| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/19/2007 02:00:52 PM · #51 |
Saj,
Just so you know, Im not an anti gun person. I don't own one and never will, but I think the quotes that say if guns weren't around this wouldn't have happened are just stupid. I am in favor of more education and training and restrictions on ammunition.
His photos aren't offensive, they are very well done. Its just the audience that has access to such photos. This is public, there is no age restriction on this site. To some those photos may influence irresponsible actions. As a gun advocate, I would think deapee would want to be above that. I would think he wouldn't want anything that could be construed as irresponsible to be on his name.
You are absolutely right about advocating a different market for those photos. For the masses, they have little appeal, but for a gun shop or gun magazine or other such markets, theyre great. I think his gun photos are excellent product shots and he probably could sell them to the right market.
the same goes for nude photos and the only reason nude photos are on this site w/o restriction is because nude photos are one of the oldest most traditional photography styles and this is a photography website. There is no nudity on Saturday morning cartoons because it doesn't appeal to that audience, but there is plenty on HBO.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2007 02:05:27 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
I am in favor of more education and training and restrictions on ammunition. |
Restriction on ammunition is a joke and can never be regulated. I refer you to this machine that I can go buy 3 minutes from where I work. It will load 1000 rounds an hour. I could in a day manufacture on my own 6k rounds of pistol ammo.
Mandate more training maybe regulate ammo impossible.
Message edited by author 2007-04-19 14:11:02. |
|
|
|
04/19/2007 02:06:55 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
... the only reason nude photos are on this site w/o restriction is because nude photos are one of the oldest most traditional photography styles and this is a photography website. |
Note: Nude photos on this site have restrictions. |
|
|
|
04/19/2007 02:11:14 PM · #54 |
Ok, more training and education leave it at that. I stand corrected about the nude shots.
I guess I would still rather someone have to make their own 6K rounds of ammo rather than walk in to Walmart and throw it on the credit card. I will admit I don't know enough about how I would actually regulate ammo so Ill drop that one. |
|
|
|
04/19/2007 02:12:47 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
I am in favor of more education and training and restrictions on ammunition. |
Restriction on ammunition is a joke and can never be regulated. I refer you to this machine I can go buy 3 minutes from where I work. It will load 1000 rounds an hour. I could in a day manufacture on my own 6k rounds of pistol ammo. |
Uh, couldn't you also have similar restrictions on the machines? Require a permit to buy gunpowder or shell casings?
We require licenses and permits to handle all sorts of dangerous stuff. Licensing/permitting would not prevent responsible people from owning guns, but might interfere with the irresponsible obtaining them on the open retail market. |
|
|
|
04/19/2007 02:18:28 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
I am in favor of more education and training and restrictions on ammunition. |
Restriction on ammunition is a joke and can never be regulated. I refer you to this machine I can go buy 3 minutes from where I work. It will load 1000 rounds an hour. I could in a day manufacture on my own 6k rounds of pistol ammo. |
Uh, couldn't you also have similar restrictions on the machines? Require a permit to buy gunpowder or shell casings?
We require licenses and permits to handle all sorts of dangerous stuff. Licensing/permitting would not prevent responsible people from owning guns, but might interfere with the irresponsible obtaining them on the open retail market. |
See there in lies the problem more regulations/laws = more criminals. I am in favor of education. And how do you regulate all the reloading machines already out there?
ETA: There already are laws on some components like gun powder and primers.
Message edited by author 2007-04-19 14:30:02. |
|
|
|
04/19/2007 02:38:34 PM · #57 |
"Primer" -- I was trying to remember that word, and all I could come up with was the dynamite equivalent "detonator" -- thanks : )
Tragedies like the recent one aren't perpetrated by "criminals" -- they are mostly the result of the dusturbed acting out. Properly designed gun control laws will have little effect on the use of guns by robbers, police, or "law-abiding" citizens, but should prevent "wackos" from assembling an arsenal on the open market. |
|
|
|
04/19/2007 02:46:16 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
Guns are freely available and the laws ridiculously slack. It has come out today that this chap history of mental illness yet was still allowed to walk into a shop and get a glock and a box of ammo for $571 over the counter. An STILL you think your gun laws are ok?
You say need guns to protect yourself, so if gun laws were more stringent, and less lunatics could get hold of guns wouldn’t there be less need for you to hold a gun?
People are acting like the gun is simply a tool, I propose that Americans have a love-affairs with guns instead. |
Guns are freely available? Really? And where would that be? Ever try to buy one legally? Ever filled out all the paperwork, provide all the right documentation, and been subjected to a background check?
Right now, there are over 20,000+ gun laws in the U.S. How is that "ridiculously slack"? The bigger issue is why aren't they enforced?
Was the chap mentally ill? Maybe so, but according to some of the stories I read, no one informed the government....the doctor didn't check the correct box saying that he was a threat. So, legally, he could purchase a handgun. He even waited the 30 days that the law required. I'm willing to bet that if he was denied, he would have found another way to do damage. Maybe used a bomb that would have killed even more. Don't get me wrong...one death is far too many and as a gun owner myself and like most sane people, I want to see the death rate at zero.
As far as "stringent laws" go...which of the 20,000+ do you propose that we change to make it tougher? Which laws do you think criminals are going to abide by?
Also, keep in kind, the Supreme Court ruled that the police have no obligation to protect an individual, but serve the community as a whole. That means for the most part, I'm pretty much on my own. If I don't take care of me, who will? Where we all the police when I had a group of thugs try to run me off of a highway only to give up when I pointed my gun at them? Why weren't the police there to protect me? Better yet, where were all the anti-gun people and why weren't they protecting me?
And yes, a gun is a tool much in the same vein as a hammer, or a saw, or a knife...the key factor in human interaction with that tool. Guns, in case you didn't know, are inanimate objects. They just don't grow legs and then go around shooting things. A person must pick up the gun, load it, chamber a round, turn off the safety, point it at a target and then pull the trigger. Don't blame the gun.....it doesn't know right from wrong...but a person should.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2007 03:15:14 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Tragedies like the recent one aren't perpetrated by "criminals" -- they are mostly the result of the dusturbed acting out. Properly designed gun control laws will have little effect on the use of guns by robbers, police, or "law-abiding" citizens, but should prevent "wackos" from assembling an arsenal on the open market. |
How would a "properly designed" gun law have prevented this guy from purchasing a weapon? He had no criminal record, he was over 21. What criteria would you have entered into the system that would red flag his application? |
|
|
|
04/19/2007 03:47:58 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
[quote=GeneralE]
How would a "properly designed" gun law have prevented this guy from purchasing a weapon? He had no criminal record, he was over 21. What criteria would you have entered into the system that would red flag his application? |
Would the reporting of suicidal tendencies, psychological tests, prior police interventions/reports not help.
Call me naive, but since we require licencing and tests to drive cars, boats and motorcycles, and more stringent tests to drive tractor trailers, could we not do the same for obtaining a gun licence.
In this country we have graduated licencing for young people, where they have to meet certain criteria and cannot drive alone for a period of time, or on 400 series highways... could something of this ilk not be devised for the issuance of hand guns.
I am certainly not against gun ownership, but I would certainly like to see a much better system than that which currently exist.
Surely there exist checks and balances which could be implemented that would provide for some degree of understanding between the pro and anti gun groups.
When each side is yelling at each other, it stands to reason that no one hears (let alone comprehend) the views of the opposing party.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/19/2007 03:53:04 PM · #61 |
From the BBC: "The United States has the largest number of guns in private hands of any country in the world with 60 million people owning a combined arsenal of over 200 million firearms"
20,000+ indeed... |
|
|
|
04/19/2007 04:48:39 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by "rayethier":
Don't know about your life's experiences, but I have had people come at me with bats, crowbars, tire irons, 2X4's, and an assortment of other items, and as you can see, I am still here. |
Just out of curiousity....can you give us some insight into how you stopped or prevented them from hitting you? Or are you a very quick runner?
Originally posted by "rayethier":
Did I sustain injuries... you bet, and some beauties too, but I can honestly say that I never feared for my life. |
Well, not everyone who makes contact with bats and crow bars are as lucky as you have been.
I know a number of people who have engaged in drinking and driving and survived without killing themselves or anyone else. That doesn't mean it's safe or an acceptable practice.
Originally posted by "pawdrix":
Guns are an easy method compared to chemicals or explosives. Sure...possible but much more complicated and far less likely an option. For the record...when was the last time someone walked into a classroom and blew themselves or launched a chemical attack up here in the US? Let's leave The Middle East out of this... "[quote]
It's been done. In truth, many attempts have failed. Columbine was supposed to blow up the boiler but they didn't go off. Is it as easy. No, not really. But it would be more common if guns weren't simpler.
[quote="generalE"]The "National Guard" is organized state-by-state -- they are essentially state militias -- and are under the control of state governors unless the President "Federalizes" thems and takes over control, as with the thousands of Guard members currently deployed in Iraq (hardly a "defensive enterprise, at this point anyway). |
In official terms...perhaps. But a) seems that they're constantly being Federalize. b) they are so integrated into the official military structure as to be indistinct and no different than mere military reserves c) there is the means for the central government to federalize them and take control thus invalidating thier usefulness as a protection against the federal government.
Originally posted by "generale":
One of the reasons for the pathetic government response to Hurricane Katrina was that most of the Louisiana Guard (and its equipment/vehicles) were in Iraq instead of on-call at home. |
No, the reason for the pathetic response was politics and stupidity. In fact, the Federal response was faster than previous hurricanes. The situation was just unviable. That which should have been done several decades before had been repeatedly neglected. The local and state officials botched on almost every level. (Mayor failed completely. Hundreds of buses left underwater instead of being used in an organized evac. Governor not authorizing Federal action as soon as should have been done.) The federal government botched too. But really, the main botches were 10, 20, 40, and 60 yrs earlier.
Originally posted by "jmnuggy":
I am in favor of more education and training and restrictions on ammunition. [quote]
I support the first two, less supportive of the last one. My wife raised a very good point on this matter. She commented how Michael Moore in Bowling for Columbine was expressing there is no need for buying 1,000 rounds of ammo, etc. And it should be limited.
She made the point that in most of these shootings. A vast amount of ammo isn't necessarily needed. And that the most common use requiring large ammounts of ammo is training at a firing range. She actually commented it'd make more sense if you restricted the ammo by requiring a larger purchase. So you couldn't just buy 30 rounds to go on a killing spee.
But for the training. I think it that training is a good thing. However, I don't believe you should be required to have training to own a gun. But I would accept a requirement of training & testing if you are going to carry a gun in public.
[qupte="jmnuggy"]Its just the audience that has access to such photos. This is public, there is no age restriction on this site. |
And we have much more offensive and irresponsible photos on this site IMHO. So it feels more politically targeted.
More people die of obesity than guns. Should we allow obese photos?
Originally posted by "jmnuggy":
oldest most traditional photography styles |
I'll argue that gun photos are one of the top 10 oldest photography traditions. In fact, a great many of the oldest photographs I've seen always were of soldiers during the civil war holding their rifles.
Originally posted by "jmnuggy":
There is no nudity on Saturday morning cartoons because it doesn't appeal to that audience, but there is plenty on HBO. |
I disagree, I think there is no nudity on Saturday morning cartoons merely because enough parents find it objectional. However, there is a general trend in Saturday television bringing more and more sexuality to a lower and lower demographic that in another 40 yrs I am not so sure those Saturday cartoons won't be nude and sexualized.
Originally posted by "GeneralE":
Tragedies like the recent one aren't perpetrated by "criminals" -- they are mostly the result of the dusturbed acting out. |
So if these disturbed felt necessary do you think they'd cease to act out? Perhaps the dumb ones would be clueless. But the smart ones would find other ways. Taking a fuel truck and driving it into an office building or school. Driving an SUV into a crowd of people. Risin gas.
We'd find ourselves in a society where everything was regulated and restricted until they could put thought control devices into us.
Originally posted by "GeneralE":
Properly designed gun control laws will have little effect on the use of guns by robbers, police, or "law-abiding" citizens, but should prevent "wackos" from assembling an arsenal on the open market. |
There were signs that this person should not have been sold a gun. The individual had been addressed for stalking women on more than one occasion and placed into monitoring for suicide.
I think that those warning signs should have triggered flags. They didn't.
I also have another proposition. Ban the sale of weapons to all quiet alone people. Whenever you hear about these things it's always the quiet lonely ones. You never hear about us annoying boistrous loquacious ones doing these things.
:P
Okay, just some humor on the last part.
Originally posted by "Spidercat":
Guns are freely available? Really? And where would that be? Ever try to buy one legally? Ever filled out all the paperwork, provide all the right documentation, and been subjected to a background check? |
Well, illegal guns are freely available. Just need to know who to contact. Contacts can easily be found.
I knew one in high school. 1-2 days to get a 9mm or .357! One week to get a fully automatic Uzi, AK-47, etc. And a month or two for grenade launchers, mortars or machine guns. (Because his sources would want to do a background check on me.)
This conversation occurred around the time of the Brady Bill. I asked him what affect on his business it would have. His response..."None!" Than added later that it actually was probably going to be good for his business. And they'd likely make more profit.
Originally posted by "Spazmo99":
How would a "properly designed" gun law have prevented this guy from purchasing a weapon? He had no criminal record, he was over 21. What criteria would you have entered into the system that would red flag his application? |
Someone who'd recently stalked women and been removed from class for violent graphic stories of killing people. And who had been committed for suicide monitoring is probably someone whom should have been declined at least during this state of their life.
But none of these flags were addressed so as to take action. Why? Because we're too politically correct and sue happy. Had action been taken the individual could have sued and would have won. And that is the crux of it.
Same reason 6 Immams can do a dry-run terrorist hijacking exercise and because they are removed for their questionable actions turn around and sue everyone. When they should have been deported or locked up in my opinion.
Originally posted by "cheekymunky":
rom the BBC: "The United States has the largest number of guns in private hands of any country in the world with 60 million people owning a combined arsenal of over 200 million firearms" |
Hmm...I find that statistic to be really hard to believe. Essentially, it's telling me that 1 in 5 American own a gun. However, of the Americans I know I am hard pressed to believe 1 in 10 or even 1 in 20 Americans own a gun. Now, it is true that most people I know who own a gun own more than one.
I do not doubt the 200 million firearms but what is being counted? All the police weapons? Our military firearms as well?
Or perhaps they did a sampling in the back country of Texas and extrapolated it to the whole nation. But I really find that statistic hard to believe based on life experience.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2007 05:21:50 PM · #63 |
theSaj The 200 million # looks good.
" In 1994, 44 million Americans owned 192 million
firearms, 65 million of which were handguns.
Although there were enough guns to have provided
every U.S. adult with one, only 25 percent of
adults actually owned firearms; 74 percent of gun
owners possessed two or more."
//www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt
ETA: The NRA reports that, in 2005, it had more than 4 million members
Message edited by author 2007-04-19 17:28:06. |
|
|
|
04/19/2007 05:30:37 PM · #64 |
saj,
those rebuttals were absolutely useless and hold no merit.
1. A minimum amount of ammo to buy as a solution... come on. So it would be better if you had to buy 1000 rounds rather than be limited to 200. That makes no sense at all. How would that help?
2. Gun photography is not one of the oldest forms of photography. Civil war pictures had guns because they were at WAR. Show me a photo from teh 1800s of some guy holding a gun in his basement.
3. Saturday morning cartoons don't have nudity because parents object. This is exactly the point, there is no audience during Sat morning cartoons for nudity. Its inappropriate for kids so the parents object. We are saying the same thing. There is a time and a place for everything. Back up your claims of sexuality being directed at younger demographics and in 40 years there will be nudity.
4. Much more offensive photos on this sight, absolutely. I never said it was offensive, just irresponsible. We do have more offensive and irresponsible photos on this site. The difference is a gun accident can hurt other people, obesity is self inflicted.
Either way, all these rebuttals don't even touch the core of my original statement. My original statement was that as a gun owner, deapee should have used better judgement. As a gun owner and advocate he should be above posting photos of his guns and himself holding his guns. To the masses it could be construed as playing with firearms. As an advocate, that could hurt his credibility and his cause of advocating safe use of guns. It was unnecessary to post in a public photography site. They are fine photos and have a market, just DPC is not the place. |
|
|
|
04/19/2007 05:48:56 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by "jmnuggy":
1. A minimum amount of ammo to buy as a solution... come on. So it would be better if you had to buy 1000 rounds rather than be limited to 200. That makes no sense at all. How would that help? |
I do actually think that it'd do more good than a limit on ammo. Saying you can only buy a 100 rounds of ammo is not going to stop any of these shootings.
Originally posted by "thegrandwazoo":
" In 1994, 44 million Americans owned 192 million
firearms, 65 million of which were handguns. Although there were enough guns to have provided every U.S. adult with one, only 25 percent of adults actually owned firearms; 74 percent of gun owners possessed two or more." |
Just saying it doesn't add up to my life experiences. Far from 1 in 4 people I've known own a gun. Now perhaps it's regional and some places 100% own guns. I just have trouble really buying it. But it may be correct.
Originally posted by "thegrandwazoo":
ETA: The NRA reports that, in 2005, it had more than 4 million members |
I guess only 1 in 10 gun owners are members of the largest gun rights organization.
Originally posted by "jmnuggy":
2. Gun photography is not one of the oldest forms of photography. Civil war pictures had guns because they were at WAR. Show me a photo from teh 1800s of some guy holding a gun in his basement. |
Aha...war photography it is. BTW...please show me a single major war since the invention of the photograph that has not utilized guns. ;)
Originally posted by "jmnuggy":
3. Saturday morning cartoons don't have nudity because parents object. This is exactly the point, there is no audience during Sat morning cartoons for nudity. Its inappropriate for kids so the parents object. We are saying the same thing. There is a time and a place for everything. Back up your claims of sexuality being directed at younger demographics and in 40 years there will be nudity. |
And every generation is more tolerable than the next. Hence my point. Go take the Saturday morning cartoons and show them to yesteryear. Go show Disney's Hercules with the scanty clad girl and the line "how about dinner, wine and my place" and show it to the same crowd that "Sleeping Beauty" catered too.
You think they'd tolerate it? And I'll wager that in 40-80 yrs the stuff on TV for kids would be considered shocking to us. In truth, more and more parents don't care and don't pay attention. They let their kids watch TV because it's the babysitter.
Originally posted by "jmnuggy":
The difference is a gun accident can hurt other people, obesity is self inflicted. |
What's to say someone won't have more tendency to rape or sexually assault or harass someone after looking at sensual racy photos.
AND THIS GOES BACK TO MY POINT WAY DOWN BELOW - OUR SOCIETY NEEDS TO DEMAND INDIVIDUALS TAKE THEIR OWN RESPONSIBILITY
If you see a photo of a gun, that should not cause you to do something irresponsible or stupid.
Originally posted by "jmnuggy":
As a gun owner and advocate he should be above posting photos of his guns and himself holding his guns. |
Why? I do admit that people may label him biased as a gun nut or gun collector. But I don't think those people would really have much difference toward guns in general.
*shrug*
|
|
|
|
04/19/2007 05:59:37 PM · #66 |
complete tangent. those statements don't make any sense. why would you even ask to see a photo of war without a gun what does that have to do with anything.
the last comment about how he should be above posting photos is very obvious. If you were advocating something, you wouldn't post photos that could be construed as damaging to your cause would you?
I agree people should be responsible and react in a normal way, but thats not the case, why give people any reason to discredit you when you are advocating such a touchy subject as gun ownership. |
|
|
|
04/19/2007 06:09:02 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
[quote="rayethier"]
Don't know about your life's experiences, but I have had people come at me with bats, crowbars, tire irons, 2X4's, and an assortment of other items, and as you can see, I am still here. |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Just out of curiousity....can you give us some insight into how you stopped or prevented them from hitting you? Or are you a very quick runner? |
Running was not an option my friend. I seem to recall a motto "Maintiens le Droit" and others from other PD's that indicated that we (as a collective) were there to serve and protect.
I never said I stopped them all, (witness my comments about sustaining injuries), but considering the rather extensive training I received both within and outside the organization, I would venture to say that I did quite well in the dealing with confrontational situations.
Originally posted by "rayethier":
Did I sustain injuries... you bet, and some beauties too, but I can honestly say that I never feared for my life. |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Well, not everyone who makes contact with bats and crow bars are as lucky as you have been. |
I never said I was lucky (albeit I certainly was in some situations), but the fact remains that you have to read my comments in their proper context. My response was to a comment made by Deapee that a person with a bat could effectively kill 32 individuals... a point I don't share with him.
When I was younger, assuming I had 31 other like minded individuals with me, I can guarantee you that one person with one bat would not have a tinker's hope in hell of killing all 32 of us... it would not happen.
I am sure you can recall events that transpired on 911 were some brave souls managed to overpower terrorists with box cutters... a device that would cause much more severe damage in close quarters.
Nonfeasance is not an something that rests exclusively with those in authority... it is also something that the masses are all too often guilty of, witness the "not my problem" syndrome that seems to permeate much of our society.
Just a thought...
Ray
Message edited by author 2007-04-19 18:10:08. |
|
|
|
04/19/2007 06:31:20 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by "jmnuggy":
why would you even ask to see a photo of war without a gun what does that have to do with anything. |
I think my point is that arguing tradition is not a very good argument for justification or lack of justification, especially with regards to photography. But that's just for me.
Originally posted by "jmnuggy":
I agree people should be responsible and react in a normal way, but thats not the case, why give people any reason to discredit you when you are advocating such a touchy subject as gun ownership. |
What you're really talking about is politics. Deapee hurts the political end of his arguments by weakening his political position. Where as one can try to be more politically correct so as to be able to have the strongest position possible.
Originally posted by "rayethier":
but considering the rather extensive training I received both within and outside the organization, I would venture to say that I did quite well in the dealing with confrontational situations. |
Training the average Joe has not received....
Originally posted by "rayethier":
My response was to a comment made by Deapee that a person with a bat could effectively kill 32 individuals... a point I don't share with him. |
Okay, in response to that I can see your point. I do believe it is much easier to kill 32 people with a gun than a bat (at least if you have 32 rounds of ammo).
Originally posted by "rayethier":
When I was younger, assuming I had 31 other like minded individuals with me, I can guarantee you that one person with one bat would not have a tinker's hope in hell of killing all 32 of us... it would not happen. |
Now this is my point. I don't even believe a single gunman in close proximity should be able to kill 32 people. Not if the people react in a strong aggressive response.
Originally posted by "rayethier":
I am sure you can recall events that transpired on 911 were some brave souls managed to overpower terrorists with box cutters... a device that would cause much more severe damage in close quarters. |
Recall quite heartedly. And note that many additional lives than just their own were saved. Also note, that had that been the standard instruction for a hijacking - two towers and thousands of people would likely still be alive. Albeit those on the planes would probably still be dead.
Originally posted by "rayethier":
witness the "not my problem" syndrome that seems to permeate much of our society. |
On this we couldn't agree more. Hence I really feel there is a problem with out society more so than the existance of guns.
No guns were even used for the woman who was beaten till she jumped off the bridge. Dozens of people stood and watched. NO ONE ACTED! How can no one act.
In one of the situations I have referred to in my failed 9-1-1 calls. I was in a local gas station. This large 6'+ white male was being belligerent. Apparently some black man hadn't pulled far enough up to allow this white male to pull his big silver cadillac up to the rear pump.
The man was making racial slurs. Demanding a receipt. Yelling about the other man not moving up. He was probably drunk. He got more belligerent and told the woman at the cash register (a 5ft hispanic girl) he was going to have his guys bury her. He started to lean over the counter yelling.
I saw the situation, moved to the rear of the store and dialed 911. I know that there were officers within 2 minutes drive. I was going to alert the police. Then move back to the front. And be prepared to react if need be. Knowing that the police would be on their way. What wound up happening is that after I described the situation to 911 I got the following response "This is New Haven - what do you want us to do about it."
The man finally left, leaving the poor cashier shaking in her boots. The Mobil gas station called 911. The poor girl had been to scared to even press the emergency button. A few minutes later three police officers arrived. They took a report.
I never came closer to spitting in an officers face before. And frankly, I regret not doing so. I should have. And when they hauled me down to jail they'd have had a lawsuit on their hands. I regret I didn't blow that case wide open.
But the man got away. The officers took a report. Instead of stopping an assault in progress they were merely paper pushers. Frankly, I don't want to spend $40,000 each for some paper pushers.
That one incident proved to me that I need to pack. And I need to protect myself. And that I need to take the law into my own hands. And yes, I will suffer consequences for doing so. But it is already clear to me that I will suffer consequences for not doing so.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2007 07:55:51 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
ETA: The NRA reports that, in 2005, it had more than 4 million members |
And thus constitutes less than 2% of the population -- of course their needs should come first -- how obvious! |
|
|
|
04/19/2007 08:01:28 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Well go ahead and add that part -- so you can't have a gun unless you're in a well-regulated militia. That sounds like a plan.
I think the point is that the Founders were not against government regulation, as some people seem to imply. They were also not speaking of AK-47s or 50-round clips or rocket-propelled grenades either. I'm considerably less opposed to widespread gun ownership if you're talking about muzzle-loading flintlocks ... |
Hey muckpond...
Dude, I'll discuss what I want, and if someone makes an unintelligent statement, I'll let them know that I think it's unintelligent. If you disagree with my methods, then ban me up dude...I can assure you that when someone mis-represents any constitutional right as badly as GeneralE did, I will be certain to make it a point to let them know.
Anyway, I don't have the patience to read as many posts as I missed at work today, so I'm probably done with the thread anyway.
And for future reference muckpond, if you have something to say to me on a personal level, why don't you take your own advice and send me a PM?
--
FURTHERMORE...I don't think site council should be as actively involved as they are in things like this without at least first checking into the misinformation that they represent as fact. There are a lot of people that see your little colorful icon and actually believe that you guys know what you're talking about or something.
I've gotten 7 PM/Emails from people supporting my views. Some of these individuals have made a point to let me know that they won't participate in the thread because there were site council members opposing their views and they didn't want to go up against them.
So I'd say to all the site council members that maybe you should think about how valuable your spot on the council is...and act professionally, don't get involved in highly opinionated threads spouting misinformation and misrepresenting that as fact, because people do view you as a person of authority and knowledge...and it's interfering with people expressing their opinions because they are afraid.
Anyway...ban me up dude...ban me up. I did nothing wrong. I expressed a PERSONAL OPINION that some statements made by a certain individual in a RANT thread were unintelligent. He clearly didn't do research on the matter, or he wouldn't have said what he said. It's not opinion -- it's fact.
PEACE.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2007 08:02:27 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
ETA: The NRA reports that, in 2005, it had more than 4 million members |
And thus constitutes less than 2% of the population -- of course their needs should come first -- how obvious! |
See...these are the statements I am referring to. You are supposed to be a person that acts respectful, but you get so involved in these highly opinionated threads spouting your sarcasm and scarring people from participating. I call for an end to it...you GeneralE...are out of line.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2007 08:17:31 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
ETA: The NRA reports that, in 2005, it had more than 4 million members |
And thus constitutes less than 2% of the population -- of course their needs should come first -- how obvious! |
See...these are the statements I am referring to. You are supposed to be a person that acts respectful, but you get so involved in these highly opinionated threads spouting your sarcasm and scarring people from participating. I call for an end to it...you GeneralE...are out of line. |
People have been actibg somewhat less than respectful towards me (and some of my cohorts here) lately, including someone who referred to me as "unintelligent." So I should just sit here and take it, eh? In thre goold old days, those would be "fightin'words" wouldn't they? Why, if I has a gun and you said that ...
Besides, why is sarcasm based on an observable truth insulting? Because the truth hurts? I refer you to an old aphorism involving a kettle and a color ... |
|
|
|
04/19/2007 09:09:51 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
People have been actibg somewhat less than respectful towards me (and some of my cohorts here) lately, including someone who referred to me as "unintelligent." So I should just sit here and take it, eh? In thre goold old days, those would be "fightin'words" wouldn't they? Why, if I has a gun and you said that ... |
Yeah, you should sit there and take it. Why stoop to their level? You're supposed to be respectable, right? You're supposed to be the mature one. The solution finder, not an instigator to a situation. And sarcasm is probably one of the biggest signs that you've been defeated. It's what people resort to when they're out of information, or in your case, misinformation.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Besides, why is sarcasm based on an observable truth insulting? Because the truth hurts? I refer you to an old aphorism involving a kettle and a color ... |
The good old pot and the kettle huh? You're right. I'm less than respectful. I don't care too much whose feelings I hurt. I don't care who is on my side or who I'm up against. I state my opinion and I'm done with it. The difference being that I'm just a member here. I'm allowed to act like a moron, which I quite commonly do. You shouldn't.
And as far as the comment about those being fighting words...let's grow up a bit, shall we? I have done nothing but debate a topic and you've done nothing but insult myself and many others with your sarcasm, bad interpretations, and lack of research. Besides that, you're intimidating people into not feeling as though they're free to share their feelings here without being bashed or retaliated against with sarcasm by a 'respected' and 'intelligent' member of the site's very own governing force.
Anyway...I think I'm done. And that's a lot coming from me. I'm free to debate any topic in the world that anyone chooses. But this one's getting a little deep for me.
I mentioned this, and I keep mentioning this, you will not gain a good working order of anywhere unless you yourself act responsibly. When you're stooping to sarcasm and taking stabs at people because their beliefs are different than yours, when you're supposed to be in a respected position, you're definitely failing.
What is ok for me to say isn't necessarily ok for you to say. Just like what's ok for any of us to say isn't ok for the president to say...or a police officer...or a judge.
Oh well, like I said...I'm done with it. Discuss your gun laws. Anyone truly interested can google it and get some good insight without being afraid of getting retaliated against with sarcasm.
Peace Out.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2007 07:32:49 AM · #74 |
Hey guys....
Let's ease up on each other. We have differences. We will surely hash them out from our own perspectives.
But let's not let our differences of opinion turn into uncivil actions.
((((((((((((((((((HUGS))))))))))))))))))
|
|
|
|
04/20/2007 07:53:19 AM · #75 |
Right back at you!
I LOVE YOU MAN! |
|
