guns to make up for their personal lack of balls.

More juvenile insults. Are you really out of substantive arguments?

If it's an insult, it's coming from gun nuts. You should thumb back through this thread.

You're really trying to say your insults aren't coming from you?

Some of the worst insults do come from the gunnuters. Just like some of the worst insults come from the gungrabbers. You keep denying one side while condemning the other.

I'll plead guilty to that. It's not right to single out one poster while ignoring others.

Shoot 'em all and let God separate the Guilty from the Innocent