348 replies to this topic

[Mistydawn]

preacherman76, on 31 December 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

I dont know if you have kids Misty. But if you do, and you allowed some lunitic to capture them, where 3 days later the cops drag thier body outta a river, when you could have stopped them, THAT would make you evil.

I don't think I'd allow any-one to capture them if I could find a way to stop them without shooting them.
If they did capture them, then I guess they and I would be victims.
I still would not want to own a gun knowing what could happen by accident.

Edited by Mistydawn, 31 December 2012 - 08:20 PM.

[Maizer]

Might as well say nukes are part of the American identity as well. Where's my right to buy them at the local 7/11?

[ninjadude]

Jinxdom, on 31 December 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:

Seriously people need to go watch Demolition Man.

Movie = make-believe. Not real. Fantasy.

[Yamato]

joc, on 31 December 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

Try making friends with the guy in the parking lot that wants your car and cash...he wants a fix...he doesn't want to be your friend.

Especially when I'm dangling my wallet and keys in his face.  Making friends isn't always possible, especially in light of bad policy.    It's still a process and it still requires effort and skill.   Giving our enemies what they want would empower them but let's distinguish between friendship and appeasement here.  Do we appease our friends to make them?   Maybe our friends are jealous of our cars and cash too, but we don't eradicate or destroy them for it.   You have to convince someone to befriend you; it doesn't happen in a vacuum or due to their lack of wanting things.   Running into you in a parking lot and wanting your money doesn't make someone beyond redemption because "human nature is evil".   Just because I beat someone back with fists or gun doesn't mean they're beyond forgiveness, dead or alive.

[Yamato]

Br Cornelius, on 31 December 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

Fear mongering.
Its still more likely your kids will get shot accidentally by a legitimate gun owner.

Br Cornelius

So now accidents are the problem.   That just revalidated the whole banning cars argument.

How many people does tobacco kill a year.  Why not run to the gubmint about that?

[ninjadude]

Yamato, on 31 December 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

So now accidents are the problem.   That just revalidated the whole banning cars argument.
How many people does tobacco kill a year.  Why not run to the gubmint about that?

Repealing the 2nd amendment or more gun control does not mean "banning" or "repossession".

And the gubmit did do something about tabacco. A lot in fact. Try lighting  up in any private offices, public or government space.  There are laws and rules that restrict that. Tobacco kills and will kill many fewer than it ever has as a result. In the US. Maybe you don't live here.

[Yamato]

ninjadude, on 31 December 2012 - 10:41 PM, said:

Repealing the 2nd amendment or more gun control does not mean "banning" or "repossession".

And the gubmit did do something about tabacco. A lot in fact. Try lighting  up in any private offices, public or government space.  There are laws and rules that restrict that. Tobacco kills and will kill many fewer than it ever has as a result. In the US. Maybe you don't live here.

How is repealing our right to bear arms not banning our right to bear arms?   What does "repossession" have to do with anything I said?   Don't play stupid semantics games with me.  

If government wanted less tobacco and had an honest interest in saving us from our lifestyle choices too maybe it should stop subsidizing tobacco farmers.   What Constitutional Amendment or Act of Congress banned smoking in those places that I wasn't aware of?   If you're going to cheerlead progress on tobacco (death statistics please) then you just clumsily admitted that it doesn't take sweeping legislation from Washington DC to make improvements in our society.   And while you're living in America, put away your elitist chosen few, and let the people decide.

[joc]

We don't need to touch the second amendment...we need to 'adjust' the first amendment to be what it was supposed to be...speech.
Riddle me this:
What is sicker...some lunatic that walks into a movie theater and shoots innocent people...or...people inside a movie theater who pay to watch people do the same sick thing on the movie screen...or Hollywood actors, directors, and producers who market this crap in the first place?

If it is illegal to do in the first place...it should be illegal to 'show' someone doing it in the second place.

[Yamato]

joc, on 01 January 2013 - 01:43 AM, said:

We don't need to touch the second amendment...we need to 'adjust' the first amendment to be what it was supposed to be...speech.
Riddle me this:
What is sicker...some lunatic that walks into a movie theater and shoots innocent people...or...people inside a movie theater who pay to watch people do the same sick thing on the movie screen...or Hollywood actors, directors, and producers who market this crap in the first place?

If it is illegal to do in the first place...it should be illegal to 'show' someone doing it in the second place.

I just posted a Youtube vid of our fabulous celebrities, that actually help make our peoples' minds up, all advocating for more gun control while they're the same hypocrites glamorizing it on the silver screen.   Hypocrisy shouldn't be illegal but it should be exposed.


It goes to show what's rational and sane; it's what's beautiful and cute.   Want to gain credibility on any issue?  Find a pretty famous face to speak out on it.  Nobody will care that the celebrity has zero expertise; the people who have the most credibility in our society are the ones who pretend to be somebody else.

[AsteroidX]

Gun Control was the last item listed on Obamas agenda earlier today. I still think thats just a ruse for Frankensteins January push on gun control. Fortunately shell never get ANY legislation through the House of Representatives. I predict Gun Control as legislation is dead without an EO. And Obama isnt willing to go that route as he has a better understanding of the consequences of such an order. Just be sure to vote out the schmucks that are trying to pull the wool over our eyes and replace them with new blood.Get active stay active and share what you learn.

A temporary repreive and small victory for 2nd Amendment supporters.

[Jinxdom]

ninjadude, on 31 December 2012 - 09:55 PM, said:

Movie = make-believe. Not real. Fantasy.

Lol no crap but the moral of the movie is a real one. In a place where nobody believes in violence all it takes is one person who uses violence to screw up that system. That isn't make believe. The idea that some people can just want to see people die... is not make believe.

The idea that everybody can get along is... make believe, the idea that getting rid of guns(I do support some gun control but people have a tendency to blow crap out of proportion) will actually stop every single tragedy is.... make believe. The idea that giving a hug(Showing Love) instead of a bullet to a person who snapped(by then it's too late) will stop him from murdering..... is make believe.

I'm for gun control when the reasons are good ones. After a tragedy when people's emotions are running hot is not the time to make new laws. When emotions are flaring reason flies out the window and without reason bad laws get put in to play.

[Br Cornelius]

Jinxdom, on 01 January 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

Lol no crap but the moral of the movie is a real one. In a place where nobody believes in violence all it takes is one person who uses violence to screw up that system. That isn't make believe. The idea that some people can just want to see people die... is not make believe.

The idea that everybody can get along is... make believe, the idea that getting rid of guns(I do support some gun control but people have a tendency to blow crap out of proportion) will actually stop every single tragedy is.... make believe. The idea that giving a hug(Showing Love) instead of a bullet to a person who snapped(by then it's too late) will stop him from murdering..... is make believe.

I'm for gun control when the reasons are good ones. After a tragedy when people's emotions are running hot is not the time to make new laws. When emotions are flaring reason flies out the window and without reason bad laws get put in to play.

The idea that misrepresenting other people position in order to discredit their arguments is wrong to.
I am for gun control because less people die from gun shots in societies with tight gun controls. In fact less people die from homicide in countries with tight gun control. Sandy Hook has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 01 January 2013 - 10:18 AM.

[Yamato]

I haven't seen that to be the case either.   Turkey has had more homicides than any other country in the world, and it has far more restrictive gun control than the US.

http://www.gunpolicy...ding_policy/194

Sandy Hook has plenty to do with all this sudden rabble rousing about guns again.  We're not happy with violent crimes at a 20-year low in the US, we need to rabble rouse about the 2nd Amendment again after a sensational event like Sandy Hook.

[Jinxdom]

Br Cornelius, on 01 January 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

The idea that misrepresenting other people position in order to discredit their arguments is wrong to.
I am for gun control because less people die from gun shots in societies with tight gun controls. In fact less people die from homicide in countries with tight gun control. Sandy Hook has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Br Cornelius

You do realize I was just ranting about all of the idealistic but far from realistic things people said in this topic right?

People have a tendency to agree to things that wouldn't normally agree to when emotions run hot. Which is what Sandy Hook is doing. Fear, Anger when reasons are based off of those two emotions people start agreeing to some stupid things. Sandy Hook was problem caused by carelessness not crappy gun control yet the fear from it is being used to push stupid regulations.

Gun control is at a tad bit harder to fix when you have cartels providing weapons from across the border. Which is a major contributor to the US gun problem. Some areas in our country are basically a war-zone/or third world country. People seem to forget to mention that.

Edited by Jinxdom, 01 January 2013 - 11:05 AM.

[questionmark]

Jinxdom, on 01 January 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

You do realize I was just ranting about all of the idealistic but far from realistic things people said in this topic right?

People have a tendency to agree to things that wouldn't normally agree to when emotions run hot. Which is what Sandy Hook is doing. Fear, Anger when reasons are based off of those two emotions people start agreeing to some stupid things. Sandy Hook was problem caused by carelessness not crappy gun control yet the fear from it is being used to push stupid regulations.

Gun control is at a tad bit harder to fix when you have cartels providing weapons from across the border. Which is a major contributor to the US gun problem. Some areas in our country are basically a war-zone/or third world country. People seem to forget to mention that.

How would you call the fact that 85% of those guns smuggled across the border are made in the USA? I call it lack of control.