blatantly stupid... got to love the NY Times choice for op ed writers

Mott the Hoople said:
There's tons that can be done to improve public safety, reduce gun violence and preserve the constitutional right to bear arms. The argument that these are mutually exclusive is a nonsense argument.
Click to expand...

None that have been proposed have fit the criteria you describe.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I'm still not understanding the relevance to this. yes, guns were designed to kill. so were swords, spears, cannons, grenades, etc. all of these are weapons of 'we the people'. wanting to limit, restrict, or even ban these is just stupid.
Click to expand...

Well, SF, wants to pretend that guns aren't designed to kill and aren't efficient killing machines so that he can pretend that people die only when they are misused.

And, for the record, I would oppose immunity from suit for spear, sword, grenade and cannon manufacturers.
 
Dungheap said:
Well, SF, wants to pretend that guns aren't designed to kill and aren't efficient killing machines so that he can pretend that people die only when they are misused.
Click to expand...
here's the thing. we need to either accept that guns were designed to kill, which is the best and most effective means for maintaining a free state while at the same time accepting that cops are issues guns so that they can kill people when they want/need to. OR, conversely, we can acknowledge that guns are the best and most effective means of defending lots of things because the can kill while accepting that misuse will result in deaths of innocents but that the price of freedom is worth it.
 
Or we can say "gee, guns are legal but let's do everything we can to reduce the deaths of innocents - through a strong, accurate background check list and requiring background checks for all transactions; through limiting the number of guns people can buy within a time period to cut down on the flow of illegal guns; through trigger locks or other devices so only the owner of a gun can shoot it; through a public education program to get people to understand how to store guns safely; through cracking down on people who leave guns unattended that end up being misused"... etc, etc etc.

We do that with cars - we do what we can to reduce the carnage of a legal commodity. Why can't we do that with guns?

Because people like you think the govt is going to come arrest you and you're going to hold them off with your guns? The govt will win... it's not a smart strategy.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
here's the thing. we need to either accept that guns were designed to kill, which is the best and most effective means for maintaining a free state while at the same time accepting that cops are issues guns so that they can kill people when they want/need to. OR, conversely, we can acknowledge that guns are the best and most effective means of defending lots of things because the can kill while accepting that misuse will result in deaths of innocents but that the price of freedom is worth it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but, like, the deaths of innocents are real whereas your guns as defense against tyranny bit is pure fantasy.
 
tekkychick said:
Or we can say "gee, guns are legal but let's do everything we can to reduce the deaths of innocents - through a strong, accurate background check list and requiring background checks for all transactions; through limiting the number of guns people can buy within a time period to cut down on the flow of illegal guns; through trigger locks or other devices so only the owner of a gun can shoot it; through a public education program to get people to understand how to store guns safely; through cracking down on people who leave guns unattended that end up being misused"... etc, etc etc.

We do that with cars - we do what we can to reduce the carnage of a legal commodity. Why can't we do that with guns?

Because people like you think the govt is going to come arrest you and you're going to hold them off with your guns? The govt will win... it's not a smart strategy.
Click to expand...
in other words, lets reduce the right to bear arms to such a miniscule ability so as not to be able to be used or exercised because the founding fathers were just plain wrong about government being tyrannical when it's absolutely benevolent and has nothing but the peoples best interests at heart.

you really should read all the documents and essays of the founders. they really were brilliant people who knew what they were talking about.
 
Dungheap said:
Yeah, but, like, the deaths of innocents are real whereas your guns as defense against tyranny bit is pure fantasy.
Click to expand...
see, you say this with the blithe interest of a low information individual. you say you can't stop the government if they are intent on doing something, but you fail to see the real life occurrences of what happens when motivated individuals take government to task. TWO individuals put a city on lockdown.....TWO. Imagine what the scenario would be if a well organized unit of 10 individuals got together for military activities. Then imagine what 5 units of 10 well organized individuals across 5 cities would do to government. they would be apoplectic with zealous fear and end up targeting people who were NOT involved....why? because they would then consider YOU the enemy. The only thing that stops that from happening now is the tide is not right. people have not experienced enough governmental abuse yet, as the founders said in the declaration of independence.
 
You're a very sad person, STY. So fixated on being able to kill. I knew I shouldn't have bothered trying to open a dialog around this. There is a middle ground between total banishment of guns and total "everyone can own anything". You choose not to believe that. That is your loss.

By the way - the 2nd amendment was NOT interpreted as "guns for all" for the first couple hundred years of our country. It was in the 70s when the NRA got taken over by people who were way pro-gun-rights that the court cases started taking the 2nd amendment into its current interpretation.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-12/politics/36311919_1_nra-leaders-nra-officers-mighty-gun-lobby

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/when-the-nra-promoted-gun_b_992043.html

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/NRA-took-hard-right-after-leadership-coup-3741640.php
 
SmarterthanYou said:
see, you say this with the blithe interest of a low information individual. you say you can't stop the government if they are intent on doing something, but you fail to see the real life occurrences of what happens when motivated individuals take government to task. TWO individuals put a city on lockdown.....TWO. Imagine what the scenario would be if a well organized unit of 10 individuals got together for military activities. Then imagine what 5 units of 10 well organized individuals across 5 cities would do to government. they would be apoplectic with zealous fear and end up targeting people who were NOT involved....why? because they would then consider YOU the enemy. The only thing that stops that from happening now is the tide is not right. people have not experienced enough governmental abuse yet, as the founders said in the declaration of independence.
Click to expand...

worked really well for the people at Waco.... NOT

I certainly hope you aren't advocating armed rebellion against the govt; that would be treason.
 
tekkychick said:
You're a very sad person, STY. So fixated on being able to kill. I knew I shouldn't have bothered trying to open a dialog around this. There is a middle ground between total banishment of guns and total "everyone can own anything". You choose not to believe that. That is your loss.
Click to expand...
the fact that i'm a realist should really not bother you. people NEED to be able to kill at a moments notice, especially if they consider that it could be their life or their loves ones they may be required to protect. That you can't see that is sad.

tekkychick said:
By the way - the 2nd amendment was NOT interpreted as "guns for all" for the first couple hundred years of our country. It was in the 70s when the NRA got taken over by people who were way pro-gun-rights that the court cases started taking the 2nd amendment into its current interpretation.
Click to expand...
this is totally incorrect and any examination of court cases from before 1925 will tell you so. don't be led astray by modern day media trying to do away with fundamental rights of the people.
 
tekkychick said:
Or we can say "gee, guns are legal but let's do everything we can to reduce the deaths of innocents - through a strong, accurate background check list and requiring background checks for all transactions; through limiting the number of guns people can buy within a time period to cut down on the flow of illegal guns; through trigger locks or other devices so only the owner of a gun can shoot it; through a public education program to get people to understand how to store guns safely; through cracking down on people who leave guns unattended that end up being misused"... etc, etc etc.

We do that with cars - we do what we can to reduce the carnage of a legal commodity. Why can't we do that with guns?

Because people like you think the govt is going to come arrest you and you're going to hold them off with your guns? The govt will win... it's not a smart strategy.
Click to expand...

Really? What background check did you pass to buy a car? What's the limit on how man you can buy in a time period? What device do cars come equipped with that only let's the owner use them?
 
tekkychick said:
worked really well for the people at Waco.... NOT
Click to expand...
the feds had to use tanks and flammable chemicals as well as extreme lethal force against a surrounded compound of men, women, and children. do you not see the impotence of government at that point? can you imagine what would have happened had the feds waited any longer for their assault and gotten surprised by citizen militias coming in behind them?

tekkychick said:
I certainly hope you aren't advocating armed rebellion against the govt; that would be treason.
Click to expand...
it cannot be treason if that government is working towards unconstitutional ends. it simply cannot be.
 
tekkychick said:
Or we can say "gee, guns are legal but let's do everything we can to reduce the deaths of innocents - through a strong, accurate background check list and requiring background checks for all transactions; through limiting the number of guns people can buy within a time period to cut down on the flow of illegal guns; through trigger locks or other devices so only the owner of a gun can shoot it; through a public education program to get people to understand how to store guns safely; through cracking down on people who leave guns unattended that end up being misused"... etc, etc etc.

We do that with cars - we do what we can to reduce the carnage of a legal commodity. Why can't we do that with guns?

Because people like you think the govt is going to come arrest you and you're going to hold them off with your guns? The govt will win... it's not a smart strategy.
Click to expand...

But it's not very effective with cars, or else the number of vehicular deaths wouldn't be higher then those by firearms.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Nobody has "grabbed" any gun in the US via federal law in the last 50 years....even the DC law was overturned. So stop braying that bullshit.
Click to expand...

you have been constantly reminded to learn facts before you 'bray your bullshit'. look up how many guns were 'grabbed' by federal law after domestic violence was included in the list of things that eliminated peoples rights.
Click to expand...

Get your terminology correct, you intellectually dishonest dweeb....If you are guilty of a felony, the type of crime can result in depriving of gun ownership...ESPECIALLY when dealing with domestic violence.

What you and other gunners frequently do is LIE about what laws apply to whom and how.....implying that somehow a law that applies to felons is on par with depriving law abiding citizens the right to own a gun is a lie, if not a display of pure stupidity on the part of those braying such.

But hey, if you want a convicted wife beater to have a gun so he doesn't have to use his fist next time, go right ahead. Don't expect to have many friends afterwards, though. Carry on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top