Gun control

[Crazyhorse81 245]

Emory, I already said Afghanistan. That's where I was when I saw children walking down the road with AK-47s and no one gave them a second thought. And they weren't conscripted soldiers or brainwashed assassins. I also NEVER said that children aren't used as soldiers in other countries, so I don't know why you felt you had to prove the point. And I'm calling you a wuss because in your eyes apparently my believing in the second amendment makes me a frothing at the mouth lunatic. I figure that if you're going to caricature me, the least I can do is reciprocate. There is nothing dangerous about an inanimate object. Not one damn thing. Which is why I have to scratch my head when I hear people talking about banning weapons like the AR-15. Sit one of those down on the table and it won't ever kill anyone.

 

I'm trying to put the focus on the PERSON rather than the TOOL. If a nutjob kills someone with a shovel, we don't rush out to ban shovels. If someone kills someone with a car, we don't rush out there to ban cars. So why blame the tool instead of the person? Especially considering the crazy person using that tool to do evil is going to just get another tool if the one he wants is unavailable to him. Look at the Sandy Hook shooting. Guy went to go legally get a gun, but couldn't pass a background check. BAM, right there, the law worked. It stopped him from getting a gun. But then he just went and stole his mother's guns and killed her. The guns didn't make him do it, he made him do it. Why are the guns being blamed? He then took the guns to a school, which was a gun free zone. Once again, the law didn't stop him from doing what he wanted to do. And unless there's some kind of forcefield that detects and prevents guns from passing by, there isn't a law that could ever be passed that would prevent him from getting into that school. Again, the PERSON is the one who is evil, not the TOOL. No "assault weapons" ban is going to stop someone from using an "assault weapon" to commit evil acts. That doesn't mean that we need to give up on the laws entirely, I just think we're looking at the wrong issue here. The PERSON is what needs to be fixed.

 

Why do you feel that someone is delusional simply because they want the heaviest firepower legally available in case the government comes a-knockin? History has the examples of what can happen to a disarmed populous. And our own government has a very poor track record when it comes to actions like Ruby Ridge and Waco. I don't trust this Government any further than I could spit a rat, and I've seen enough of the "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" out of them to not want to give them that inch anymore.

 

I also don't agree with the whole "why do you need a weapon with a 30 round magazine??" argument either. Have you SEEN the mobs that have been attacking people lately? Admittedly, this hasn't been as frequent in the past few months than before, but remember those stories of 20-30 someodd idiots roaming around attacking random people? Would you NOT want to be able to protect yourself against a mass like that? Maybe you won't have the time to reload that 10 round mag?

 

The amusing thing here is that we have a gun owner trying to place restrictions on gun owners while we have a non gun owner trying to loosen them.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

Have you SEEN the mobs that have been attacking people lately? Admittedly, this hasn't been as frequent in the past few months than before, but remember those stories of 20-30 someodd idiots roaming around attacking random people?

 

I don't remember hearing about anything like this. Got a link?

[Emory889 353]

Emory, I already said Afghanistan. That's where I was when I saw children walking down the road with AK-47s and no one gave them a second thought. And they weren't conscripted soldiers or brainwashed assassins. I also NEVER said that children aren't used as soldiers in other countries, so I don't know why you felt you had to prove the point. And I'm calling you a wuss because in your eyes apparently my believing in the second amendment makes me a frothing at the mouth lunatic. I figure that if you're going to caricature me, the least I can do is reciprocate. There is nothing dangerous about an inanimate object. Not one damn thing. Which is why I have to scratch my head when I hear people talking about banning weapons like the AR-15. Sit one of those down on the table and it won't ever kill anyone.

 

 

Sorry that I missed where you stated what country you were referring to but one of the links I sent you WAS Afghanistan. Children carrying weapons in that country is a problem. If you are going to cite anecdotal evidence like children carrying guns as proof that the prevalence of semi-automatic weapons is not a problem with the proper mentality, then you had damn sure better be prepared to admit that children carrying guns is usually not a positive thing. I sure wouldn't want to have to give one of my children a gun and tell them to protect sheep from robbers.

 

Furthermore, I didn't caricature you. I never insulted you personally or made any assumptions about your background....to include calling you a lunatic. That's what YOU did in an attempt to discredit the points I was trying to make. I attacked your opinions. Big difference. The bolded sentence is a prime example of what I'm talking about. I never said believing in the 2nd amendment makes you a frothing lunatic. That's absurd, I own weapons. I think your opinions on the subject are bat-s*** insane but that has little to do with the AR-15 and everything to do with some of the other weapons you would legalize if given the option. I merely disagree with you on owning AR-15s.

 

I'm trying to put the focus on the PERSON rather than the TOOL. If a nutjob kills someone with a shovel, we don't rush out to ban shovels. If someone kills someone with a car, we don't rush out there to ban cars. So why blame the tool instead of the person? Especially considering the crazy person using that tool to do evil is going to just get another tool if the one he wants is unavailable to him. Look at the Sandy Hook shooting. Guy went to go legally get a gun, but couldn't pass a background check. BAM, right there, the law worked. It stopped him from getting a gun. But then he just went and stole his mother's guns and killed her. The guns didn't make him do it, he made him do it. Why are the guns being blamed? He then took the guns to a school, which was a gun free zone. Once again, the law didn't stop him from doing what he wanted to do. And unless there's some kind of forcefield that detects and prevents guns from passing by, there isn't a law that could ever be passed that would prevent him from getting into that school. Again, the PERSON is the one who is evil, not the TOOL. No "assault weapons" ban is going to stop someone from using an "assault weapon" to commit evil acts. That doesn't mean that we need to give up on the laws entirely, I just think we're looking at the wrong issue here. The PERSON is what needs to be fixed.

 

Unbelievable. I took the time to address each one of these points individually, something that took me a considerable amount of time to do, and all you did was regurgitate your original points verbatim without addressing a single thing I said. I have no idea why I even bothered.

 

Why do you feel that someone is delusional simply because they want the heaviest firepower legally available in case the government comes a-knockin? History has the examples of what can happen to a disarmed populous. And our own government has a very poor track record when it comes to actions like Ruby Ridge and Waco. I don't trust this Government any further than I could spit a rat, and I've seen enough of the "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" out of them to not want to give them that inch anymore.

 

I think you are delusional for the reasons I've already stated.

 

1) This country's government has existed for over 2 hundred years and with the exception of the Civil War and the occasional lunatic, no one has attempted to liberate the population from a tyrannical government. You might as well tell me you need the guns in preparation for the zombie apocalypse. One is only slightly less probable than the other.

 

2) Your AR-15, or whatever currently legal gun that would be affected by the ban, is only going to be marginally more effective than the guns that will remain legal. You will still be out-manned, out-gunned, and if you tried to oppose them, you would likely end up dead. The bottom line is that you would still have a gun in your hand when you die regardless.

 

3) And probably the biggest reason, is because standing up to the government really has nothing to do with it. People that own semi-automatic guns like shooting them. They enjoy going into the woods and shooting s***. They are p*ssed that they won't be able to shoot s*** anymore. It's ok to admit it. It's not like I have the power to sign this bill into law. Let's be honest about it just this once.

 

I also don't agree with the whole "why do you need a weapon with a 30 round magazine??" argument either. Have you SEEN the mobs that have been attacking people lately? Admittedly, this hasn't been as frequent in the past few months than before, but remember those stories of 20-30 someodd idiots roaming around attacking random people? Would you NOT want to be able to protect yourself against a mass like that? Maybe you won't have the time to reload that 10 round mag?

 

I'm with Brooks on this. I would like to know what you are specifically talking about.

 

The amusing thing here is that we have a gun owner trying to place restrictions on gun owners while we have a non gun owner trying to loosen them.

 

lol, That is pretty funny role reversal.

[For the love of the game 56]

As far as I'm concerned, laws that allow private citizens to own military grade weapons like missile systems and artillery provided that they received training/passed a background check is the equivalent of no gun laws at all. No private citizen should be legally allowed to possess a weapon that could wipe out an entire neighborhood.

[/quot

 

I am not versed enough in our laws, but i have never heard of a law that allow a private citizen to have missiles. If they exist, let me know where i can find.this?

[Crazyhorse81 245]

Mob attacks

 

Chicago

 

Philidelphia

 

Milwaukee

 

Like I said, these happened several months ago and has trended downward lately, but it DOES happen.

[For the love of the game 56]

We can respectfully agree and disagree on many different things in this debate, but if you're going to tell me that the NRA bears no responsibility for fostering that kind of attitude, you're either being painfully dishonest or you're not paying attention to what's going on.

 

The examples I cited above are not anomalies, and they're not misstatements. Those are just two examples that I found with a quick 10 minutes of googling. This is how the NRA frames this issue and it's intentional. They want you to be afraid of the President and they want you to believe that he's going to take your guns from you. That's not an honest difference of opinion, it's fear-mongering.

 

Please show me where I said the NRA has no

responsibility in this frenzy. If I did, I will buy you beer. What i did say is the local and national nightly news plays a role as well. Also, the non Fox channels are chirning up the anti gun crowds. Add to that the people in Hollywood are spouting out crap as well. Michael Moore just said its not guns or people that kill people, Its Americans that kil people. Danny Glover just said the 2nd amendment was created to keep blacks from gaining freedom . my computer is down now, but I will provide links once it's up. I could find many more as well.

 

so again, it's not that the NRA is not stirring up a frenzy, it's that the frenzy is being stirred up from both sides of the debate. not every gun owner is a republican, there are gun ownerd that are Democrats as well. if a Democrat that is a gun owner watches the stuff spewed from CNN or MSNBC, they could get scared into buying guns and ammo as well

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Mob attacks

 

Chicago

 

Philidelphia

 

Milwaukee

 

Like I said, these happened several months ago and has trended downward lately, but it DOES happen.

 

On of those incidents happened last July. It was a robbery.

 

The other two are more than 2 years old.

 

 

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

Please show me where I said the NRA has no

responsibility in this frenzy. If I did, I will buy you beer. What i did say is the local and national nightly news plays a role as well. Also, the non Fox channels are chirning up the anti gun crowds. Add to that the people in Hollywood are spouting out crap as well. Michael Moore just said its not guns or people that kill people, Its Americans that kil people. Danny Glover just said the 2nd amendment was created to keep blacks from gaining freedom . my computer is down now, but I will provide links once it's up. I could find many more as well.

 

so again, it's not that the NRA is not stirring up a frenzy, it's that the frenzy is being stirred up from both sides of the debate. not every gun owner is a republican, there are gun ownerd that are Democrats as well. if a Democrat that is a gun owner watches the stuff spewed from CNN or MSNBC, they could get scared into buying guns and ammo as well

 

You said you searched pretty hard and couldn't find anything like that. I assumed that led you to the conclusion that the NRA was not promoting that message. An assumption on my part, yes, but the point still stands.

 

What you're doing here is trying to create a false equivalency. You're trying really hard to say that this kind of nonsense is coming from both sides of the debate. It's not. The difference between the examples you're giving and the examples I've given is that only one of them is encouraging people to go to war with the government. No one hears Michael Moore say something stupid and then thinks they need to be prepared to kill some people because of it. Stop trying to portray these things as equal. They are not.

[For the love of the game 56]

You said you searched pretty hard and couldn't find anything like that. I assumed that led you to the conclusion that the NRA was not promoting that message. An assumption on my part, yes, but the point still stands.

 

What you're doing here is trying to create a false equivalency. You're trying really hard to say that this kind of nonsense is coming from both sides of the debate. It's not. The difference between the examples you're giving and the examples I've given is that only one of them is encouraging people to go to war with the government. No one hears Michael Moore say something stupid and then thinks they need to be prepared to kill some people because of it. Stop trying to portray these things as equal. They are not.

 

I like how you highlighted the part that benefits your arguement and left the entire second half of the statement off. You now the one that pointed to why he feels this way. I also like how you have one again stated the NRA is encouraging people to go to war with the government as if it was somehow in that speech. Now you can see into the words he used in any way you like, that would be your opinion. Now I saw that speech as a call to stand up for the 2nd amendment, not as a call to war on our government.

 

You are right about Michael Moore however, since he is trying to convince people yo be anti guns. And I really do not know what Glover was thinking. Maybe he forgot to take his meds that day. See the gun control people are trying to convince people to be anti guns. The article you provided listed a supreme court justice that made an enteresting comment after she was appointed. I can only really speak for myself, but I do not need the NRA to trying to convince me the 2nd amendment is under attack, her comments scare me enough.

 

You keep trying trying to say things I am trying to make them equal. I have agreed the NRA has fault in this stirring up on the frenzy (and have even agreed they have a good amount of infuence), while you seem to be saying the NRA is completely to blame for it (which I do not believe).

[chaney23 0]

Assault Weapon" is a term made up to describe semi-automatic weapons that have military features. It is basically given to a semi-automatic weapon deemed to be too scary looking, not because of the lethality of the weapon. Since an assault rifle is a weapon that can fire semi-auto and auto, an Ar-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a semi-auto rifle. If politicians really care about violence used by guns, why are they going after rifles, which make up a small percentage of the violence used by guns. Handguns are used in much more violent crimes, but they are not calling for a ban on them. Are the people who died at the hands of someone with a handgun less important? If you want to be at least philosophically consistent, you would be for the banning of all guns.

[Emory889 353]

 

 

I am not versed enough in our laws, but i have never heard of a law that allow a private citizen to have missiles. If they exist, let me know where i can find.this?

 

*sighs*

 

They don't exist.

[Emory889 353]

Mob attacks

 

Chicago

 

Philidelphia

 

Milwaukee

 

Like I said, these happened several months ago and has trended downward lately, but it DOES happen.

 

Ok, well at least I now know what you are talking about. Of course, this still isn't going to matter unless they start allowing individuals to carry semi-automatic weapons on their person. Common sense also tells me that a handgun would be just as effective. Most people aren't going to keep coming forward if they are being shot at.

 

I take it that since you haven't responded to any other point that I made that you either have nothing else to say on the matter or you can't dispute the points that I made.