| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/11/2011 10:25:33 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by Mick:
Your only rights are to work and pay taxes to support the ruling class. In other words, you have no rights, and you couldn't own a gun if you wanted to. I feel sorry for you.
Anyway, when you add it all up there are millions of free people in the world that own and use guns regularly, even semi-automatics, without killing a single human being. |
I'm sure your little uprising would go about as well as David Koresh's.... ;)
But again, you're continuing to equate reasonable standards with outright prohibition. Or, if you don't find such standards reasonable, what do you find reasonable and how else do you propose we prevent such events from happening? |
|
|
|
01/11/2011 10:47:34 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by Mick:
So, for the sake of the PC liberal idiots out there, of course I was only kidding. |
What are you calling me and Brennan an idiot for? Don't be such an asshole. |
|
|
|
01/11/2011 11:05:18 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by Mick:
I have never killed anyone.... there are millions of free people in the world that own and use guns regularly, even semi-automatics, without killing a single human being. |
Neither had Jared Loughner, Cho Seung-Hui, Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold. Not exactly a point in your favor. Same goes for your repeated "brainless" assertions regarding liberals, who are FAR better educated than any other political group (48% are college graduates vs. 25% for conservatives). |
|
|
|
01/11/2011 11:08:15 PM · #154 |
The assumption that all people who like the idea of gun licencing and registration hate and fear guns is as logical as believing that all people who like the idea of licencing and registration cars, hate and fear automobiles. I like that it is harder to get a licence to drive an 18 wheel rig than it is to drive a moped, it makes sense to me. I wish the same were true of guns.
I for one grew up with guns, and am a very good shot with a shot gun, having spent my teen years blowing small clay disks into small clay clouds. Ive never owned an assult rifle because I know that I can hit what I aim at without resorting to a 30 round banana clip. I truly dislike the fact that people who fear the police and dream of a time when they can overturn their government are better armed than the cop on the beat. |
|
|
|
01/11/2011 11:09:05 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by skewsme:
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by posthumous:
The thing about semiautomatic guns and pistols in general is that they have one purpose: killing people. Cars at least have one or two other functions. |
That's just typical anti-gun nonsense. Millions of people use semi-autos every day and never kill anyone. I myself have used semi-auto rifles and pistols regularly for nearly 50 years and I've never killed anyone. Although I must admit there have been a few brainless liberal-nonsense-spouting morons that I'd like to... Well, suffice it to say that I've never killed anyone. Yet. |
So the point made was singularity of purpose. What else do people use guns for... stirring paint? Backscratching? Cutting out teeny tiny donut holes? |
The number of recreational and competitive shooting sports is so large that I couldn't begin to name them all, and none of them involve killing people. Several of them are even Olympic events.
Then we have the large segment of the population that enjoys hunting. They do it to put food on the table and for recreation. I realize that most of you think that killing animals is terrible and that food comes from the supermarket, but that's simply not true. I'm sure you enjoy your illusion of morally superiority as you sit down for a nice steak or chicken dinner, because, after all, you didn't kill it, right? Hypocrites, every one.
Then there are all the people, like myself, that just enjoy shooting for the fun of it. It's called plinking and it's a blast (pardon the pun). For a very large number of people, shooting is simply a whole lot of fun. I don't know the actual numbers, but I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the ammunition expended yearly is used simply for the fun of it.
I know that some (probably most) of you are programmed from birth to believe that guns are evil and "only good for killing people." Some of you pride yourselves on the fact that "I've never touched one of those icky things!" I know too that some governments treat the majority of their population as ignorant peasants. Your betters decided long ago that you couldn’t be trusted with guns. They'll all say it's to prevent crime, but what they're really afraid of is that a bunch of you might get together and overthrow their just and benevolent rule. Your only rights are to work and pay taxes to support the ruling class. In other words, you have no rights, and you couldn't own a gun if you wanted to. I feel sorry for you.
Anyway, when you add it all up there are millions of free people in the world that own and use guns regularly, even semi-automatics, without killing a single human being. |
I said semi-automatic guns and pistols, not hunting rifles. Just how much firepower do you need to take down Bambi?
Trust me, guns were not created for sports. The sports came later so people would have something to do with their guns when they weren't killing each other... and also to improve their aim so they would be better at killing at each other.
and one more thing... good luck against the U.S. Armed Forces with your closetful of guns. |
|
|
|
01/11/2011 11:30:26 PM · #156 |
Here's a little - true - story:
My father-in-law, who lived in Batavia, New York a long time ago, taught young people how to use and care for guns. Pistols and rifles. Among other things he taught target shooting. It was a moment of pride to him when each of his proteges acquired enough knowledge and marksmanship to qualify for a license to own a gun. I just Googled "Bob Steele Memorial Range" in Batavia, and while the range is no longer there (or if it is, it has a new name), it was a source of pride to his two kids (a boy and a girl) who graduated from his informal academy with their own licenses.
Is there something wrong with this picture? Tell me what. |
|
|
|
01/11/2011 11:41:04 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Originally posted by Mick:
Your only rights are to work and pay taxes to support the ruling class. In other words, you have no rights, and you couldn't own a gun if you wanted to. I feel sorry for you.
Anyway, when you add it all up there are millions of free people in the world that own and use guns regularly, even semi-automatics, without killing a single human being. |
I'm sure your little uprising would go about as well as David Koresh's.... ;) |
What little uprising? I didn't say anything about supporting any type of uprising. I only suggested that some governments disallow private ownership of guns because they (the ruling class) are afraid that a disgruntled and armed population might get fed up and toss them out on their butts. They don't have to worry about it because they own and/or control all the guns and the peasants are brainwashed into thinking that guns are evil, icky things that no one in their right mind would ever want to own. The framers of the Constitution gave American citizens the Second Amendment for that very purpose. They recognized that power corrupts and insisted that the people keep and maintain the right to own the weapons needed to overthrow a tyrannical government. It's the part that goes, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
But again, you're continuing to equate reasonable standards with outright prohibition. Or, if you don't find such standards reasonable, what do you find reasonable and how else do you propose we prevent such events from happening? |
Again, I never said anything about controls or prohibitions. I will say now however that virtually all of the 'controls' and prohibitions enacted to date are unconstitutional. That's the "shall not be infringed" part. They are useless sops enacted by unscrupulous politicians merely to get votes. And even gun control advocate groups openly admit that most of them are simply stepping stones on the way to a nationwide outright ban on private gun ownership. Hopefully, that will never happen. If it does, then we will be well and truly screwed.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2011 11:51:47 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by Mick:
If it does, then we will be well and truly screwed. |
Not as badly screwed as Christina Green who will never see her tenth birthday. |
|
|
|
01/11/2011 11:59:18 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by skewsme:
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by posthumous:
The thing about semiautomatic guns and pistols in general is that they have one purpose: killing people. Cars at least have one or two other functions. |
That's just typical anti-gun nonsense. Millions of people use semi-autos every day and never kill anyone. I myself have used semi-auto rifles and pistols regularly for nearly 50 years and I've never killed anyone. Although I must admit there have been a few brainless liberal-nonsense-spouting morons that I'd like to... Well, suffice it to say that I've never killed anyone. Yet. |
So the point made was singularity of purpose. What else do people use guns for... stirring paint? Backscratching? Cutting out teeny tiny donut holes? |
The number of recreational and competitive shooting sports is so large that I couldn't begin to name them all, and none of them involve killing people. Several of them are even Olympic events.
Then we have the large segment of the population that enjoys hunting. They do it to put food on the table and for recreation. I realize that most of you think that killing animals is terrible and that food comes from the supermarket, but that's simply not true. I'm sure you enjoy your illusion of morally superiority as you sit down for a nice steak or chicken dinner, because, after all, you didn't kill it, right? Hypocrites, every one.
Then there are all the people, like myself, that just enjoy shooting for the fun of it. It's called plinking and it's a blast (pardon the pun). For a very large number of people, shooting is simply a whole lot of fun. I don't know the actual numbers, but I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the ammunition expended yearly is used simply for the fun of it.
I know that some (probably most) of you are programmed from birth to believe that guns are evil and "only good for killing people." Some of you pride yourselves on the fact that "I've never touched one of those icky things!" I know too that some governments treat the majority of their population as ignorant peasants. Your betters decided long ago that you couldn’t be trusted with guns. They'll all say it's to prevent crime, but what they're really afraid of is that a bunch of you might get together and overthrow their just and benevolent rule. Your only rights are to work and pay taxes to support the ruling class. In other words, you have no rights, and you couldn't own a gun if you wanted to. I feel sorry for you.
Anyway, when you add it all up there are millions of free people in the world that own and use guns regularly, even semi-automatics, without killing a single human being. |
I said semi-automatic guns and pistols, not hunting rifles. Just how much firepower do you need to take down Bambi? |
Ah, but you didn't specifically exclude the millions of semi-autos used for hunting, did you? No, you made a blanket statement that the only use for semi-autos is to kill people. When you spew nonsense like that you shouldn't be surprised or upset when someone calls you on it.
Originally posted by posthumous:
Trust me, guns were not created for sports. The sports came later so people would have something to do with their guns when they weren't killing each other... and also to improve their aim so they would be better at killing at each other. |
More nonsense. There are literally thousands of rifles and handguns that are designed and manufactured specifically for recreational and competitive shooting.
Originally posted by posthumous:
and one more thing... good luck against the U.S. Armed Forces with your closetful of guns. |
You don't seem to understand. The U.S. Armed Forces are made up of freedom loving citizens. If, god forbid, it ever does happen, many (perhaps even most) of them will be using their superior weaponry in support of the revolution. Scary thought, eh? :)
|
|
|
|
01/12/2011 12:12:16 AM · #160 |
Originally posted by Mick:
I will say now however that virtually all of the 'controls' and prohibitions enacted to date are unconstitutional.... |
Wow – the bizarre reasoning, declarations of unconstitutionality and brainwashing, distrust of government, paranoia over the future... all you need now is a rambling screed about grammar. |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 12:19:27 AM · #161 |
Originally posted by Mick:
Ah, but you didn't specifically exclude the millions of semi-autos used for hunting, did you? No, you made a blanket statement that the only use for semi-autos is to kill people. When you spew nonsense like that you shouldn't be surprised or upset when someone calls you on it. |
once again, you need a semi-automatic to hunt? doesn't sound very sporting to me.
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Trust me, guns were not created for sports. The sports came later so people would have something to do with their guns when they weren't killing each other... and also to improve their aim so they would be better at killing at each other. |
More nonsense. There are literally thousands of rifles and handguns that are designed and manufactured specifically for recreational and competitive shooting. |
yeah... and they put holes in books to hide your weed, but books are still made for reading...
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by posthumous:
and one more thing... good luck against the U.S. Armed Forces with your closetful of guns. |
You don't seem to understand. The U.S. Armed Forces are made up of freedom loving citizens. If, god forbid, it ever does happen, many (perhaps even most) of them will be using their superior weaponry in support of the revolution. Scary thought, eh? :) |
either way, it makes your closetful of guns irrelevant. but personally, I like to think the armed forces will fulfill their oath to serve the President of the United States. |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 12:26:44 AM · #162 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Guess what... it's against the law to shoot people in the head.
So, making it against the law to have a gun will stop nothing. *rolleyes* |
Guess we should get rid of all laws.... :(
Corey, out of curiosity, what's your stance on automatic weapons? |
Shoulder width, left foot forward while operating the weapon with my right hand. :) |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 12:32:35 AM · #163 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Guess what... it's against the law to shoot people in the head.
|
Unless you're the Vice President... :-) |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 12:35:04 AM · #164 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Guess what... it's against the law to shoot people in the head.
|
Unless you're the Vice President... :-) |
Oh, zing! |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 12:48:17 AM · #165 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Guess what... it's against the law to shoot people in the head.
|
Unless you're the Vice President... :-) |
It's against the law to INTENTIONALLY shoot someone in the head.
But, let's take the gun accidents and group them in with the violence done with guns intentionally. I still wouldn't want to give up the idea that some good guy with a gun should be able to have that gun to protect himself/herself from the bad guys with the guns.
Just making it against the law to have them won't stop the bad guys from having them. Just like making it against the law to kill someone intentionally didn't stop this weirdo from killing people.
Really... do you actually think that if they'd even posted a sign at the site of the murders that it was illegal to have a gun within so many feet of a government official that that would have stopped this guy from shooting?
I can see it now... "Oh! Gollygeewillikers! Noone told me having a gun near her was illegal! I just wanted to kill her. Nevermind... I'm going home. *sigh* "
Picture you walking into your living room, finding a stranger with a gun... or let's say it's a knife... to your loved one's head/throat. You have a gun you legally own, with a concealed carry permit, in your pocket. You shoot, or even threaten to shoot. Your loved one lives.
Or... let's picture you, a law-abiding citizen, NOT having a gun and your loved one is dead.
Oh... no... let's DON'T picture that last one.
Making guns illegal will not stop crime. It will only give the good guys something to fight back with.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2011 12:55:24 AM · #166 |
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Originally posted by Mick:
Your only rights are to work and pay taxes to support the ruling class. In other words, you have no rights, and you couldn't own a gun if you wanted to. I feel sorry for you.
Anyway, when you add it all up there are millions of free people in the world that own and use guns regularly, even semi-automatics, without killing a single human being. |
I'm sure your little uprising would go about as well as David Koresh's.... ;) |
What little uprising? I didn't say anything about supporting any type of uprising. I only suggested that some governments disallow private ownership of guns because they (the ruling class) are afraid that a disgruntled and armed population might get fed up and toss them out on their butts. They don't have to worry about it because they own and/or control all the guns and the peasants are brainwashed into thinking that guns are evil, icky things that no one in their right mind would ever want to own. The framers of the Constitution gave American citizens the Second Amendment for that very purpose. They recognized that power corrupts and insisted that the people keep and maintain the right to own the weapons needed to overthrow a tyrannical government. It's the part that goes, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
But again, you're continuing to equate reasonable standards with outright prohibition. Or, if you don't find such standards reasonable, what do you find reasonable and how else do you propose we prevent such events from happening? |
Again, I never said anything about controls or prohibitions. I will say now however that virtually all of the 'controls' and prohibitions enacted to date are unconstitutional. That's the "shall not be infringed" part. They are useless sops enacted by unscrupulous politicians merely to get votes. And even gun control advocate groups openly admit that most of them are simply stepping stones on the way to a nationwide outright ban on private gun ownership. Hopefully, that will never happen. If it does, then we will be well and truly screwed. |
Your uprising is implied. You are even stating it right now... you speak of overthrowing the ruling class and all that jazz like it's some easy thing to do. It doesn't take guns to control people, or even necessarily force. Since you brought it up, consider feudalism. The peasants could have easily overthrown things if they were coordinated just by sheer numbers. Power structures aren't physical, and guns won't "kill" them, no matter how many times you try to shoot them.
As for your suggestion that soldiers would side with the uprising, I can't help but wonder where you get this idea from. History isn't exactly a testament to the power of mutiny in the face of overwhelming force and coercion by death. And the same document that you are saying is so holy, inviolate, and wonderful in fact obligates them to act against you. You can't have it both ways.
You also have still not given an alternate approach. Unless you think that idiots with guns randomly killing representatives is acceptable, there needs to be something to prevent such things. I was optimistic that I wouldn't hear the slippery slope argument, but alas... |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 01:00:55 AM · #167 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Making guns illegal will not stop crime. It will only give the good guys something to fight back with. |
I'm thinking that's not exactly what you meant.. |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 01:05:46 AM · #168 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
I was optimistic that I wouldn't hear the slippery slope argument, but alas... |
Such misplaced optimisim. That chamber has always been empty unless you count the blanks.
Message edited by author 2011-01-12 01:07:12.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2011 01:13:45 AM · #169 |
| I'd just rather we not let mentally unstable individuals have guns. Everyone else and their dog can have a gun if they wish. Just please not the ones who get kicked out of college and turned down by the Army. But that's too hard to do. So as I read somewhere today, things like the massacre on Saturday and the Virginia Tech "incident" are the price we pay for a free society. So be it. Now let me shoot my damn camera at a mall, please. Or is that just too much to ask? |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 01:13:56 AM · #170 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Making guns illegal will not stop crime. It will only give the good guys something to fight back with. |
I'm thinking that's not exactly what you meant.. |
Indeed, LOL!
|
|
|
|
01/12/2011 01:15:54 AM · #171 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Such misplaced optimisim. That chamber has always been empty unless you count the blanks. |
Indeed. I should just embrace my nihilism and go get a gun and be done with it ;0
ETA: that way I would either find the truth or my optimism in the chamber.
Message edited by author 2011-01-12 01:16:23. |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 01:25:51 AM · #172 |
| Until we allow private citizens the right to own thermo nuclear weaponry, and .50 caliber machine guns with depleted uranium shells strapped to our Bradley fighting vehicles, we have accepted that some arms are not properly owned by private individuals. At what point does the Second Amendment take force? At what point between a hydrogen bomb and a BB gun does our right to keep and bear arms kick in to such a point that "we the people" are not allowed to pass laws to limit what weapons we want to allow in our town or state? |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 01:40:01 AM · #173 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Until we allow private citizens the right to own thermo nuclear weaponry, and .50 caliber machine guns with depleted uranium shells strapped to our Bradley fighting vehicles, we have accepted that some arms are not properly owned by private individuals. At what point does the Second Amendment take force? At what point between a hydrogen bomb and a BB gun does our right to keep and bear arms kick in to such a point that "we the people" are not allowed to pass laws to limit what weapons we want to allow in our town or state? |
I understand that you need things to make sense, but you're in a gun rights thread. Good luck with that.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2011 06:31:49 AM · #174 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Mick:
Ah, but you didn't specifically exclude the millions of semi-autos used for hunting, did you? No, you made a blanket statement that the only use for semi-autos is to kill people. When you spew nonsense like that you shouldn't be surprised or upset when someone calls you on it. |
once again, you need a semi-automatic to hunt? doesn't sound very sporting to me. |
"Imagine you're a deer. You're prancing along. You get thirsty. You spot a little brook. You put your little deer lips down to the cool, clear water - BAM. A fuckin' bullet rips off part of your head. Your brains are lying on the ground in little bloody pieces. Now I ask ya, would you give a fuck what kind of gun the son-of-a-bitch who shot you was using?"
A bad paraphrase perhaps, but nonetheless a valid point.
Actually, it's more humane to hunt with a semi-auto. What hunters strive for is a quick, clean kill. Ideally, the first shot kills the animal instantly and it never has to suffer. Unfortunately, it doesn't always turn out that way and a second shot is needed. The faster a hunter can deliver that second shot the less the animal has to suffer. Fumbling around reloading while an animal is in pain is a bad thing.
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Trust me, guns were not created for sports. The sports came later so people would have something to do with their guns when they weren't killing each other... and also to improve their aim so they would be better at killing at each other. |
More nonsense. There are literally thousands of rifles and handguns that are designed and manufactured specifically for recreational and competitive shooting. |
yeah... and they put holes in books to hide your weed, but books are still made for reading... |
Huh? What form of non sequitur is that? I think perhaps you should lay off the weed for a while. Oh, and FYI, books are not a good place to hide your stash. The dog will sniff it out every time. Besides, it's a terrible waste to ruin a good book, especially good science fiction books. And, if you'd stop putting holes in them and try reading them instead, then you might actually a thing or two. ;)
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by posthumous:
and one more thing... good luck against the U.S. Armed Forces with your closetful of guns. |
You don't seem to understand. The U.S. Armed Forces are made up of freedom loving citizens. If, god forbid, it ever does happen, many (perhaps even most) of them will be using their superior weaponry in support of the revolution. Scary thought, eh? :) |
either way, it makes your closetful of guns irrelevant. but personally, I like to think the armed forces will fulfill their oath to serve the President of the United States. |
I'm afraid I don't follow your logic on this one either. If I were involved in a revolution together with members of the armed forces, why would my guns be irrelevant? My rifles and pistols fire the same ammunition that the military uses. In fact, civilians are allowed to use certain types of ammunition that the military is prohibited from using. If you don't believe me, have a look at the treaties and protocols of the Geneva Convention. If you think that civilians and their personal weapons are irrelevant in wartime, have a look at the American Revolution. Heck, take a look at almost any war.
As for oaths, members of the armed forces do not swear to serve the President. They take an oath to defend the Constitution and to obey the lawful orders of the President. In other words, they swear to serve their country. I know that because I took that oath myself some years ago. But what if the President is giving unlawful orders? What if he's trampling the Constitution? Soldiers are not robots. They are required to think. They are not required to follow unlawful orders.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2011 07:23:35 AM · #175 |
You guns-for-men fanatics, do want every man and woman and child to have the right to own whatever weapon? Oh? Not everybody? So, who are you to decide who may who or may not? Who are you to decide?
Everyone carries on about a single incident that had a special person being shot. Why not the same reaction every time someone is shot? Shot in America, shot in South America, shot in Africa, shot in the Middle East, shot in Eastern Europe...
People with guns can kill and does. Guns-for-all societies have more murders using guns than societies without guns. Gun control is a word, applying gun control something that still needs to be discovered in a world of savages. As a dreamer, I would live to see a day of no weapons, none, in civilian hands.
Interesting to study the per capita killings categorized in classifications of weapons or methods of choice. My hypothesis will be guns-for-all societies will have more killings in each category and methods than countries that prohibit gun ownership. . I think personally gun users for any reason have a lower value for life than any civilized country where guns are controlled and ownership is prohibited. Murder in America is, like in my own country, a daily, non-news event. A gun killing in Korea brings every body to a standstill.
I would rather become a monk than become pert of a people who has the genetic short circuit that prompts the need to MUST HAVE a gun. I think any one who defends the right for ALL to carry a gun must be a very sick puppy. |
|
