Printable View
So... Just who, exactly, is advocating "a total prohibition of firearms"? Got a name? I mean really... With this kind of hyperbole, from any side of any topic, the only ones who pay attention to any point made are the glassy eyed Kool Aid drinkers from whatever side the spouter happens to be on. It isn't conducive to civil discussion. Just sayin'...Quote:
Originally Posted by Loud Love
You just don't realize, that requiring automobile registration, is the first step of plan, to take away our motor vehicles. Obama is coming for your Toyota, Hippifried!Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
He can have it. It's over 20 years old, and has been broke down for the last three months.
Some kid dressed only in a swim suit totaled my new car, my Honda is 20 years old and drives fantastic, except for one rattle. Alcohol would be great fodder for a thread on civil discipline.
While a Republican Congress and nine conservative Supreme Court Judges would probably overturn Roe V Wade, I doubt nine liberal Supreme Court Judges would take away an American's right to bear arms, they would certainly regulate them more, but I have a hunch that even then you would see high murder rates in the USA. YEEEEE-HAWWWWW!
I should hope not. The right to bear arms is certainly a Constitution right which the Supreme Court is sworn to uphold. But the Second Amendment is notoriously brief and the interpretations of it many and varied, leaving open a multitude of regulatory options, many of which have been found in the past to be Constitutional and many which this or future Supreme Courts could find Constitutional.Quote:
I doubt nine liberal Supreme Court Judges would take away an American's right to bear arms
BTW: Bummer about your Honda. Did this just happen?
Naw,The car I drive now is the family hand-me-down, I probably need a new practical car, but I've been watching tv shows about restoring old classics, hmmmm.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Many Republicans view guns and abortion and politics from a 1950s view, when all the blacks, and druggies, and homos all lived in one neighborhood, all the problem children were contained. Post-War Americans got married, had kids, that was it. Glory Days.
Guns are an issue that have gotten more complicated, just like everything is a lot more complicated than the 50s, when a white guy delivered milk and butter to your house, even doctors made housecalls.
It is great that blacks and gays can come out of the shadows, but the facts are this is a shadow site, I don't think I have ever uttered the word "transsexual" with my family, friends, or coworkers. It never even comes up.
Gun control is an issue for the future, but whenever the subject comes up, it's swirled around like fingerpaint, and then forgotten. Most gun fatalities happen in the ghetto, or Inbred, W Va, so it's like that old bad part of town that you accept as inevitable.
Renault: Major Strasser has been shot. [pause] Round up the usual suspects.
Guns are already controlled to some extent. It is a topic already much discussed. It is an issue we are facing now.Quote:
Gun control is an issue for the future,
Interesting that you mentioned alcohol in your previous post. Prohibition has been repealed. This doesn't mean we now have a Constitutional right to drink alcohol; we do not. Yet, with relatively few common sense restrictions and regulations we buy, sell and drink a plethora of alcoholic beverages. A Constitutional right to drink alcohol (albeit unnecessary) wouldn't negate the common sense reasoning now in place that regulates the industry. The fact that the right to bear arms is a Constitutional one, similarly doesn't negate the common sense reasoning behind gun regulation.
I am not sure there are gun stores in poor black neighborhoods, but there's a liquor store on every block. Booze plays a large part in gun incidents, car accidents, broken families, liver disease. Judgement.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
But it's my drug of choice when I'm out skirt chasing.
They say when you have 6 drinks you reverse evolution 10,000 years. Let's party like it's 7999BC.
Pawnshop are also gun stores. You also see "title loan" joints on every corner, in lieu of any kind of banking establishment. There's convenient stores instead of supermarkets. Butt don't worry if you can't afford to drive, it'll only cost $20, 30, 40, 50, depending where you are, for a round trip to go shopping.
...& the beat goes on...
Any and every socialist politician. Too many to name. They prefer the baby steps approach but if you refuse to read between the lines you are fooling yourself. The strictest of countries started this decades ago. Many are almost there. China only allows a citizen, excuse me Ward, to own a pellet rifle with a caliber no larger than .177. Last I heard, that is in jeopardy.Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
In theory having the police unarmed sounds appealing but we need to remember who uses firearms to harm people. It's the criminals. We are currently experiencing a rash of policemen being murdered by these criminals. If they were not armed we would only have the criminals taking over. We are convulsed in crime by gang warfare and an ever growing corruption of our youth to join such a culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Just move to Chicago for a month. I think you would rethink your stance.
We have about two socialist politicians, so if even everyone one of them was advocating the total prohibition of firearms (and they aren't) by baby steps, they wouldn't be able to achieve their agenda before the Sun went nova.
Even if they succeeded in repealing the Second Amendment (and NO ONE is advocating even that) it wouldn't put an end to the legal ownership of firearms. (We have no Constitutional right to alcoholic beverages but they're still legal and we drink plenty of them).
So how do we read between your lines here? Are we to surmise that you're against all forms of firearm regulation and control and is the basis for your position 'socialists in China took away everybody's guns'? Because if that's it, it's already been refuted.
If we start allowing people to carry .177 caliber guns around, soon they'll be shooting each other eyes out. Eventually that won't be enough mayhem for them and soon they'll be clamoring to carry fully automatic Kalashnikovs. Slippery slope arguments go in both directions...because they're fallacies not arguments.
I am making an assumption but think that most people with views similar to yours and many others here on this thread may be from large metro areas where you have different experiences from someone like myself. Living in a rural location as I do, there are more reason for me to possess and carry my firearm on a daily basis. In a metro area I believe that most people may have a negative opinion of firearms perhaps by only seeing the day to day police shootings, driveby shootings and armed robberies, whether if only on the nightly news or in person.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Where I live there are the same issues you face that may put you in danger with the added element wildlife with feral dog packs, being a huge problem often carrying rabies and even criminals farming pot. Sometimes on your own land! Been there. So I don't consider it paranoia but comforting.
By the way, our government is truely failing on screening for mild or severe mental illnesses at the time of gun purchases. They should be more responsible in this area especially.
My mistake but still tragic and proof that the deranged could use anything to achieve their goal. Sadly, any high school chem student could make enough gas to poison an auditorium full of people and there's an every growing number of sites training kids on homemade IED's. It's truely sad but the method used to cause mass casualty won't stop with firearms for people determined to do harm.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
You should enlighten us on GB's mass murders since the ban of handguns. Oh wait, that couldn't be possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by martin48
I live in a small college town in the Midwest, surrounded by corn and soybean as far as the eye can see. I’m a birder so I take hikes into the wilds quite often. I encounter packs of wild dogs and coyotes all the time, also an occasional water moccasin. Yet I never felt the need to carry anything but my binoculars.Quote:
Where I live there are the same issues you face that may put you in danger with the added element wildlife with feral dog packs, being a huge problem often carrying rabies and even criminals farming pot. Sometimes on your own land! Been there. So I don't consider it paranoia but comforting.
I grew up in rural Pennsylvania. My father’s favorite bonding activity was hunting. So I’ve carried and used a single barrel, single shot shotgun, a single shot .22 and I killed my first and only deer with a .30-06 that had a five shell built in clip. I don’t hunt anymore, but I’m not against the practice. Together my Dad and I bagged plenty of rabbits and pheasants, and as a favor to the farmer’s who allowed us to hunt their land we put away a number ground-hogs. We never once looked at each other and said, “What we really need is a semi-automatic weapon with a high capacity clip.”
I surprised a couple of people tending a rather unusual field once when I was out birding. I gave a knowing smile and said, “Hello. I’m just birding. Didn’t mean to disturb you.” They gave me a knowing smile back and were happy to see me on my way.
BTW, did you know that in 2014 in South Carolina there were only three reports of dogs carrying rabies? One in Greenwood county, one in Lancaster County and one in Spartanburg. ( http://www.scdhec.gov/Health/docs/ra...4_positive.pdf )
If his goal was to murder twenty three children he actually (and thankfully) failed...'cause he only had a knife.Quote:
My mistake but still tragic and proof that the deranged could use anything to achieve their goal.
This seems to me to be a skewd narrow minded view. While I was a member of the NRA years ago, I could't support them feeding my contributions to the government. If the representatives we elect require bribes to choose to fight for the constituents' causes then we have a mob and not a government.(The NRA even asked me to leave my property to them when I die! uncool)Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
We are all here on this site due to a common interest. We are missing an opportunity to shed our intolerance of opinions that may differ from that of others to become a stronger community. Looking back, it's ironic that we need to preach tolorence to each other.
Just too idiotic to respond to. You obviously just love to bitch.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
I live in one of those neighboring counties but again, not worth repling to. I have anwsered the responses that I care to and can spend my time better elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
It was 22 and 1 adult. I provided you information that you obviously refused to read so go fuck yourself. I'm done with thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Disagreeing with someone is not viewpoint intolerance. It's only intolerant if you are so angry that someone has a different opinion that you decide to be uncivil when they have not been.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loud Love
Okay. You've made your choice. I hope that goes for the extra-curricular activities with your thumbs too:).Quote:
Originally Posted by Loud Love
Just as a post-script, if your hope is that people are going to believe that a group of socialist politicians are trying to achieve a complete ban on all guns, it's literally mission impossible. The constitution does not allow such broad laws, there is little chance of the second amendment being repealed, and so no way that regulation is the beginning of a slippery slope. Trish addressed these points one by one, but you're not getting much agreement because you're not operating in reality. It is possible to argue gun policy or the public health consequences of widespread gun ownership, but your belief that somehow legislators are looking to pass a law that would immediately be declared unconstitutional makes no sense at all.
You don't have a single clue as to what you're talking about. you're just repeating piecemeal talking points and you probably don't even know where you put th you're just repeating piecemeal talking points and you probably don't even know where you picked them up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loud Love
Too many to name, huh... Well just rattle off a half dozen. That should't be too hard, unless you can't count that high (or you don't know what a dozen is). Okay, five then. Wouldn't want you to get confused by trying to use a second hand.
Oh by the way... This isn't China. They're a separate nation, on the other side of the globe, that's been ruled by nothing but repressive regimes for the last 5,000 years.
So let's see... You have no factual basis for your rantings. Nothing but hyperbolic plagerized opinions that you probably don't understand, & irrelevancies. You should run for office as a tea party flunky.
Shit!!
I need to stop trying to use dictation, & turn off corrective typing programs. I think my one finger typing is actually faster, since I don't need to rewrite the whole post in editing.
There is nothing superior about the UK compared to the USA on this issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loud Love
Our regular policeman are not armed but may carry tasers, and we do have armed police units who can be called to a scene and who have, in fact, been involved in controversial cases where people have been killed, most notably in recent times, Mark Duggan. There have also been shocking incidents of 'family annihilation' where a man has used a shotgun to murder his entire family, and then himself, in one case a man who had been licensed to own a weapon which was then taken away from him when he fell out with his wife and was considered mentally unfit -but at a later date returned to him, shortly after committing the crime (near Leicester). Criminals -in or out of gangs- either own guns or lease them to each other for crimes as they cannot get a permit, something increasingly hard since the massacres at Hungerford and Dunblane but not impossible.
The biggest difference may be that there is no gun culture in the UK at the scale you have in the USA, so that the idea of owning a gun in the UK is something unusual, and seems to be limited to farmers and sports enthusiasts, and the whole issue of 'the right to bear arms' has never been a political issue here as it has been in the USA where, our perception from here, is that it is relatively easy to buy a gun. I wouldn't even know how or where to buy a gun in the UK.
The danger with this thread is that we end up repeating ourselves, I am not sure what new there is to say on this topic. Except to say the obvious, that there are ways of resolving differences in a divided society, using armed force is not one of them. It creates more problems than it solves.
I'm pretty sure Maine is a lot closer to Britain than Texas, culture does matter.
If everybody here started gobbling estrogen pills, it wouldn't take long until we were all obsessing about our feelings, calling friends on the phone just to talk, and looking at sports and the three stooges as stupid.
If everyone here lived in South Carolina, I guarantee you that the conversation would center around Obama trying to take our taxes to fund welfare mother's drug addictions, fund abortions, and come into our houses to take our guns.
If there was a bill before congress to ban 50 round banana clips, I'd be shaming LoudLove into defending military ordinance to hunt deer.
If there were a bill before congress to ban abortions, I'd be challenging AshlynCreamher to adopt 6 unwanted black babies.
At this time, I would like to extend my hand to Ashlyn and Loudy into the Democratic Party, where they really belong, and offer you full Medical, Retirement, and a fair salary. Just because every picture of your relatives shows them holding rifles or standing in front of church is no reason to empower billion dollar fatcats who use your money to keep you in the dark.
Half the country is pro life and pro gun. this is a fact. Giving voters God, Guts, and Guns costs taxpayers nothing. Giving taxpayers Medicare costs a lot of money. So Democrats have to understand that they support meddling in other people's wallets. Just like Republicans want to meddle in other people's wombs. I like to err on the side of the individual's rights, maybe because I'm a sick individual, maybe because real progress happens one individual at a time, I dunno. Over on the NRA site, they laugh at this site as a bunch of fruits who ran to the front of the line when God was handing out the gay genes, hey, they could be right. Squeezing off a few rounds from your Beretta might be better than squeezing off a few rounds of jizz onto your computer monitor. Different strokes for different strokes.
Defeating Republicans in November is important to me, but winning over Republican voters is the real prize, that's the real battle. The real battle isn't culture, it's money. Culture will follow. People in Wyoming don't buy little gizmos to convert AK-47s into full auto killing machines. People in Chicago do. If you use culture as your argument ...you will lose.
I've noticed a certain pattern of moral relativism in your posts Buttslinger. Every post seems to be along the lines of, "well you may oppose bigotry, but in South Carolina they would call you a welfare queen...." or "you may think that the gun lobby is out of control but the gun lobby thinks you're a fruit..."
Just because people's views can be affected by their life circumstances does not mean every view is equally defensible. I could literally hear you in the 1930s say something along the lines of, "well you may think the Roma are perfectly decent people, but if you were from Leipzig you would think they were subhuman parasites."
The fact that some people hold a viewpoint does not validate the viewpoint. I believe there's a difference between a person harboring mindless hatred of homosexuals and African-Americans and the desire for gun regulation. But perhaps everything is so pointlessly subjective that we should give every opinion, no matter how detached from facts and reason, equal standing?
My point is if you lived in Georgia your handle would be Falconfan, and if your father and mother were racists, you'd probably be a racist too. A million flies eating shit CAN'T be wrong!!!
If there's an election on, I'll be a Democrat, but between elections, I call on Democrats to live their life fully and work on their own game.
Specifically this thread is about banana clips and gun show loopholes. And even if those laws are enacted, the Nazis will still would have killed millions of Jews and our little talks would not change one thing. Pouring tons of explosives on Krauts and Japs should always be your last option. Even if gun laws are enacted, gangbangers will still be gangbangin. Gangbangers are not perfectly decent people. Here in the USA we don't gas them, we give them jobs at McDonalds or send them to jail.
Just because people's viewpoint is wrong.....says who? Please send SteveGrooby a hundred dollar check to support our Shemales and their valiant effort to fight for social injustice. Stand on a stump and preach the benefits of jerking off in front of your computer. Gun Nuts are more DIFFERENT than WRONG. Guys in Wyoming agree that guns used in crimes or school massacres are wrong. Everybody does, probably even the criminals and psychos. So who are we arguing with?
What flies in the biker gang clubhouse is a lot different than what flies in the Church across the street. Which one does Hung Angels endorse?
As far as my posts, I have gone back and read some of them and I have no fucking idea what I was saying, I claim to be AN ARTIST and use my words as figurines in a painting. Depending on my particular mood at that moment. I reach. I'll even go after Trish if things are boring. I've driven drunk and dated whores and stolen money from my job. So technically, yeah, I'm wrong, I belong in jail!!!!
I have no real problem with your posts so don't take it personally. If both of my parents were klan members, MAYBE I would be a racist. There's certainly a greater chance. But that does not make the viewpoint more palatable. It would explain its origin, but does not mean we should not as a society come to an agreement that racism should be discouraged because it undermines important values.
The failure of regulation to get rid of every problem is not an argument against it (you do actually make this argument unfortunately). Regulation would only be a bad idea if it caused more harm than good.
I would argue gun nuts are more wrong than different. If their obsession with guns and their paranoia about the country descending into civil war causes them to block policies that could have positive public health consequences, they're wrong. It does not matter to me that their accent is different, that they eat certain foods, or whether they come from a long line of gun nuts. These would explain how they became gun nuts but would not mitigate the damage their views do or justify their position.
So then you probably assume I'm from Colorado:)?Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
You probably bought your car at John Elway Chevrolet! HOMER!Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
The majority of pro-lifers don't think doctors should be jailed for murder, and I'm guessing you don't think gun nuts are wrong enough to be swept up in FBI dragnets.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Most people who resort to gun violence are guys who are up against the wall in the worst way. Not a bunch or redneck gun collectors.
Would you hire a ni**er that would carjack people? That kid who shot up the Sandy Hook School killed his Mom to get the key to the locked up guns. She probably didn't want him doped up in some overpriced mental institution. What's the solution for people hanging on to their last thread? These are real problems. Regulate them away? When I lived in a bad neighborhood some black kids broke in and stole my .22 revolver!!
Obviously, I don't think the people I call gun nuts should be locked up. In fact, if there were regulation they would not be adversely affected imo. As you say, many people who resort to gun violence are up against a wall in the worst way. If they have a history of violence or a history of psychoses, maybe you should not own guns. If not, maybe there should be waiting periods for purchasing guns anyway. It's not going to fix the problem of gun violence, but it may reduce the murder and suicide rates.
I've joked around about guns. I had a friend who loved them and would go target shooting and hunting (is this anecdote the equivalent of I have a black friend?). If he had ever asked me to shoot targets or whatever I probably would have tried it. My snobbery doesn't run that deep. I can understand it becoming a hobby in the same way anything can become a hobby. I can understand people wanting basic protection for their families. I can't understand the paranoia that comes with thinking the government is coming for all the weapons because they want to ban the most dangerous kinds or keep them out of the hands of the most dangerous people. So there is a limit to my metropolitan liberal snobbery; I try to reserve it for unhinged excess.
It’s unclear whether Nancy Lanza had her guns locked up. Some reports say she didn’t, others claim she did. She was shot with her own Bushwacker which supports the theory that she didn’t, or if she did she wasn’t shot for the key.
She lived with her deeply disturbed son who was being treated for a neurological disorder with accompanying psychological issues. Yet she chose to keep an arsenal of high caliber, semi-automatic weapons in that very home. She paid the ultimate price for that error in judgment as did twenty children and six other adults. For the latter I would not have sentenced her to death, but I would’ve considered giving her some time in jail.
Do I want to see the FBI sweep the homes of psychiatric patients checking them for arsenals. Number one: because as of this date, such arsenals are legal. Number two: I don’t think it’s the most efficient way to prevent future shootings.
Of course nothing will stop shootings from happening in the future. No amount of legislation can solve everybody’s problems or make the world as safe as a children’s ball pit. But as Bronco already indicated, appropriate regulation can bring the number of gun accidents, suicides and deliberate shootings down. That’s the whole idea behind laws of all kind. Right? No one believes that laws will eliminate all crime, prevent all accidents or protect all innocents from all harm: but we do believe that well designed laws appropriately enforced will reduce crime, reduce accidents and often protect citizens from harm or at least mitigate the harm done.
Let's spin this wheel around to it's logical conclusion and then set it on fire. I can't remember the comic's name, and I'm repeating myself, but "Democrats like to be right, Republicans like to win"
As a Democrat I think saner laws address problems better than shotguns over the hearth or poison gas in the showers, but the way I see it, neither Republicans, Democrats, or Nazis are going to fix the world's problems. The world is fucked. The other guy is always wrong. I may not be right but I'm never wrong. Preachy? Goddam right.
If you see the world as a whole you have to see past the differences in it. There's more to wisdom than morality. And yes, I see the irony here that I am claiming I know more than you two. That I am claiming I know more than you know-it-alls.
We're all going to leave this world one way or another. Looks like the only way I'm going to get out of this thread is to admit you guys are right about everything. You believe me, right?
I said it was unclear. I told you what I want. And I agreed with you that nothing will stop all crime. Did I say I was absolutely, without a doubt right? No. So what is it about what we say that strikes you as so outrageously unassailable?
:) You could just take a hiatus without saying anything. Your presence is appreciated but nobody is demanding you remain until we find common ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
I don't doubt that you're a knowledgeable man but what is it you're recommending we do? Not have the opinions we do and in a contest of ideas not present the ideas we hold as correct? I highly doubt that the reason Democrats have lost elections is because they believe they're right....we have no more of the market on self-righteousness than the righties.
Well put question. I think that we state a view, which implies we think we're right, and also implies that we think any view we haven't stated is probably wrong. But isn't that a pre-requisite for any discussion? I could say, "I believe a, but b, c, and d are just as likely to be right." But that would really mean I didn't believe anything and couldn't commit to saying anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish