How many innocent lives are your guns worth?

Calismoker24

Active Member
Lol people die all the time from numerous things. Baning guns doesn't help anything. Crimmanls dont go to gun stores to buy guns they go the the homie down the block. So if u them ban that means that I cant shoot the bad guy but he can still shoot me? doesnt make any sense to me. I think we should just start doing it how they did in the past if u steal well cut his hand off if we cheat hang our ass if we murder kill us and for rapeist and cho-mos we will kill them too. world would be a better place
 

echelon1k1

New Member
So you backed off from every single point you made - wonder why, maybe because I am not going to lay down before your superior intellect as so many righties seem to expect. So what is your answer? how does the country instill upon it's people sense of self responsibility - that final accomplishment that will make all right within the country but that which you cannot describe a plan for without using a government you despise.

or are you gong to crawdad away from he strong posistion you previously made? Is it Obama's fault? you seem to say yes and you seem to back peddle at the same time.


You accuse me of being unable to determine the difference between an innatimate object and a human being. I know that objects can be dealt with in a legal and orderly way from manufacture to sale. It may not be purfect but it does not serve to attempt to alter the fabric of he culture of this country half so much as your call for the impossible might.

As I said, you folks tend to twist yourself into very very odd logical shapes when you seek to actually defend your ideology - why is that?

Now - you said "you've got a leader who can't lead (though his leadership ability certainly surpassed our other choice) and then you say this s NOT about te POTUS, surely you aren't subjecting to the abstract simply because you can't seem to defend one statement made directly after another - whom do we blame sir, for having a country full of people who in your opinion are incapable of personal responsibility?



Although this is hardly on point my view on military personel is that they are... military pesonel who have been properly indoctrinated to do a certain thing that most of them ordinarily implore - and do it on command.


Oh, and yes those 'law abiding gun owners who insist upon every single inch of their rights, where no other right enjoys such a hands off irresponsible position - they are unwilling to give up even the most fundamental portion of their gun owning existance - that makes them culpable.

Inherenent in the rght of a free press is the right to say anything one wishes - but there are limits even to that right. You yourself rebel against that damn leftist media in the way it distorts the news and tells you things that you don't want to hear and you would be all for some law - curtailing that RIGHT, but you can't have that with guns, no that right is somehow inviolate, somehow just extra special. and, let me guess, the other fundamental right that protects our freedom equaly if not more than the right to keep and bear is the right to vote.


But you don't see a problem with even that right being regulated - id being required, essentialy background checks, money being spent and in the long run plenty of law abiding citizens being deprived of their right. But when it comes to guns no such limitations shall apply shall they? Why EVERY grandma has the absolute unfettered right to any firearm she so chooses, even if she has to go through a dozen different near impossible hoops to retrieve her right to vote.


A significant portion of personal responsibility is intellectual honesty. Try it on see how it fits.
I haven’t backed off from any position. I merely had a swipe at POTUS and you ran with it. As I said in the first post – Crazy Americans are the issue, not the 2A.

During and after WW2, US citizens had no dramas leading by example, with a strong sense of personal responsibility – what happened? Where’d the entitlement mentality come from?

I would never advocate for a law that curtailed the left or right media, they play an important part in influencing the daily lives of people like you. You guys like choice and your media responds in kind.

Your Military comment was expected, indoctrination doesn’t just occur in the armed forces…

And you already have restrictions on C3 weapons that are designed for people. Stop with the exaggerations. What are you being flanked by a platoon of geriatrics while writing your response?

Don’t compare guns to votes – as half of your pop isn’t even registered to vote so that’s already an epic fail – can’t they be fucked enrolling? Furthermore, the introduction of electronic voting machines has cast further doubt on the integrity of your election process. Maybe come back down to earth, to the real US of A.

In short, you expect the rest of America to capitulate to your sad little fear based view of the world. Taking away guns from citizens with a legal right to own them, will somehow make you safer, however short lived…
 

Figong

Well-Known Member
And you already have restrictions on C3 weapons that are designed for people. Stop with the exaggerations. What are you being flanked by a platoon of geriatrics while writing your response?
I'd rather be flanked by anti-gun folks than any geriatric group with guns, to be quite honest with you - improvised weapons 101... take out the anti-gun folks with a sharp mind.. just put up a sign that says "This way to safety." and the sheeple will herd, just as they're taught.
 

echelon1k1

New Member
I'd rather be flanked by anti-gun folks than any geriatric group with guns, to be quite honest with you - improvised weapons 101... take out the anti-gun folks with a sharp mind.. just put up a sign that says "This way to safety." and the sheeple will herd, just as they're taught.
the anti-gun folks have rights too... the right to protect themselves from all you dangerous gun nuts. And thank god the answer to that is voting :lol:

anti-gun-yard-sign.jpg
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Now apply that to urban living - the sort of living that most of us currently are engaged in, which in general, over the long run is the more valuable machine?
To answer that question, one needs to use two factors and not just one. The obvious one is frequency of demand; the less obvious one is urgency.

In an urban environment especially (with taxis, public transport and a well-developed emergency transport infrastructure) the utility of the car goes way down in terms of urgency, and down some in terms of frequency.

And since most assaults occur in an urban environment, I'd say the utility of the gun (as a defense device) goes up in both frequency and urgency compared to a more rural sort of living.
Which is why I look at the effective prohibition of guns in the big cities with disapproval. Who the **** sold us that pig in a poke, and what can we do to undo it? cn
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
There is always the car and knife argument from the gun toters. This is not about cars nor knives. Should the government with our help opt to ban all knives it could be done without any legal problem. Same with cars, we could for the sake of lives ban all cars. Not so with firearms that are the only possession specifically singled out as being protected. But what is of interest to me is the tendancy to avoid the direct question. You say that your kids and your own life is worth more than the lives of an unknown number of others. Now you present a set of givens (I have already said I had). You do not know if you or your family will ever be endangered in such a way as to require your ownership of a firearm. The question remains. If you knew for certain that surrendering your weapon would save children's lives, how many would it take for you to exchange your glock for a k-cup coffee maker?
I'm reasonably certain that keeping my weapon is more likely to save children's lives than surrendering it. So I should exchange my k-cup coffee maker for a glock?
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Stats please? And again with the comparison - it goes something like this. the improper use of X causes death, therefore X should be outlawed - as though somewhere there is a thread of reason in the comparison.
Now you're arguing with yourself.
 

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
I have lots of problems here. Remember I am a member of those horrible horrible liberal people who want everyone's guns taken away. I am one of the sheeple, the herd, the stupid ones who hate the constitution - ok?

So you want a body of people that are the furthest from the individual as can be. You want a government that can by nature have no understanding of the community it is now managing, to make up the rules for that community. You want an absolutely one size fits all set of rules - and that set of rules governs how we as individuals are to be "allowed" our fundamental right to keep and bear arms. You want people who were elected through various savory and not so savory ways, who act often times in their own and their monitary sponsor's best interest rather than their consituants to decide what "classes" of people are entitled to their right to keep and bear - for whatever reason they wish to.... keep and bear. As an example, suppose we have a mildly autistic man living in Montana minding his own business (which is what autistics most often do). Previously, a person who was judged autistic after the fact shot up a church and so, the art of legislation being what it is - autism is lumped into the rule set on who can and cannot purchase a firearm. Now this autistic farmer is incapable of protecting his sheep from coyotes and is dissalowed the right to protect his family in a place that the police would have trouble even finding let alone arriving in time to help the family who comes into contact with a tweeker bent on getting at the family's coffee can fund.

Now this is a made up example but it is the kind of thing that happens when our coumunities are micromanaged from afar. And you want that micromanagement for a fundamental and at times rather essential right.



Furthermore, you want the Feds to be in the middle of the transaction between a lawful gun seller and a lawful gun buyer. Contrary to La Pierre's recent rant, government is in the middle of most if not all transactions. The state is there between the guy selling and the guy buying a car, or a home, but the government in those situations are more local - state or even smaller localities. The regulations and requirements may well be overbearing and may well need to be different depending upon those locations.

Now you say you don't care about the Federal government being involved in manditory training of weapons use. Fine, but you by nature of your other answers want THAT to be a federal matter as well. This could easily be called infringement and if you think that people are upset over the provisions of Obama care, imagine what it would be like to demand each individual with a firearm - no matter where he comes from, no matter how his family is brought up with firearms or without, no matter the individual situation of each gun owner he will have to have ongoing certification. Beyond even that, these certifications will cost money. Charging money in order to exercise one's right is a dangerous if Constitutionaly sketchy endeavor. We liberals run into all sorts of flack when we are challenged with the constitutionality of a contemplated action and we respond with "I don't care".

I argue all day long with the gun nuts who have imaginations pertaining to the jack booted thugs marching door to door searching for guns. They are foolish and irrational because as I have long said, government has other ways to handle such things. But their way depends upon a paper trail. Given a universal paper trail to each and every lawful gun in the United States could really, actually enable the government to collect every weapon. That is a slippery slope that has meaning. One thing perhaps to keep those paper trails short, to the county or perhaps the state but beyond that is a genuine hazard to our overall freedom.

Now you mention operating a car, and there is no comparison, we need not hide for any reason our ownership of a vehicle. We learn to drive so that we can manage our vehicles in a concerted way - so everyone knows what the signs mean and which way we are to point our headlights but even so, that management is left to the states.

Your focus is in my opinion incorrect. The gun guys tend to manuver the conversation away from the mass shootings and into the individual gun violence because they know their argument will succeed - an individual bent upon killing another will find a variety of ways of doing it and taking his gun from him will not deter injury to another. If we focus on the mass shootings we always hold the cards. A guy intent upon killing a number of people at once has limited solutions, poison or bombs are about it and both are regulated. The point is that individual killings don't get much national airplay and it is hard to dismiss them as "well he would have done that anyway, even if he didn't have a gun" doesn't work.

In my opinion, the POINT of new gun legislation is to prevent, curtail or limit the ability of the genuinely wacked to kill 10 or 20 people. So far, aside from your requirement of background checks, nothing you are asking for will have much effect on the day to day individual gun violence we see. In order to do that we would have to radicaly change our culture - hardly likely.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think that persons convicted of armed robbery and the like are elegible to obtain a firearm now.

And there is always a "body of people" that propose, write and finally pass legislation, people are always in the loop.
Dude, you have tap danced around this issue like Fred Astaire.

I honestly have no idea where you stand on this......
 

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
What you don't understand is that prohibition leads to underground economy. It has been tried, as you well know.

The latest example is the crack down on tobacco. Every single State found there is a limit before the underground imports flood in from Canada and Mexico. You can only regulate it so much. Once you prohibit something, pot heads, we know what happens.

Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms, Ganja

If we can't buy it, we can make it, steal it, trade it with our friends. Think about it, if we can import tons of weight of cannabis, we can get in tons of anti-aircraft, field arty, etc. France will help us. We can get AK-47s and ammo by the tons if it comes to that. Many are stockpiling already. You droids, seriously do not know what you are fucking with here. In asymmetrical warfare, the asymmetries always win, especially with the French nuke boats on patrol.

You can only legislate so far until we start to ignore you. And you asking about law-abiding as if that was set in stone. I know you are not law abiding. So, get over it. It's sophistry. What is law abiding gets changed by elected idiots among us. It happens daily.

So, all of your muling about law abiding just show you have swallowed the Agenda and are trying to rub it into our gullets.
Are you a retard, or just playing one on line?

I stated very clearly that I have no interest in limiting what types of guns, or how much ammo a law abiding citizen can have. So what exactly is it that you'll be smuggling in from Mexico? A brain?

And by law abiding, I mean someone who hasn't been convicted of murder, rape, armed robbery ..... violent felonies. Or are you such a gun-nut that you believe that every person, regardless of their past, should own a stockpile of weapons?
 

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
I'm so glad that you don't run the show. I can tell that you are arbitrary and have already closed your mind, and eyes and just call us gun nuts.

So, we just call you numb-nuts.
Tell us where you stand, Doer.

You're good at pointing out perceived holes in other peoples arguments, but not so good in articulating your own.

Do you feel that any nutter should own a gun, no questions asked?

Do tell ......
 

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
So your suggesting exactly what we already have, so you have no god damn suggestions, typical, as LifeGoesonBrah wrote, Gun Control Advocates NEVER have any sane logic or actual proposals for implmentation, they just spout propaganda, ad hominim, red hearing, straw mans, and usually have absolutely no idea what they are talking about often times they haven't even fired a gun. If someone could explain what these "Reasonable" gun control measures are SPECIFICALLY we are all ears. I have never heard a single true sound logically consistent argument for gun control, ever.


*there should be a mandatory screening process any time a person buys/acquires/takes possession of a gun. <---Already in place

*Criteria needs to be set in place as to who is, and who isn't allowed to own a firearm (ie someone convicted of a violent felony <---Already exists

*There should also be mandatory training involved if you wish to carry your gun, with mandatory classes to be taken every year or so. <--Already exists

*
If people want to carry in public, they should be able to show some proficiency in the use of that gun, and an understanding of the laws. <--Already exists

*There should also be a registration process for all firearms. <--Pretty much its already in place as for pistols and other types of weapons (dependent on what state you live in) its ridiculous and acomplishes nothing however.

*Sentences should be EXTREMELY stiff for anyone caught with a gun that does not belong to them. Straight to prison, minimum mandatory 5 year sentence just for possession of the gun. <---Already exists



" If someone could explain what these "Reasonable" gun control measures are SPECIFICALLY we are all ears."

Bullshit. You gun-nutters are the furthest thing from "all ears". You stomp your feet like little children every time something is suggested. You don't want to hear anything other than unfettered access to guns for all.

If all of what I suggested is already law, then explain to me how someone can (today) purchase a gun without a background check?
 

nitro harley

Well-Known Member
" If someone could explain what these "Reasonable" gun control measures are SPECIFICALLY we are all ears."

Bullshit. You gun-nutters are the furthest thing from "all ears". You stomp your feet like little children every time something is suggested. You don't want to hear anything other than unfettered access to guns for all.

If all of what I suggested is already law, then explain to me how someone can (today) purchase a gun without a background check?
I think you are confusing public sales with private sales..........It's the private sales they want to change.....WE already have those's laws for public sales is my guess...........nitro..
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
" If someone could explain what these "Reasonable" gun control measures are SPECIFICALLY we are all ears."

Bullshit. You gun-nutters are the furthest thing from "all ears". You stomp your feet like little children every time something is suggested. You don't want to hear anything other than unfettered access to guns for all.

If all of what I suggested is already law, then explain to me how someone can (today) purchase a gun without a background check?
Because no law in the world can stop you from selling me anything. And it has gotten so that we will simple ignore all this, like when they tried to ban alcohol. We think it is already beyond reasonable.

You ideas of reason, don't withstand the first link in the logic train. Your ideas of law abiding is a moving target, so you've screwed that, also.

To ask us to be "even more reasonable" when the crime rate is heading down, is stupid. It is a tempest in a tea pot. It is Agenda to disarm civilians. No good. THERE IS NO PROBLEM. The killer of children is autos, not guns. You just can not hear what I'm saying.

The 2nd has already warned us. So, now you are beginning to arouse the sleeping giant, the Heartland. They don't have to time to sort your specious arguments. Your dilettante persuasions. Your temper tantrums. The have no patience for your clear intentions to disarm us. It doesn't matter what you, proven Sophists, have to say.

They, like the Taliban sees us all, are beginning to wonder it would be better if you insurrectionists were dead in a ditch. Now you have two groups after you.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
Tell us where you stand, Doer.

You're good at pointing out perceived holes in other peoples arguments, but not so good in articulating your own.

Do you feel that any nutter should own a gun, no questions asked?

Do tell ......
You are coming from such a far off, Ivory Tower, that you fail to see that I label this incrementalism as Gestapo tactics. And you are so far out there, in your anti-Constitutional stance, you label all of us nutters, numb-nuts.

So, I say you are a subversive. A Bad American. All is discounted since you produce no original thought. I see all you say, straight from Disarm Them, handbook.

Gestapo, Fritz, as I have said many times. I've also said that I don't take sides. It's the Constitution. It is there to block subversives.
 
Top