Trigger-happy Atlanta mom shoots intruder in the face 5 times


Off-Topic Discussions

651 to 700 of 836 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

Hitdice wrote:
It's probably the only time in my life I've felt sorry for Piers; no one should have to live through that!

He was on Thom Hartmann the other day as well. It was an amusing and short segment. It basically ended with AJ ranting in the same way and shouting "FEMA CAMPS ARE REAL!!!" And, like, I know of no progressive commentator more willing to be patient and give every guest the utmost respect than Thom. AJ just needs to hone his inside voice.


Digitalelf wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
It doesn't matter if you paint your gun pink

You mean like this: Hello Kitty AR-15

And sadly, yes, that is a real "California legal" AR-15...

I change my mind. I TOTALLY want a gun now!

Sovereign Court

Digitalelf wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
It doesn't matter if you paint your gun pink

You mean like this: Hello Kitty AR-15

And sadly, yes, that is a real "California legal" AR-15...

That is an amazing thing. I really can't help but love guns but this is both a weapon and a collector's item. You're not playing fair Digitalelf!

Sovereign Court

Hitdice wrote:
meatrace wrote:

Which reminds me. Did anyone see that wackadoo Alex Jones unhinge and let all the crazy flow on Piers Morgan?

I mean, Piers Morgan is a dick, don't get me wrong, and he's really a bad spokesperson for the pro-gun control side in that he's kind of inept at it. But Alex Jones is absolutely wackadoo.

It's probably the only time in my life I've felt sorry for Piers; no one should have to live through that!

I have a hard time feeling any sympathy for Piers, but this is one of the rare cases he didn't seem like the biggest jerk in the room.

Dark Archive

Scott Betts wrote:
It isn't the fact that the founding fathers said they were a good idea that made them a good idea. These rights are a good idea because there are clear reasons for protecting them - reasons which continue to hold true today.

And how are you going to protect them? How are you, Scott Betts, spokeshole for the DNC, going to protect a right if someone in authority illegally takes it away from you? Will you protect it with your puffery and by imploring to your oppressors that because these rights are inherent they cannot be denied to you? Maybe a peaceful protest? You're a joke.

Scott Betts wrote:
Stop insisting that you should have the rights you have because the founding fathers said so. That's just passing the burden of proving their worth on to a bunch of guys who died 200 years ago. You should be able to eloquently defend those rights on your own, using your own arguments instead of the arguments of people who lived in a world so far removed from our own that they would scarcely recognize it or be able to comprehend how it functions.

They didn't "grant me" these rights, what kind of backwards brain process (if any) comes up with this kind of thinking? They recognized these things as inherent truths that they felt should be codified and protected as law. They also felt that people would always need to have access to firepower to protect those rights. Valued then, and valued now - their value is obvious to me and not decided by the fact that some dead guys wrote them over 200 years ago.

Nothing you say does hold water, your just a tool working a fool agenda. People like you have always existed in history, prepared to take something from others for the greater good, or for your sense of security. You don't back up what you say with evidence, you back up your desired outcome and agenda with evidence. You don't like the 2nd, so you use every argument to undermine it - "they didn't understand what kind of technology we would have, bunch of old guys who were wrong, for the children, blah, blah, puke. Same old garbage.

Why don't you tell me how civilians in this country would legitimately protect their rights without the aspect of potential armed revolt (either up front or as an eventuality) from a corrupt and tyrannical government?

Scott Betts wrote:
You're not keeping me in check, and you won't play any role in keeping me or anyone like me in check until you pull a trigger.

Once you cross the line, once you abrogate the rights of others and support the forces of tyranny in this country - you will have a fight on your hands. And yes, hopefully Americans will see you for the destructive and corrupt ideology you represent and you will be kept in check. Hell, you're already frightened of your fellow citizens with guns - your fear has made you a tool for a political ideology that you jump at their command. You are so afraid that you need take away freedom from other people because it scares the hell out of you. In so many words - a coward.

Scott Betts wrote:
I'll repeat myself: you, and those like you, will kill people whose politics you disagree with. Democracy be damned, you will kill people if the rest of your country doesn't agree with you.

Naw, I'll only fight when they attempt to circumvent the Constitution and take away individual rights. I know it's a left-wing onanistic fantasy to fear the gun toting conservative and make him the bogyman and source of all evil, but for the most part gun owners just want their right to pursue happiness and be left alone (while preserving the rest of their rights). Once you threaten that you have a fight on your hands.

A deserved fight, and at that point Democracy would be damned. Pretty much all of us would be.


Auxmaulous wrote:
And how are you going to protect them? How are you, Scott Betts, spokeshole for the DNC, going to protect a right if someone in authority illegally takes it away from you? Will you protect it with your puffery and by imploring to your oppressors that because these rights are inherent they cannot be denied to you? Maybe a peaceful protest? You're a joke.

I protect those rights by doing what you should be doing: involving myself personally in the democracy that governs me.

Quote:
They didn't "grant me" these rights, what kind of backwards brain process (if any) comes up with this kind of thinking?

I'm not sure. I certainly didn't say that they granted you those rights. If you're going to use quotation marks, use them properly. I didn't say what you're trying to make it sound like I said.

Quote:
They recognized these things as inherent truths that they felt should be codified and protected as law. They also felt that people would always need to have access to firepower to protect those rights. Valued then, and valued now - their value is obvious to me and not decided by the fact that some dead guys wrote them over 200 years ago.

So then do what I said, and stop acting like "Because the founding fathers said so," is a valid defense of the 2nd amendment.

Quote:
Nothing you say does hold water, your just a tool working a fool agenda. People like you have always existed in history, prepared to take something from others for the greater good, or for your sense of security. You don't back up what you say with evidence, you back up your desired outcome and agenda with evidence.

Wait, so I do back up what I say with evidence?

Quote:
You don't like the 2nd,

No, I just don't like what you think the 2nd amendment says.

Quote:
so you use every argument to undermine it - "they didn't understand what kind of technology we would have, bunch of old guys who were wrong, for the children, blah, blah, puke. Same old garbage.

I'm only pointing that out because you tried to defend the 2nd amendment by pulling the founding fathers card. I've already thrown out a silly amount of evidence showing support for increased gun control. Dealing with your arguments is just a quick detour.

Quote:
Why don't you tell me how civilians in this country would legitimately protect their rights without the aspect of potential armed revolt (either up front or as an eventuality) from a corrupt and tyrannical government?

We wouldn't. There's no way. If the government becomes irredeemably corrupt, you will have failed. Miserably. You will have failed to exercise your responsibility as a citizen to effectively self-govern. You will have failed to involve yourself in the process of legislating appropriately. You will have failed to use the incredible technologies of your day to raise awareness of problems in need of attention. And so will I.

No personal arsenal of AR-15s is going to save you, then. All that will do is make you worth killing.

So be a worthwhile citizen and run your country.

Quote:
Once you cross the line, once you abrogate the rights of others and support the forces of tyranny in this country - you will have a fight on your hands.

You already think I support the forces of tyranny in this country. I voted Obama. I've worked for the Democratic party. Heck, I've trained political operatives! Where's the fight you're supposedly chomping at the bit for?

Quote:
And yes, hopefully Americans will see you for the destructive and corrupt ideology you represent and you will be kept in check.

No, they won't.

Quote:
Hell, you're already frightened of your fellow citizens with guns -

I'm frightened of people like you, but not because you own guns. I'm frightened of you because you can vote (though, less frightened as time goes on; your numbers are dwindling). And, unlike actually killing someone in the name of armed rebellion for whatever rights you imagine yourself to have, I believe you're plenty brave enough to mail in a ballot.

Quote:
your fear has made you a tool for a political ideology that you jump at their command. You are so afraid that you need take away freedom from other people because it scares the hell out of you. In so many words - a coward.

Do you think that being called a coward by someone like you matters to me, at all? Do you think that will get me riled up? Do you think it will give me cause to re-examine my beliefs?

Quote:
Naw, I'll only fight when they attempt to circumvent the Constitution and take away individual rights.

Sure you will.

People like you have said that for decades. "Don't you dare take my ability to own whatever gun I want! I'll rebel, I mean it this time!" and then we ban assault weapons for ten years and you just retreat into your hole. It's like talking to a doomsday prophet. "Repent! The world will end in 2012! What's that? It's 2013? Drat! Well, it will definitely end next time!"

We're going to enact more restrictive firearms laws sometime in the next four years, and you're going to sit there and take it, along with all of the other tough-guy gun owners like you.

Quote:
I know it's a left-wing onanistic fantasy to fear the gun toting conservative and make him the bogyman and source of all evil, but for the most part gun owners just want their right to pursue happiness and be left alone (while preserving the rest of their rights). Once you threaten that you have a fight on your hands.

No, we don't.

Quote:
A deserved fight, and at that point Democracy would be damned. Pretty much all of us would be.

Nope.

Again, we're going to do exactly what you said you'd kill over: increasing gun control restrictions. And you won't kill over it. You'll sit there, and you'll take it, and you'll whine about it on the internet. And we'll go about our lives.


Scott.
Flag it and move on at this point, bro.


meatrace wrote:

Scott.

Flag it and move on at this point, bro.

That wouldn't be nearly as much fun. Besides, he's stopped short of actually calling me Hitler. He's just insinuated that I'm equivalent.


I've learned to take joy in knowing that my enemies are shouting their obscenities at deaf ears. It's a hard lesson to learn for a troll such as myself.


meatrace wrote:
I've learned to take joy in knowing that my enemies are shouting their obscenities at deaf ears. It's a hard lesson to learn for a troll such as myself.

I used to do that, but it's a lot easier to coax the crazy out of someone if you can keep them going. If I'd stopped, we'd never have known that Auxmaulous is willing to kill his political opponents!


Scott Betts wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:
I think it is dishonest to suggest that the constitution doesn't protect gun-ownership.
I think it's dishonest to suggest it protects an unrestricted, uninterpretable right to own whatever gun you want.

Well, its actually pretty clear thats exactly what it did - at least for the first 150 so odd years of our republic.

Here's a timeline: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092699.htm

Seems to me that citizens were pretty much had carte blanch to own just about anything they wanted. Especially as shotguns, assault rifles, fully auotmatic rifles AND MACHINE GUNS were freely purchasable at Sears & Roebucks, pawn shops etc.

These included the water-cooled colt, the browning, the thompson and others.

Quote:
Additionally, I think it's dishonest to suggest that the kinds of restrictions we are interested in making to gun ownership are un-American without a constitutional amendment. That flies against what we understand to be true about constitutional law, not to mention conflicting with countless examples of existing jurisprudence.

We who? Please identify the group that thinks that way.

The two sides on this are not remotely similar. Your side wants handguns banned. (Do I really need to quote examples?)

Supreme court manifestly ruled such a ban as unconstitutional in 1837. Instead of trying to court shop; accept the results as they were offered and make a constitutional amendment.

Quote:
You have a mental conception of what the 2nd amendment is that is only supported by a very particular, very narrow, judicially-rejected reading (and I use the word "reading" charitably) of the text.

Yeah? Rejected by whom? Gun control measures have been weakened over the last 20 years, not tightened. And the last surpreme court ruling confirmed my reading not yours. Here, let me quote re; 2006 supreme court decision:

"The Second Amendment, Scalia said, "surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."

The opinion, the last and perhaps most anticipated ruling of the court's current term, delivered a bold and unmistakable endorsement of the individual right to own guns". That from the liberal rag - the washington post.

Quote:
(see: the assertion that gun ownership is banned in Mexico)

See this is why you aren't honest. If my the right had the same restrictions on abortion that mexico has for firearm ownership - you and the left would be bruiting to the world abortion is banned.

You don't apply the same standards. But keep arguing the way you want to because people can see you don't have facts, the preponderance of the evidence on your side.

It wasn't I that said the original position that guns were banned in Mexico. I merely chimed in in support of that position.

Just like in the United states we had de facto segregation and de jure segregation. Just because you could find nothing written in many locales, did not mean segregation didn't exist.

Two guns a year. You reveal your extremity when you open your mouth and say.. thats not a ban. Please feel free to continue.

Do you suppose that its ok for the government to restrict you to one public gathering every 10 years? How about if you grease the palm of the mayor you can worship as you like?

Thats the whole point of the bill of rights - we don't need the governments permission to enjoy these rights.


Perfect Tommy wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:
I think it is dishonest to suggest that the constitution doesn't protect gun-ownership.
I think it's dishonest to suggest it protects an unrestricted, uninterpretable right to own whatever gun you want.

Well, its actually pretty clear thats exactly what it did - at least for the first 150 so odd years of our republic.

Here's a timeline: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092699.htm

Seems to me that citizens were pretty much had carte blanch to own just about anything they wanted. Especially as shotguns, assault rifles, fully auotmatic rifles AND MACHINE GUNS were freely purchasable at Sears & Roebucks, pawn shops etc.

These included the water-cooled colt, the browning, the thompson and others.

Yep! That used to be how it was. Then we slowly realized how insane that was given the unbelievable rise in lethality of modern weaponry. Thank goodness.

Quote:
We who? Please identify the group that thinks that way.

We, the collective judicial thought on the issue.

Quote:
The two sides on this are not remotely similar. Your side wants handguns banned. (Do I really need to quote examples?)

I'm not aware of any popular agendas on the table to ban handguns on a national level. There might be a fringe group of people who want to ban them, but that's not a widespread or particularly influential position.

Quote:
Supreme court manifestly ruled such a ban as unconstitutional in 1837. Instead of trying to court shop; accept the results as they were offered and make a constitutional amendment.

But I don't have any desire to see handguns banned.

Quote:
Yeah? Rejected by whom?

The courts.

Quote:

"The Second Amendment, Scalia said, [b}"surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home." [/b]

The opinion, the last and perhaps most anticipated ruling of the court's current term, delivered a bold and unmistakable endorsement of the individual right to own guns". That from the liberal rag - the washington post.

I believe private citizens have the right to own guns, and I don't want to ban them. I don't believe that private citizens' right to own guns is unrestricted, and I believe that current restrictions are insufficient. Which part of this does Heller address, exactly?

Quote:
See this is why you aren't honest. If my the right had the same restrictions on abortion that mexico has for firearm ownership - you and the left would be bruiting to the world abortion is banned.

I just want to be clear, here: you think that the two situations are argumentatively equivalent? I'm asking because I want to make sure you've actually thought it through before you continue down this particular path.

Quote:
You don't apply the same standards. But keep arguing the way you want to because people can see you don't have facts, the preponderance of the evidence on your side.

I've probably quoted from and linked to more research articles than the entire pro-gun population of this thread, combined. But, please, continue.

Quote:
Two guns a year. You reveal your extremity when you open your mouth and say.. thats not a ban. Please feel free to continue.

Pardon, two guns a year?

What was that?

I'm not sure I heard you correctly.


Scott Betts wrote:
meatrace wrote:
I've learned to take joy in knowing that my enemies are shouting their obscenities at deaf ears. It's a hard lesson to learn for a troll such as myself.
I used to do that, but it's a lot easier to coax the crazy out of someone if you can keep them going. If I'd stopped, we'd never have known that Auxmaulous is willing to kill his political opponents!

That's what I said!


Well Mr. Betts,

You and yours can continue to malign the constitution, and the flag, and all the instituions that me and mine hold dear.

To me and mine, the fact that a nation formed a social contract, and agreed to found a nation on the principles enshrined in the constitution is more than enough reason to revere it - and obey it.

The fact that half a million americans died to defend it in the civil war, makes it sacred to me.

The principles of the constitution have stood the test of time - and they are the basis of our system of government; the basis for all law enforcement in the country.

You are right that demographics - in one sense - are in your favor. You got more votes.

But the demographics in the larger sense are terrible. We owe more money in history than ever before. Our debt is growing faster than ever before. In 2010, the Federal Reserve issued 17 trillion dollars. Bigger than the entire American economy.

The five largest deficits in history are O'bama's (or will be).

Your democratic senate hasn't even obeyed the law and passed a budget in 3? 4? years? O'bama issues more signing statements and made illegal recess appointments - things he swore he would not do while in the senate.

The country is growing more and more polarized. I'm not a gun-owner. I'm not a republican. But yes, the 2nd amendment needs no other defense to me, than to say is the second amendment of the constitution.


Wait, but I want to hear more about this whole 2 guns per year thing! What about that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perfect Tommy wrote:

Well Mr. Betts,

You and yours can continue to malign the constitution, and the flag, and all the instituions that me and mine hold dear.

To me and mine, the fact that a nation formed a social contract, and agreed to found a nation on the principles enshrined in the constitution is more than enough reason to revere it - and obey it.

Including the bit about African-Americans only counting as 3/5ths of a person, we should obey that as well?

Because if not, then you're admitting that we are allowed to change it, and that change can be for the good.

Also, while I didn't lose my life, I did serve my country for 7 years. Please don't assume you talk for me (because you don't).

Grand Lodge

Perfect Tommy wrote:

Seems to me that citizens were pretty much had carte blanch to own just about anything they wanted. Especially as shotguns, assault rifles, fully auotmatic rifles AND MACHINE GUNS were freely purchasable at Sears & Roebucks, pawn shops etc.

These included the water-cooled colt, the browning, the thompson and others.

Actually, it is a myth that the Thompson was available for sale via mail order. While there was no law that prohibited a civilian from owning one (at least up until 1934), Auto-Ordinance Company required their dealers and distributors to sell only to "those on the side of law and order", and to do extensive (for the time) background checks on potential buyers and then when Browning took over production of the Thompson, they out-right refused to sell to anyone but the military.

Here is a vintage ad (with the "law and order" slogan): Auto-Ordnance Ad

Most "gangsters" stole the Thompsons they used from law enforcement agencies, because only a few dealers/distributors were willing to lose their reputation by selling the Thompson to just anybody...

Another myth is that everyone and their brother had one (they weren't as popular as Hollywood would have you believe because historically only a few "gangsters" actually had or used them)...

Most law enforcement agencies only had a few of them at any one time anyway (and one of those was always given to the office of the chief of police or the county sheriff).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Aux,
What will you do to stop them, exactly? Because it sounds very much like you're in the same camp as the nutter from Tennesee. If someone took what you consider your rights away, would you go and kill them? If not, your ownership of guns is irrelevant as it will have as much effect as Scott's methods. If so, you're a dangerous individual who just hasn't snapped and gone on your 'justified' rampage yet. In neither case do you make a good argument for owning many guns that allow you to kill your fellow citizens if they dare to disagree with you.

Dark Archive

Paul Watson wrote:

Aux,

What will you do to stop them, exactly? Because it sounds very much like you're in the same camp as the nutter from Tennesee. If someone took what you consider your rights away, would you go and kill them? If not, your ownership of guns is irrelevant as it will have as much effect as Scott's methods. If so, you're a dangerous individual who just hasn't snapped and gone on your 'justified' rampage yet. In neither case do you make a good argument for owning many guns that allow you to kill your fellow citizens if they dare to disagree with you.

It's not what "I consider my rights", they are my rights. Plain and simple.

If the right is removed in an illegal or unconstitutional manner I would disobey the illegal and unconstitutional change for starters. I would work on multiple levels to reverse the problem and would meet with like minded people and remove the treasonous government from power.

By any means necessary. That means nice and not so nice methods.

Not saying it wouldn't be easy, but it's been done before.

No one is talking about rampage killing here, all I am saying is that when systems fail, become compromised and rife with corruption then I have been given a protected right to change it, to protect the Constitution - with violence as a last resort if need be when other options do not bear fruit.

You push people hard enough, and they will push back - it's been done in the past and is happening right now in the world as we speak. Deny, stomp your feet like a child, but the reality is - people get sick of shit, and they eventually stop putting up with it. It just happens to be that Americans have a high tolerance for BS, and are overly accommodating.

So Scott can cry about it as much as he likes - guns are not going away, and Americans will circumvent any restrictions placed because they know they are BS. We've done it in the past, and will continue to do so. At one point if more draconian measures are taken, then people will push back. Scott of course doesn't believe this because Scott has not defended anything in his life that didn't take place on the internet - so to him it's an alien thought process. He doesn't/cannot comprehend fighting for anything that is beyond two feet in front of his face (his monitor), so everyone else must be like him and think like him - classic projection.


Hey look. Ad Homs.

Grand Lodge

Auxmaulous, this is a topic near and dear to me as well, and at times I too feel that our "opposition" can be quite bull-headed. But posts such as your last will serve only to shut this thread down.

All I'm saying is to just take a step back and refocus your arguments so that we can keep this (and hopefully other future threads like it) from getting prematurely locked by the powers that be... :-)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

DigitalElf,
Don't worry. The opposition feels exactly the same way about you regarding the bull-headedness of their opponents. So at least some agreement can be found across the divide in this debate. ;-)

However, I probably shouldn't have said what I said, especially in the inflammatory way I said it. I don't particularly want to get the thread locked either.


Digitalelf wrote:

Auxmaulous, this is a topic near and dear to me as well, and at times I too feel that our "opposition" can be quite bull-headed. But posts such as your last will serve only to shut this thread down.

All I'm saying is to just take a step back and refocus your arguments so that we can keep this (and hopefully other future threads like it) from getting prematurely locked by the powers that be... :-)

I say keep going Aux. you totally almost convinced Scott with that last "I'm gonna shoot you in the face" arguement. You're doing it, man, you're doing it!


Well, this shouting match is tl;dr at this point. You guys have said all you can. You have heard all you can. This discussion is only kept alive by the people being baited by Scott Betts, and by Scott Betts, troll extraordinaire.

Given the more or less official demise of this thread, what I would like to discuss is mental health. Psychiatric disorders are very common. About a third to half of the population have such conditions to a clinical level at some point of their lives. This includes anxiety, mood disorders, personality disorders, substance abuse, psychotic disorders, delirium, neuropsychiatric disorders. A large percentage of these people are helped by medication that lets them live a better life... Or would be, if they got help.

The american system is inhumane in many ways, but really, not providing mental health care to sick, confused, scared people and then painting them as threats because their actions in their addled state can sometimes hurt others... That is truly vile. The only thing worse is the insistence that if they were only locked up, everyone would be safe. You need to understand, much of the world progressed beyond that point a century or two ago. Read up on a guy called Pinel to see an example of this.

You need to understand... Considering how many actually have used psychiatric medications, claiming that using such predisposes you to committing mass killings is about as relevant as saying that someone was in a fight in school at some point of their history does. First, a large part of medications are for anxiety, depressions, crises, confusion and other temporary conditions. Second, a large part of those who use medications chronically are well functioning because of it. Third, another part of those who don't get medication spend their lives suffering and not hurting anyone. Fourth, and most strikingly, it is quite possible to commit a mass killing without being mentally ill. I will repeat that for the benefit of self appointed experts on mental health everywhere. Not all mass killers are mentally ill at the time they committed their crime. Humanity is a cruel lot. We mistreat others, subject them to torture in psychological and social ways. Given enough of that, you don't need to be mentally ill to snap. This is why mental health issues, apart from certain types of personality disorder and impulse control disorders, are generally found to bring only a very slight increase in violent episodes. Those two special cases are people generally found in prison already if they are violent, they have been that way all their lives, and they can't be effectively medicated.

Seriously, it would behoove you guys to learn something about which you speak.


So why is Scott the troll? Did I miss something?


He's a troll because he disagrees with her. Full stop.


Man... I thought I would win troll. I pretty sure I got called a racist at one point. (Was never clear on why)

Scarab Sages

Sissyl wrote:
Psychiatric disorders are very common. About a third to half of the population have such conditions to a clinical level at some point of their lives.

Wait...what???

Please, link me to at least one reasonable study that has such numbers. Those number don't resemble anything I ever read or heard (studying educational science to be a social worker).


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Several people in this thread have expressed a desire to ban or restrict large magazines and/or semi-automatic rifles. Many (most?) of them are not pushing for a full ban on guns. Rifles (including, but not only, semi-automatic rifles with large magazines) are used to murder a few hundred people a year in the US.

Given all the studies indicating that owning a gun makes you less safe, and assuming that even if the only guns left in the US were revolvers, bolt-action rifles, and break action shotguns, there would be more than a few hundred murders a year committed with them, why don't you support a more comprehensive gun ban?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Because we know we can't win that one? Most of those are also single murders at a time and it's quite hard to prevent those. Mass killings are easier to prevent by limiting the capacity/rate of fire. Thus, we take the option that reduces mass killings ratther than the option that won't happen and will probably be less effective at reducing murders by all that much.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Paul Watson wrote:
Because we know we can't win that one?

This is just an argument on the internet, no one is going to win anything, no matter how reasonable they are. ;) So, if you were making laws by fiat, would you be inclined to support a more comprehensive ban?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Pesonally? Yes, but I'm British so America's gun culture is not the same culture I am part of. Mind you, if I became dictator of America, there's other things I'd do that would piss people off far more so it's probably good that that's not going to happen.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

More than taking our guns?!?!11@! I daren't even ask.


Oh, is it free health care? That really pisses people off!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

That's one, Durngrun.
Cutting back on the US's bloated defence budget would be another.
Stem cells.
Proper teaching of science, including evolution and AICC.
Actual socialism should scare the pants of most people in the US given what they think is socialism. ;-)
I think those would be sufficient to start a revolution way before I got to gun control. ;-)
Oh, and I'm an atheist, so for a good percentage of the popualtion I'd be even more of the anticrhsit than Obama.


Honestly, I think after those other things that gun control would be a non-issue.

Also, given the right's propensity for conflating Fascism with Socialism, I'd imagine their heads would asplode.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Which would solve most of the problems with implementing my radical pinko commie european atheist agenda, wouldn't it? Although cleanup could be expensive.


I support a more comprehensive gun ban.

Mostly I'm concerned with reducing the number of handguns in this country.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Doug's Workshop wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
And they are tolerated for this.
Kinda like the leftist loons who tweeted about killing NRA members, right?
China, russia, etc have already proven that leftists don't hate guns, only guns in the hands of those that might oppose them

Want to see an NRA member make some component pieces for masonry?

Suggest that the occupy wallstreet crowd should all be armed.

Shiznit! I was saying that years ago...


Black father sentenced to XX years for defending his son from a racist mob

Although they let him out after a couple of months

Just wanted to inject a little left-wing opposition to gun control before Citizens Aux, Workshop, et. al. paint us all with the Obamabot brush.

EDIT: The articles disagree on how many years he was sentenced for. Or I read the first article wrong. Whatevs.

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Doug's Workshop wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
And they are tolerated for this.
Kinda like the leftist loons who tweeted about killing NRA members, right?
China, russia, etc have already proven that leftists don't hate guns, only guns in the hands of those that might oppose them

Want to see an NRA member make some component pieces for masonry?

Suggest that the occupy wallstreet crowd should all be armed.

According to the documentary i saw the other day on netflix some of them did. Some plotted to fire bomb murder republicans too.


Ooh, that sounds interesting. What documentary was that?

The Exchange

Scott Betts wrote:
meatrace wrote:

Scott.

Flag it and move on at this point, bro.
That wouldn't be nearly as much fun. Besides, he's stopped short of actually calling me Hitler. He's just insinuated that I'm equivalent.

You just agree with him on gun control. what you plan after getting it might differ greatly.

The Exchange

Irontruth wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:

Well Mr. Betts,

You and yours can continue to malign the constitution, and the flag, and all the instituions that me and mine hold dear.

To me and mine, the fact that a nation formed a social contract, and agreed to found a nation on the principles enshrined in the constitution is more than enough reason to revere it - and obey it.

Including the bit about African-Americans only counting as 3/5ths of a person, we should obey that as well?

Because if not, then you're admitting that we are allowed to change it, and that change can be for the good.

Also, while I didn't lose my life, I did serve my country for 7 years. Please don't assume you talk for me (because you don't).

So you would gladly give up the first amendment? Happily go to what church the gov says to and only say what is allowed?

The Exchange

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Ooh, that sounds interesting. What documentary was that?

Occupy umasked. Sure it is somewhat biased (all docs are these days) but the two arrested for plotting mass murder are a fact, the reports of other guns and plans to use them have no proof beyond eye witness claims.


Hmm, an Andrew Breitbart film?

Anyway, c'mon, spill some of the juicy details--who are these plotting mass murderers? Where were they from? I can't figure it out (yet) by watching trailers and reading reviews.


After checking out some discussion boards for law enforcement types, the only video I can find plotting to firebomb Republicans is this Kanye West video but, I admit, I'm not as familiar with right-wing websites as I am with left-wing ones.


At this point I have searched every combination of "mass murder" "plot" and "Occupy" with various synonyms and all I can get is speculation that the Aurora shooter was an Occupier, Kanye West videos, and those five anarchists in Ohio who were set up by an FBI informant.

I'm giving up.

Sczarni

thejeff wrote:
Doug's Workshop wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


I don't care what the founding fathers thought about firearms ownership.

See, you could have stopped typing there, and it would have summed up your entire argument.
Or you could have finished reading what he wrote: That even if they intended the 2nd Amendment as a guard against government tyranny, military technology has advanced so far that personal small arms cannot be used to oppose a standing military in the way they could in the founder's day.

This has been bandied about significantly, and it is patently untrue.

Our advance in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam was stymied predominately by exactly this. Civilians, wielding small arms and a decided mentality to not be defeated.

If the US government decides to unload the full military might of it combined forces against its own citizenry, don't you imagine there will be people with similar mindsets.

Not to mention, chemical, incendiary, and explosive devices are cheap, easy to create, easy to conceal, and have become dramatically effective at slowing down/dissuading modern military forces from occupying terrain.

This doesn't even account for those US soldiers/sailors/airmen who will simply refuse to comply with orders to fire upon their fellow citizens, and/or defect to the "resistance"


Irontruth wrote:


Including the bit about African-Americans only counting as 3/5ths of a person, we should obey that as well

I will bet you a full set of Pathfinder rule books that there is nothing in the Constitutuion saying "African-Americans" are to be treated as 3/5ths a person.

You might have serves your country, but you apparently never took the time to read the document you swore to defend.

651 to 700 of 836 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Trigger-happy Atlanta mom shoots intruder in the face 5 times All Messageboards