DescentBB

Well, Joe Lieberidiot says we have to control “gun violence” so no, since we don’t have anything called alcohol violence or penis violence, then we couldn’t have such a thing, because we all know only guns can cause violence.

Why don’t we call rape “penis violence” ?

Spidey wrote:Well, Joe Lieberidiot says we have to control “gun violence” so no, since we don’t have anything called alcohol violence or penis violence, then we couldn’t have such a thing, because we all know only guns can cause violence.

Why don’t we call rape “penis violence” ?

Because we are not pathetic liars like Joe and his kind.

Heretic wrote:So does any one of you think it's ok for this:

Sounds good to me.

vision wrote:

Heretic wrote:So does any one of you think it's ok for this:

Sounds good to me.

What purpose do you think it serves and how would you have them make it useful?

The real scary part is the schools then asking the kids if the parents lied about owning firearms. Of course people like vision will see nothing wrong with this.

A curious view point from a non American. Source Pravda:

:Americans should be taking heed that the administration has a very different plan for America than it says it has abroad. Continually America has been funding revolutions, armed and political, abroad, and arming rebels in many instances. Meanwhile at home the humorously undemocratic two party system is making sure such a revolution cannot take place in America regardless of the will of the people. With the American military already conducting training to put down an uprising within America, and the administration targeting the Second Amendment, the reason is clear; America's elite career politicians are worried. They're not doing the will of the people, the people are catching on, and they're doing all they can to hang onto power rather than do the will of the people. The new gun control laws have nothing to do with schools, and everything to do with propping up a failing state.:

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/column ... control-0/

You would take Pravda seriously, wouldn't you?

Actually, the more I think about it, it's doubly hilarious that you do.

Well under the Feinstein bill it would seem we are not all created equal:

"Not everyone will have to abide by Senator Dianne Feinstein's gun control bill. If the proposed legislation becomes law, government officials and others will be exempt."

So here we have further showing of the real reasons behind gun control. It is not about saving children, it is making the govt. the only game in town. I guess if you are a govt. official, you are more important in the grand scheme of things than you or I are. If we can't own a assault weapon why can joe blow city councilman be able to own one? Something doesn't smell right here and it ain't because I had beans for dinner last night.

Oh and are you still amused vision?

I should probably make this a poll......

Would you be as up in arms if instead of calling it an "assault" rifle, they called it a "defend" rifle?

Krom wrote:Would you be as up in arms if instead of calling it an "assault" rifle, they called it a "defend" rifle?

sure, what difference does nomenclature make. No one needs one in their home, period.

Needs and have the right to own, are two different things.

No one “needs” a microwave oven either, or TVs...they also destroy lives.(not the ovens)

actually, the ovens do, too. Let's not get too deep here, I posted a HUMOROUS look at the issue. It seems the serious points of view have pretty well been beaten to death in this thread......

Your HUMOROUS look at the issue got a laugh out of me. At the same time those three options are the only ones that the anti-gun folks give any legitimacy to, so it's really not funny. I can think of a number of reasons to own an AR-grade semi-automatic rifle. There's nothing wrong with owning one or wanting to own one, and statistically it is not a public safety issue.

callmeslick wrote:...
No one needs one in their home, period.

Do we get to take turns being King and declaring who needs what?

Spidey wrote:Well, Joe Lieberidiot says we have to control “gun violence” so no, since we don’t have anything called alcohol violence or penis violence, then we couldn’t have such a thing, because we all know only guns can cause violence.

Why don’t we call rape “penis violence” ?

It essentially already is. Most States already have child sex offender registries, that the public at large can easily access on line, that also requires those offenders to live a certain distance away from schools and other areas where children frequent.

callmeslick wrote:

Krom wrote:Would you be as up in arms if instead of calling it an "assault" rifle, they called it a "defend" rifle?

sure, what difference does nomenclature make. No one needs one in their home, period.

Curious the DHS bought 7000 of them. The funny part is they don't call them assault weapons. They call them "Personal Defensive Weapons" (PDW). So I guess if Joe civilian owns them they are assault weapons and should be banned. OTOH if the govt owns them, then they are a defensive weapons. Cute how the nomenclature changes depending on who you are.

As to needs, no one "needs" to:

Own 2 or more homes
Have more than 1 six pack of beer in the house
Own a car with more than a 4 cylinder engine
Earn more than $50,000.00 a year
Go to sporting events or concerts

So slick, since you don't need any of the above, you willing to give them up to help society?

Awww, comrade slick is tongue tied.

woodchip wrote:Curious the DHS bought 7000 of them. The funny part is they don't call them assault weapons. They call them "Personal Defensive Weapons" (PDW). So I guess if Joe civilian owns them they are assault weapons and should be banned. OTOH if the govt owns them, then they are a defensive weapons. Cute how the nomenclature changes depending on who you are.

This comment is so stupid I couldn't it stop myself. Members of the DHS are not Joe Civilians. They are employees entrusted with safeguarding our land, often against heavily armed drug cartels in the case of the US Border Patrol (I've worked for them recently). Personal doesn't mean ownership as much as it means "on your person" ie, to be carried with you as required equipment per your job description. PDW is a generic term that includes not only rifles, but tazers and a whole array of weapons to defend your person -- because if your boss is assigning you an assault rife, your life is definitely in danger on a daily basis.

Actually 7000 rifles seems kind of low. Probably a budget cut.

woodchip wrote:Awww, comrade slick is tongue tied.

no, just waiting for someone else to point out what a fool you are.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:Curious the DHS bought 7000 of them. The funny part is they don't call them assault weapons. They call them "Personal Defensive Weapons" (PDW). So I guess if Joe civilian owns them they are assault weapons and should be banned. OTOH if the govt owns them, then they are a defensive weapons. Cute how the nomenclature changes depending on who you are.

This comment is so stupid I couldn't it stop myself. Members of the DHS are not Joe Civilians. They are employees entrusted with safeguarding our land, often against heavily armed drug cartels in the case of the US Border Patrol (I've worked for them recently). Personal doesn't mean ownership as much as it means "on your person" ie, to be carried with you as required equipment per your job description. PDW is a generic term that includes not only rifles, but tazers and a whole array of weapons to defend your person -- because if your boss is assigning you an assault rife, your life is definitely in danger on a daily basis.

Actually 7000 rifles seems kind of low. Probably a budget cut.

So, to use your logic for naming the rifle according to its intended use the President and all you lefties are indicting the character of millions of law abiding citizens because your biases cause you to classify them as 'violent assaulters' instead of sport shooters and hunters and target shooters and gun owners who would use them for personal defense!

Which I'm guessing is the point Woody was making.
It is the arrogance of misrepresenting millions of us as dangerous murderous attackers that we are offended with.
There are fewer instances of civilians using ar15's on innocents than there are government users doing so with the same type rifle....yet they are just using a PDW and we who are less likely to use them to kill innocents are carrying 'evil assault rifles'!

F that pile of propaganda poo!

as I said before, Will, the problem comes in when the 'responsible owners' repeat the rabid, hysterical exaggerations that are spoon fed to them by a lobbying group whose aim is to SELL GUNS FOR A LIVING. That gives the rest of us cause to wonder about the whole lot of you.

last August 2012 wrote:Nine bystanders were injured in the firefight between two police officers and the suspect, Jeffrey Johnson. An unnamed law enforcement official told the New York Times that most or all of the injuries came from the 16 rounds police fired at Johnson.

Seems like maybe we should take Guns away from the police too. they shot 9 civilians. hell two officers 16 shots. Illegal magazines?????

well, it works for the Brits.....likely not so well here, though.

CUDA wrote:Seems like maybe we should take Guns away from the police too. they shot 9 civilians. hell two officers 16 shots. Illegal magazines?????

Totally agree with removing guns from police officers too. Anything to reduce the number of guns in circulation is good, but it has to be comprehensive and gradual, like a disarmament treaty with milestones. As the number of guns in the general populace decreases so should guns in government. Could take a couple decades but it will be worth it in the end.

and do you plan to go forcibly from house to house and remove every gun from everyone?? including those that have them lawfully and unlawfully? because I dont see you ever removing guns from our society unless you attempt that.

OH and FYI good luck

callmeslick wrote:as I said before, Will, the problem comes in when the 'responsible owners' repeat the rabid, hysterical exaggerations that are spoon fed to them by a lobbying group whose aim is to SELL GUNS FOR A LIVING. That gives the rest of us cause to wonder about the whole lot of you.

That is quite a convenient and selective application of guilt by association that you are so ready to defend!


What have we gun owners repeated that warrants the President of the United States, the Attorney General and half of Congress to assign us such an untrue characterization?

And while you decide what those comments were that compromised our innocence and made our law abiding, constitutionally protected activities so deplorable will you be as eager to apply your rationale to other 'groups' that can be linked to a few offenders within their group?

Are all black people to be associated with the extreme high levels of {insert statistically high unlawful behavior category here}?!?
Or is the kind of prejudice you practice reserved for the elite class to wield?

Your arrogance is showing again.

vision wrote:... As the number of guns in the general populace decreases so should guns in government. ....

The ridiculousness of the premise aside...you have that completely backwards.

vision wrote:

CUDA wrote:Seems like maybe we should take Guns away from the police too. they shot 9 civilians. hell two officers 16 shots. Illegal magazines?????

Totally agree with removing guns from police officers too. Anything to reduce the number of guns in circulation is good, but it has to be comprehensive and gradual, like a disarmament treaty with milestones. As the number of guns in the general populace decreases so should guns in government. Could take a couple decades but it will be worth it in the end.

now I agree with the others that removing guns from US society just isn't, or even shouldn't happen. However, speaking of police and weapons, one of the causes of the absolute flood of handguns on the streets is the method by which Glock marketed to police depts. Basically, they ran a generous trade in program and then dumped the trade-in service revolvers and autos onto the wholesale market. In other words, they unnecessarily added to the overall weaponry loose in the US, with zero concern for the societal effect.

Once again slick, you try and present art work with only a blank sheet of paper. So the service pistols got sold to a wholesale distributor. You are implying that they then got parceled out to gang bangers and thats why so many thugs have guns eh? Here, let me help your sun addled brain think straight. The wholesaler who bought the police firearms had to be licensed (by law). The wholesaler then sold them to distributers who then sold them to dealers. Each party had to be licensed and file paperwork to sell those pistols. Now tell us just how, by Glock selling quantities to police depts, the used pistols wound up on the streets. Last I checked gang bangers don't obtain pistols by buying them from a FFL dealer.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:Curious the DHS bought 7000 of them. The funny part is they don't call them assault weapons. They call them "Personal Defensive Weapons" (PDW). So I guess if Joe civilian owns them they are assault weapons and should be banned. OTOH if the govt owns them, then they are a defensive weapons. Cute how the nomenclature changes depending on who you are.

This comment is so stupid I couldn't it stop myself. Members of the DHS are not Joe Civilians. They are employees entrusted with safeguarding our land, often against heavily armed drug cartels in the case of the US Border Patrol (I've worked for them recently). Personal doesn't mean ownership as much as it means "on your person" ie, to be carried with you as required equipment per your job description. PDW is a generic term that includes not only rifles, but tazers and a whole array of weapons to defend your person -- because if your boss is assigning you an assault rife, your life is definitely in danger on a daily basis.

Actually 7000 rifles seems kind of low. Probably a budget cut.

Well lets see, boarder agent and other security personnel training includes such training as:

"Border Patrol agents in Arizona are blasting their bosses for telling them, along with all other Department of Homeland Security employees, to run and hide if they encounter an "active shooter."

" Foucart sent all of ICE’s New England agents e-mails (see below) telling them they are required to attend the course, “Improving Cultural Competence: Engaging and Building Relations with American Muslims.”

ICE agents were outraged that Foucart, Boston’s ICE Special Agent in Charge, was forcing them not to remember 3,000 Americans targeted for death by Muslims, but instead, to honor the religion that inspired the massacre."

"WASHINGTON — Private security guards paid little more than janitors and restaurant cooks are guarding many of the critical security sites in the United States, usually with minimal or no anti-terrorist training, an Associated Press investigation found."

Gee, I bet I could run and hide with the best of them.

woodchip wrote:Once again slick, you try and present art work with only a blank sheet of paper. So the service pistols got sold to a wholesale distributor. You are implying that they then got parceled out to gang bangers and thats why so many thugs have guns eh? Here, let me help your sun addled brain think straight. The wholesaler who bought the police firearms had to be licensed (by law). The wholesaler then sold them to distributers who then sold them to dealers. Each party had to be licensed and file paperwork to sell those pistols. Now tell us just how, by Glock selling quantities to police depts, the used pistols wound up on the streets. Last I checked gang bangers don't obtain pistols by buying them from a FFL dealer.

Very well put. Gotta try to keep the slickster honest.

callmeslick wrote:...
now I agree with the others that removing guns from US society just isn't, or even shouldn't happen. However, speaking of police and weapons, one of the causes of the absolute flood of handguns on the streets is the method by which Glock marketed to police depts. Basically, they ran a generous trade in program and then dumped the trade-in service revolvers and autos onto the wholesale market. In other words, they unnecessarily added to the overall weaponry loose in the US, with zero concern for the societal effect.

That is such bullcrap!
Completely shows you don't think these things through past the part where you think you found a gun problem and rush to assign blame for it.

Police departments across the country were looking to upgrade because they were carrying and maintaining antiquated low capacity weapons and criminals were better armed and outgunning them. Glock came along with a superior product and once people tried them they by and large recognized the simplicity, accuracy and increased firepower was well worth learning to adapt to a new system.

Regardless of whether Glock got the bulk of the business or not Police departments were going to upgrade and when they upgrade the weapons are almost always re-sold to civilian markets.

Glock didn't 'unnecessarily dump guns' into the U.S. The laws of supply, demand and need for keeping our police forces well regulated put them there.

It is pathetic the way you try to squeeze everything gun related to fit into the 'evil gun' template. Where did you read that 'thought' you just shared?
The Huffington Post or Democrat Underground Message Board? How about you play devils advocate and think it through with the crap you see there before you give it the slick stamp of approval from now on?

CUDA wrote:and do you plan to go forcibly from house to house and remove every gun from everyone?? including those that have them lawfully and unlawfully? because I dont see you ever removing guns from our society unless you attempt that.

There is absolutely no need to forcibly remove guns and I know you are smart enough to see that. A combination of incentives and increased feelings of security, along with cultural and societal pressures can bring about the change. There is a complicated backbone of economic disparity that needs to be tackled along with that, which is no easy feat, but I am positively sure it can be done. It has been done in other countries and can be done in the United States. Takes time and effort. It won't happen overnight.

woodchip wrote:Well lets see, boarder agent and other security personnel training includes such training as:

"Border Patrol agents in Arizona are blasting their bosses for telling them, along with all other Department of Homeland Security employees, to run and hide if they encounter an "active shooter."

What is the problem? When it comes to fight or flight, flight is the best option 99% of the time. Get yourself out of immediate danger, then deal with the situation in a controlled manner. It will save the lives of many. It's smart.

woodchip wrote:"anti-muslim quotes"

If only everyone in the World Trade Center had assault rifles and rocket launchers they could have shot down the planes before they hit! NEVER FORGET!

I'm sorry woody, but the very nature of terrorism is that it is unexpected, devastating, and psychologically horrifying. I'm not sure what more guns inthe hands of security gards will do to stop a well orchestrated plan to poison a town or some other godawful event that might happen.

vision wrote:..

woodchip wrote:..

"Border Patrol agents in Arizona are blasting their bosses for telling them, along with all other Department of Homeland Security employees, to run and hide if they encounter an "active shooter."

What is the problem? When it comes to fight or flight, flight is the best option 99% of the time. Get yourself out of immediate danger, then deal with the situation in a controlled manner. It will save the lives of many. It's smart. ....

Right, they should run away and call....uh...the Other Border Patrol in a controlled manner....yea! I almost forgot about those guys!

In all fairness to the Obama administration maybe the real reason they wont confront armed drug runners who repeatedly shoot their way into our country to bring the drugs in is because Eric Holder has expanded Fast and Furious to include drug running. So they let the drug runners bring the stuff in so he can figure out where it's going and try to do something really cool about it one day! I think they are calling that part of the operation Bending Over and Taking It Hard and Fast.

vision wrote:There is absolutely no need to forcibly remove guns and I know you are smart enough to see that. A combination of incentives and increased feelings of security, along with cultural and societal pressures can bring about the change. There is a complicated backbone of economic disparity that needs to be tackled along with that, which is no easy feat, but I am positively sure it can be done. It has been done in other countries and can be done in the United States. Takes time and effort. It won't happen overnight.

I think your name should be changed to "delusion". I'm going to tackle this line by line.

vision wrote:There is absolutely no need to forcibly remove guns and I know you are smart enough to see that.

The "need" to forcibly remove guns is tied directly to the fact that there are people who cannot be talked into getting rid of them, and the reason they can't is because you bastards don't have a good argument. Your best hope is manipulation, through control of media and limiting the facts being discussed, and ultimately that is not a winning play because it will be found out.

vision wrote:A combination of incentives and increased feelings of security, along with cultural and societal pressures can bring about the change.

Social engineering. Unfortunately you are unable to engineer a society that makes people want to do unto others as they would have others do unto them. I hold out hope that ultimately America will reject this social engineering bull★■◆● for what it is, and embrace something with real substance that will actually profit.

vision wrote:There is a complicated backbone of economic disparity that needs to be tackled along with that, which is no easy feat, but I am positively sure it can be done.

That's a constant theme with you. The ability to blithely put faith in the most fantastic, new age concepts. No one that I have ever heard of has demonstrated any ability to propose a real solution to the socio-economic woes afflicting our country (any country). The truth is that no one who gets as many of the basics wrong as some of you dreamers do could ever conceive of a solution that is not foundationally steeped in naivety and so utterly fantastic. The truth is that there is no magic bullet--no science waiting to be unlocked. The hard truth is that the only way forward is to right the wrongs that got us where we are. That is always the only way forward--the only solution. To fix what is actually wrong, to deal with the elephant in the room--to tell the truth, to do what is right. Justice is the only way forward. I know from even just a little bit of experience that where this country is today is the result of a lot of secret dealing, a lot of lies, and a lot of favors. There is a structure of corruption built up, and it needs to be ****ing torn down in order for any kind of real solution to happen. Things need to be brought out into the light. It'll be a fight, and it will mean suffering for a lot of people. If it doesn't happen, things will never really be right.

vision wrote:It has been done in other countries and can be done in the United States. Takes time and effort. It won't happen overnight.

But the United States is not other countries. We have the 2nd amendment and the rest of the constitution designed uniquely to protect the liberties we recognized historically as being the right of every man created equal before God from the encroachments of tyrants and their oblivious, naive, idealist lap dogs. The protection of these liberties, and not the cultivation of some convenient notion of idyllic safety or optimum efficiency is the sacred duty and only sanctioned business of government.

Oh boy, where to begin...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

vision wrote:There is absolutely no need to forcibly remove guns ....

The "need" to forcibly remove guns is tied directly to the fact that there are people who cannot be talked into getting rid of them, and the reason they can't is because you bastards don't have a good argument. Your best hope is manipulation, through control of media and limiting the facts being discussed, and ultimately that is not a winning play because it will be found out.

You miss the point completely, and it is my fault for not being clear. I try not to be too wordy here. Yes, there are people that can't be "talked out of it with an argument," but that isn't what I propose. It is not about a compelling argument. The idea is to create an environment were people who have guns for self defense simply feel safe enough that they don't see a need for a gun. It becomes an unused appliance, something that is worth more as scrap metal, figuratively speaking. I definitely feel safe where I live, but I have lived in areas I have not felt that way. Which brings me to...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Social engineering.

Nope, not even close. Providing a means for people to live comfortably without fear of their neighbors in not social engineering, it is our responsibility as decent human beings. Help people get their needs met and invest in those areas where crime and violence is the highest. Doing good for our brothers and sisters and making them feel safe is not engineering -- and it benefits everyone.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

vision wrote:There is a complicated backbone of economic disparity that needs to be tackled along with that, which is no easy feat, but I am positively sure it can be done.

That's a constant theme with you. The ability to blithely put faith in the most fantastic, new age concepts. No one that I have ever heard of has demonstrated any ability to propose a real solution to the socio-economic woes afflicting our country (any country). The truth is that no one who gets as many of the basics wrong as some of you dreamers do could ever conceive of a solution that is not foundationally steeped in naivety and so utterly fantastic. The truth is that there is no magic bullet--no science waiting to be unlocked. The hard truth is that the only way forward is to right the wrongs that got us where we are. [the truth, the truth, yadda yadda, yadda...].

New age? lol. Ok, look. The hard truth you don't want to hear is that the quality of life for everyone, in our country and around the world, keeps increasing. We don't need a magic bullet because it is already happening. We just need to help it along and not impede it. I don't need faith in fantastic ideas, they are already in motion and working.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

vision wrote:It has been done in other countries and can be done in the United States. Takes time and effort. It won't happen overnight.

But the United States is not other countries.

We are also not the greatest country. We shouldn't be so ignorant in our pride and patriotism that we ignore what other countries do better than us. There are counties with more peace within and outside their borders, countries with higher standards of living, more freedom, and greater self-reported happiness. We should look to our neighbors for help and inspiration.

Don't you want to be the best? It is obvious you are not happy with current 'Murica. Pick a new role model!

There are countries with more freedom?

Name one.

Take your pick of indices.