DescentBB

Guns are AWESOME!!!!!! Our gun laws put us in great company! Woo hoo!

vision wrote:Guns are AWESOME!!!!!! Our gun laws put us in great company! Woo hoo!

So should we all give up guns because bad people use them to kill good people?
Is that really as deep as you are able to think?

If so, does that logic apply to other things that are 'responsible' for the deaths of thousands of people?

Would it still be ok to ban guns even after you find out that more innocent lives are saved by them than are lost by their use? Or have you been authorized to cause the deaths of the larger group in order to save the smaller group? If so, for what reason do you think that is a good idea?!? Because the democrats say so? lol!

I see you live in Chicago. That would explain your dislike of gun violence since you guys shoot about a dozen people a day up there....but remember, it is your people doing the killing, not the guns. If all the guns in Chicago were magically transported to my back yard none of them would kill people there. They would just lay there. However, your people in Chicago would still be killing each other wouldn't they?

Will Robinson wrote:

vision wrote:Guns are AWESOME!!!!!! Our gun laws put us in great company! Woo hoo!

So should we all give up guns because bad people use them to kill good people?
Is that really as deep as you are able to think?

If so, does that logic apply to other things that are 'responsible' for the deaths of thousands of people?

Would it still be ok to ban guns even after you find out that more innocent lives are saved by them than are lost by their use? Or have you been authorized to cause the deaths of the larger group in order to save the smaller group? If so, for what reason do you think that is a good idea?!? Because the democrats say so? lol!

I see you live in Chicago. That would explain your dislike of gun violence since you guys shoot about a dozen people a day up there....but remember, it is your people doing the killing, not the guns. If all the guns in Chicago were magically transported to my back yard none of them would kill people there. They would just lay there. However, your people in Chicago would still be killing each other wouldn't they?

Guns have been around quite a long time in this country without the type and frequency of mass killing that has happened - and only quite recently.

What has changed?

Perhaps the cheapening of life (abortion, movie violence, glorification of criminal activityt)? Loss of respect for other human beings? The "ME" culture that seems to be oozing out of media everywhere from Hollywood on down to social media online? (Separate topic- but isn't abortion a bit of an expression of 'ME'? What's best for ME and not the potential human being?) Increased divorce rates (ME! ME ME! again.) Single parent housholds...

Mass murderers tend to be "ME" people. They are all about themselves...how THEY feel- not what the value of other human beings is. It is the ultimate in selfishness and narcissism expressed in a sick and twisted way. If I can't be happy, then nobody else can or should be?

Mental disease and violence may be fed by this mentality.

Thoughts?

vision wrote:Guns are AWESOME!!!!!! Our gun laws put us in great company! Woo hoo!

Weee, booze is awesome. Our alcohol and drunk driving laws put us in great company. There, fixed it for ya

vision wrote:I don't own a gun and can't imagine a rational reason to own one under any circumstances.

The only reason I have a handgun is for protecting myself in my home. I don't intent to carry it outside of the home and I hope I never have use it against another person in my lifetime. If things got so bad I had to carry a gun in public for self protection, we've reached a pretty sorry state of affairs in this country and I don't know if I'd want to even live here.

I'm guessing the main reason so many Americans are in love with their assault-style weapons and large magazines, and not the paltry 15 shot or less pistols either, is that they either have an irrational fear of their government and fantasize that their guns can be used to protect themselves from said government and it's well-armed military , OR, these guns are an extension of their manhood and they don't want to be castrated and feminized by restrictive gun laws , OR both. Kind of a sad commentary on the crazy state of our society, ain't it.

tunnelcat wrote:

vision wrote:I don't own a gun and can't imagine a rational reason to own one under any circumstances.

The only reason I have a handgun is for protecting myself in my home. ....

I'm guessing the main reason so many Americans are in love with their assault-style weapons and large magazines, and not the paltry 15 shot or less pistols either, is that they either have an irrational fear of their government ...

Your party has decided that your pistol is an "assault weapon" too.
You see, there really is no such thing as an assault weapon, the term was invented by politicians so they can put any weapon they arbitrarly choose into the it's-evil-so-it-must-be-banned category.

And once that has taken place and the next school shooter kills a bunch of easy to kill unguarded children you might want to stock up on cutlery or baseball bats if you have any need for them....

irrational fear my ass! irrational politicians and irrational constituents is the reality!

well it appears also that a large portion of those names and addresses published are retired law enforcement officers that have arrested people through the years and have made themselves unpopular.

So now in their zeal to vilify gun owners, this paper has put battered women and retired law enforcement officials and their families in danger.

but according to Vision YEA gun owners

STRING THE BASTARD UP!!!!!

http://www.fieldandstream.com/forums/ba ... s-intruder

The State Bureau of Investigation and Columbus County Sheriff's Department are investigating the shooting, Gore said. Soles, who was not arrested,declined to discuss the incident Sunday evening.
"I am not in a position to talk to you," Soles said by telephone.
"I'm right in the middle of an investigation."
The Senator, who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public, didn't hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger and he was the victim.The State Bureau of Investigation and Columbus County Sheriff's Department are investigating the shooting, Gore said. Soles, who was not arrested,declined to discuss the incident Sunday evening.

That happened a couple years back and the guy he shot was a previous client of the Senator who is also a lawyer. The guy was tresspassing, sort of, he and two others were on the property drinking and had kicked the door, not kicked it in but kicked it. The Senator came out and shot the guy who later mysteriously asked that the police not charge the Senator.

The Senator paid a $1000 fine for shooting someone he shouldn't have......must be nice to have that kind of special treatment....

Typical elitist.

I don't know man, something about owning a gun just doesn't feel right, you know what I'm sayin'?

Those in charge are not against personal ownership of firearms, they are trustworthy of course no they are about eliminating all threats. As far as Vision is concerned, he has no crediblity in my opinion. If someone else were to depict Mohammed in that same fashion, he has and would call it insensitive and bigoted. He must not fear Christians.

vision wrote:I don't know man, something about owning a gun just doesn't feel right, you know what I'm sayin'? ...

No, I don't, at least not that you said anything particularly amusing or thought provoking or poignant or clever. You strung some words together asking a question and put up a cartoon but it isn't even close to clear what the hell you were trying to say....

I think perhaps you need to have your right to free speech taken away. You can't possibly need to be posting all these comments on the Internet. No one really needs so much free access to express themselves other than professional commentators who are trained and licensed. You are just causing trouble trying to communicate.

Would Jesus protect his home with firearms?

Would Jesus troll a internet forum?

People like vision must be in charge at Pizza Hut:

"He said he was demoted because he violated Pizza Hut's no weapon policy when he was out delivering pizza on Dec. 14. While out, Swicegood was attacked at about 7:30 p.m five teenage boys when he tried to deliver a pizza in the 6400 block of Lincoln Court."

"He fought back with something he doesn't consider a weapon, a fiberglass tent stake he had in the back seat."

So in visions world we will all have to be good Timex watches, take our licking and keep on ticking.

vision wrote:Would Jesus protect his home with firearms?

Jesus (Matthew 26) wrote:52 ... "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? 54 How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?”

Never bring a firearm to a twelve+ legions of angels fight... With or without high-capacity mags, you're SOL.

Next we ban kitchen knives.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

vision wrote:Would Jesus protect his home with firearms?

I don't know but if I was counting on him to stop the bad guys I'd carry a bible instead of a Glock.

By the way, doesn't he have a big gate with a guard named St. Peter who magically sends all the bad people that show up straight to hell?
With security like that you might have a point after all. Who installs those systems?

You can get one pretty cheap at www.catholicchurch.com from what I hear Will.

Me? I hate this ★■◆●ing debate. It's completely pointless. There are over a hundred million guns in this country, what does the gun control lobby actually expect to accomplish? Guns are here to stay. The police actually do catch people before they commit these types of crimes, it's just needs to be made easier for them to do so. How the hell they figure out who cracked before going on a killing spree and stopping it is way above my pay grade.

So I don't know. The argument that the only reason why have this violence is because we don't have enough guns is just as ludicrous. But the argument for gun control is just as unfeasible. I think the status quo is the way it's going to be and we all just have to sit and hope that neither we nor any of our loved ones happen to be in the wrong spot at the wrong time. Tough pill to swallow but that's what it seems to be these days. At least I have a fresh bowl packed. There are still some decent things in life.

CobGobbler wrote:At least I have a fresh bowl packed. There are still some decent things in life.

A druggie. Why am I not shocked?

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

vision wrote:I don't own a gun and can't imagine a rational reason to own one under any circumstances.

The only reason I have a handgun is for protecting myself in my home. ....

I'm guessing the main reason so many Americans are in love with their assault-style weapons and large magazines, and not the paltry 15 shot or less pistols either, is that they either have an irrational fear of their government ...

Your party has decided that your pistol is an "assault weapon" too.
You see, there really is no such thing as an assault weapon, the term was invented by politicians so they can put any weapon they arbitrarly choose into the it's-evil-so-it-must-be-banned category.

And once that has taken place and the next school shooter kills a bunch of easy to kill unguarded children you might want to stock up on cutlery or baseball bats if you have any need for them....

irrational fear my ass! irrational politicians and irrational constituents is the reality!

I see you rose to my bait. Must be some truth to it. I was only trying to point out WHY so many men LIKE their powerful and big weapons to the point of irrational craziness. I was not trying to justify taking them away from your cold dead hands. That weapon you were showing in your earlier post looks like you could take on an army with it. That's a little overkill for just home protection isn't it? With my paltry little handgun, I'm not trying to compensate for something or quake in fear of a government takeover. I'm just trying to protect my person. If the government goes all dictator on us, we've got bigger problems than a bunch of crazy men with big guns will be able to solve.

By the way, the Democratic Party is not my party. They haven't been for quite a long time. They're just as much of a bunch of unprincipled hypocrites as the Republicans. Yes, I know my semiautomatic 15 clip handgun falls into their "assault weapon" category, which shows you how much of a bunch of boneheaded idiots the Dems can be when it suits their agenda, as CUDA's previous post so clearly pointed out. I can at least agree with you on that point.

tunnelcat wrote:.....
I see you rose to my bait. Must be some truth to it. I was only trying to point out WHY so many men LIKE their powerful and big weapons to the point of irrational craziness. I was not trying to justify taking them away from your cold dead hands. That weapon you were showing in your earlier post looks like you could take on an army with it. That's a little overkill for just home protection isn't it? With my paltry little handgun, I'm not trying to compensate for something or quake in fear of a government takeover. ...

The only thing I'm compensating for is eyesight getting weak. It's important that I only hit what I aim at and it's primary purpose was to be for 3 Gun competition and maybe some hog hunting. But I guess thousands of competitors in those sports never got the memo that no one uses those weapons for sport...

It's a work in progress, waiting for my paperwork to go through at the BATF to complete the project. Once Im allowed to put a shoulder stock and silencer on it loaded with subsonic ammo it will be whisper quiet and far more accurate than I could ever shoot a pistol even in my younger days and it will deliver the same stopping power all the way out to 200 yards that a hot loaded .45 auto pistol produces at its muzzle.

It's a nice weapon, I'll agree. But it's still overkill, and a silenced one at that. But, whatever stirs your pot......

For the record, I'm also compensating for my deteriorating eyesight as well.

tunnelcat wrote:It's a nice weapon, I'll agree. But it's still overkill, and a silenced one at that. But, whatever stirs your pot......

For the record, I'm also compensating for my deteriorating eyesight as well.

It's primary purpose was to be competition not home defense. Over penetration is still a concern making a shotgun the best choice for general home defense duty unless the conditions are so close quarters that only a pistol will do.

That said, there is no such thing as overkill in this situation unless it kills more than your intended target...
The ability to reliably put a bullet where it needs to go and not somewhere else is less likely to result in 'overkill'. To be able to reliably send a follow up shot sooner and with the same accuracy is a bonus not a problem. If you don't use the extra rounds in the magazine it is not a problem. If you needed some and they weren't there...that would be a problem but for the defender not the attacker. Anything that benefits the attacker is a problem for society at large. So a 30 round magazine is only problematic in the hands of newscasters, lunatics and criminals.

A well thought out solution is required.
When bad people do bad things with any item it isn't the mere existence of the item that is the problem and any solution so short sighted as to simple try to ban the item and leave all the other factors in play is ridiculous, a bad idea and certainly not worthy of becoming a law we are forced to live under!



A judge once mentioned in his decision that a citizen need not give cause for his desire to exercise his right.
He said the the very existence of the right is all the explanation he needs. Think about that for a minute. If a person in authority can arbitrarily limit our rights based simply on their interpretation of what our needs are then there IS NO RIGHT.

Will Robinson wrote:A judge once mentioned in his decision that a citizen need not give cause for his desire to exercise his right.
He said the the very existence of the right is all the explanation he needs. Think about that for a minute. If a person in authority can arbitrarily limit our rights based simply on their interpretation of our needs are then there IS NO RIGHT.

That's a great point.

Rights also have to be exercised now and then, or they go limp.

Will Robinson wrote:A judge once mentioned in his decision that a citizen need not give cause for his desire to exercise his right.
He said the the very existence of the right is all the explanation he needs. Think about that for a minute. If a person in authority can arbitrarily limit our rights based simply on their interpretation of what our needs are then there IS NO RIGHT.

I'll agree on that point too. But when does someone's personal "rights" infringe upon someones else's rights, namely their right to live? You want a nice gun to use in competition, which is fine, but what about someone else who decides to kill others with a similar weapon. That's not his "right". How do you balance those "rights" for everyone? How do you make fair laws that will be followed and yet not infringe upon everyone's rights? Even the gun laws we have now are not being enforced evenly. When laws are not enforced, people tend to violate them.

Spidey wrote:Rights also have to be exercised now and then, or they go limp.

Now there's a metaphor for the compensating for something line if I've ever heard one.

tunnelcat wrote:...
You want a nice gun to use in competition, which is fine, but what about someone else who decides to kill others with a similar weapon. That's not his "right". How do you balance those "rights" for everyone?

It's not his right to have a gun that looks like mine, or not his right to kill others with a gun that looks like mine?

Call me silly but I'm thinking that I'm not the least bit responsible for any problem you could have with EITHER SITUATION! My take is he can have any gun he wants until he murders someone with it and at that point it doesn't matter how scary or friendly his gun looks he can't have one ever again! But I have this crazy idea that it was the murderers fault not the guns....and certainly not some other guys gun that looks like the one the murderer used!!

I "balance" them by understanding that a murderer who uses a weapon that looks like your weapon hasn't done anything to authorize me to infringe upon your right to your weapon! And I'd ask that you do the same for me.

29 people murdered with knives in your state last year. Should that mean you can't cut your steak anymore?!?

tunnelcat wrote:...How do you make fair laws that will be followed and yet not infringe upon everyone's rights? Even the gun laws we have now are not being enforced evenly. When laws are not enforced, people tend to violate them. ...

So we need more laws? What? Are you assuming you will eventually create one that magically compels deranged people and law breakers to obey it?!?

Here is a kind of old fashioned remedy. Let's make everyone accountable for their own part in a crime. If my gun isn't used in a crime then leave me and my gun alone! If I am negligent in leaving my gun laying around without having locked it up and someone uses it in a crime then you have a reason to penalize me.

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:...How do you make fair laws that will be followed and yet not infringe upon everyone's rights? Even the gun laws we have now are not being enforced evenly. When laws are not enforced, people tend to violate them. ...

So we need more laws? What? Are you assuming you will eventually create one that magically compels deranged people and law breakers to obey it?!?

Here is a kind of old fashioned remedy. Let's make everyone accountable for their own part in a crime. If my gun isn't used in a crime then leave me and my gun alone! If I am negligent in leaving my gun laying around without having locked it up and someone uses it in a crime then you have a reason to penalize me.

What I was trying to say is that we already have laws on the books that are supposedly there to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't own them, like felons, gang members and mentally ill people, so more laws are definitely not the solution. We really need to enforce the ones we already have. If these laws need to be tweaked for a modern society, do it fairly and don't trample on legitimate owner's rights. My question is why aren't those laws being enforced evenly across the board in every state right now? Is it because of funding issues, work overload or laziness? There seems to be a lot of felons and crazy people out there getting a hold of handguns or semiautomatic weapons and killing people.

I have a perfect example of what people do when existing laws are ignored, although it's not a gun law. In Oregon, any type of fireworks that explode or fly, are illegal to possess or use. But every year around the Fourth of July and New Years, it sounds like an effing war zone around here. The stuff is illegal, but I dare you to call the police and get them to respond and fine the bastards. Ask these people why they flaunt the law and the usual response is: "It's my right", or I'm not hurting anyone", or I'm just having fun". Tell that to people who's houses have been burned down, or who have had severe injuries, or who's pets have freaked out and run away.

tunnelcat wrote:But when does someone's personal "rights" infringe upon someones else's rights, namely their right to live? You want a nice gun to use in competition, which is fine, but what about someone else who decides to kill others with a similar weapon. That's not his "right". How do you balance those "rights" for everyone? How do you make fair laws that will be followed and yet not infringe upon everyone's rights? Even the gun laws we have now are not being enforced evenly. When laws are not enforced, people tend to violate them.

No one is saying that anyone has the right to shoot (or stab, beat, etc.) other people. This isn't a question of pitting one's rights against another's. My right to own a gun has no nothing to do with my (or anyone else's) right to life.... until I choose to misuse the gun (or knife, baseball bat, car, tree branch, fists, feet... need I go on?) to violate someone's else's rights. You make fair laws by saying that if you choose to use any tool of any type to violate other's rights then you're subject to punishment. If you use your tools (whatever they may be) to do whatever you want with your own property (or "public" property within guidelines e.g. fishing or hunting, etc.) then it isn't your business or the government's.

My point: fair laws address people's poor/evil choices, not the method by which they chose to execute those choices. You can't stop evil without taking away people's ability to act of their own volition.. because there's always going to be someone out there that's going to choose to hurt others.

I'm 100% there with you with regards to law enforcement. Obama's refusal to enforce immigration law is one of the bigger beefs that I have against him. If the law sucks, then get it changed in congress. In the mean time, it's his #1 job to do the best he can to enforce the laws that are in place, regardless of his feelings on the matter. When it comes to gun laws... I'm all about them being strictly enforced - and I'm all about them being improved - but I don't think "improved" is the same thing as "made much tighter."

snoopy wrote:I'm 100% there with you with regards to law enforcement. Obama's refusal to enforce immigration law is one of the bigger beefs that I have against him. If the law sucks, then get it changed in congress. In the mean time, it's his #1 job to do the best he can to enforce the laws that are in place, regardless of his feelings on the matter. When it comes to gun laws... I'm all about them being strictly enforced - and I'm all about them being improved - but I don't think "improved" is the same thing as "made much tighter."

Yeah, "tighter" is a much better word to use in this case. And politicians using the law to their own favor really stinks. Yes, it even stinks Obama used it and he's not paying for it. Every damn President or Congressmen has done it in the past and will probably keep doing it. How to solve it, I don't know. You can vote out the bastards, but the rules of Washington and politics in general let the next bastard who gets into office get away with the same thing all over again. In fact, the whole game's rigged so that they HAVE to do it, or they lose. No one want's to lose, so the game stays rigged.

Third-party, girlfriend.

Honestly that's not an answer in and of itself. Ron Paul definitely had it right--the answer is to educate people.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Third-party, girlfriend.

Honestly that's not an answer in and of itself. Ron Paul definitely had it right--the answer is to educate people.

Oh God. I wouldn't vote for him if he were the last man on earth. Even then I still might not.............

But that's not what I said. I said he had it right in that his primary aim was to educate people about the proper role of government.

tunnelcat wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Third-party, girlfriend.

Honestly that's not an answer in and of itself. Ron Paul definitely had it right--the answer is to educate people.

Oh God. I wouldn't vote for him if he were the last man on earth. Even then I still might not.............

Then don't but vote for some one outside the box and write all your representatives and tell them why you are trying to vote them out. Then tell as many people as you can to do it with you!
It feels good I promise.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:But that's not what I said. I said he had it right in that his primary aim was to educate people about the proper role of government.

No, I can't even agree with him on his definition of the role of government. Way too pared down IMHO. I also don't agree with his stances on women's issues.

Will Robinson wrote:Then don't but vote for some one outside the box and write all your representatives and tell them why you are trying to vote them out. Then tell as many people as you can to do it with you!
It feels good I promise.

I DO vote outside of the box whenever I think they're not outright crazy and have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

The association is calling for a possible boycott of the Gannett-owned newspaper's national advertisers. But the paper isn't just worried about suffering economic harm. On Dec. 28, it began posting armed guards outside one of its offices, according to local police, shortly after a blogger published the names and home addresses of the 50 journalists who worked on the interactive map showing who owned legally-registered guns.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/02/ne ... z2Gs0Dc3AN


must be out of state armed guards
I can imagine anyone from the area taking the job.

Let me take another stab at this, TC... how many politicians make it their goal to educate people about their government? Most, it seems, just benefit from the ignorance of the public. Ron Paul was unique in this way, which is why I used him as an example. So forget your women's issues, and everything else you're wrong about ( ), and just grasp what I'm trying to say about educating people about the realities of governance in America. Simply determining to vote for a different party every 4 years isn't going to do a damn thing. The answer is to become aware of the implications of what government is doing, and determine and know for ourselves in the revealing light of history, through the lens of sound reason why such is or is not conducive to liberty, security, and prosperity. And having grasped this, to persuade others and effect change (almost a dirty word anymore) to that effect.

tunnelcat wrote:...

I DO vote outside of the box whenever I think they're not outright crazy and have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

A chance of winning isn't important. Taking yourself out of the R or D sheep herd is.
Winning will be defined as starting a trend of mass defection which will result in major shake up....assuming everyone remembered to give their reasons for defecting.

agree with Will.....such a mass defection would shake up all elected officials, especially if they get the sense it wasn't a one-off deal, and could happen again, and again, until things were set right.