Greg_W

Dude, hope you are joking! If not - seek help! WHat? nads can be tender.

It's good to know that elitist, intellectual bastions of fortitude are here on Earth to tell us all what is best for us. Otherwise, how would we exist? How arrogant are you that you think you should be able to make decisions about what others are entitled to? It's nice to see your true colors. Your premise assumes that all people are stupid except you, and therefore, need to be taken care of by some all-knowing body of superb minds. Keep that shit away from me.

Existence exists. Period. No qualifier necessary. More along the lines of Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am). Existence without thinking (reasoning) is a lowly existence, subhuman, no better than livestock. Nietzsche, anyone? Backwards. You ARE, then you are able to think. It is called primacy of existence, Ayn Rand. You cannot think without first existing; you cannot be conscious to think without first existing. If you don't exist, how do you think?

liberals take our rights away in smaller doses. Seat belt law. helmet Law and the such... they are the 'Great Mommy State' and tell us it is for our own good. It is not the same... but over time as the # of laws add up... the effect is the same. There should realy only be three laws ummm not quite equivilant now is it? personally being in the insurance industry am i glad there are seat belt laws, helmet laws. my favorite part is denying claims to people who have been killed in auto accidents, silly things like wearing their seat belt or speeding would have saved them. but then again what does the 'mommy state' know? or when you see a 19 yr old girl now retarded from head injuries....oops no seat belt. you think making you wear your seat belt takes away from your life? hardly. i think the fed govenment being able to tap my phone, read my bank statments, read my email all seem a bit more over the top then not wearing my seat belt. It IS equivalent in that you are allowing the Government a say in how you live your life. Plain and simple.

Wow, you actually spelled some shit right. Being out of pot must be helping. Doesn't matter what crime was what. Home invasion, being attacked by black kids on the streets of Seattle (plenty of those around), whatever. Why should it matter? I should be able to defend myself however I choose. Second, the idea of stats for this side and stats for that side IS somewhat troubling. I can only cite statistics supporting my position from sources that I believe are credible. I cannot force you or others to believe their validity. We have had this discussion before. What I can say is that I believe the statistic that approximately 2 million crimes are averted per year due to citizens being armed with handguns. I cannot honestly comment on the Patriot Acts because I haven't read all the fine print. What I can comment on is what I see in the gun control lobby and the legislation that individuals like Diane Feinstein, HIllary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and others, put on the floor.

Rudy. From experience, the background check is a good one. Under current law, that means checking your criminal record. What would you like? Home visits? Interviews with co-workers? Interviews with family members? Psychological review? Where does it stop, Rudy? When you say you don't care what the Bill of Rights says, you nullify it's existence and validity. By which, you are stating that the basis for law in this country is null and void. Is that what you think? You THINK that gun ownership shouldn't be a right. So, this makes this YOUR opinion. However, just because you think something doesn't make it correct or good for everyone, or whatever. You may notice that I haven't said everyone should go buy a gun; however, you have said that I should be restricted in my ability to go buy a gun. Your whole premise is restriction and denial...if you restrict something it no longer becomes a right, but a privelege. Excessive government has already done this in large degrees to gun ownership, speech, etc. Rudy, you are far from rational. You have not used reason at all, just your emotional decision that gun ownership shouldn't be a right, despite what the documentation upon which this country is founded clearly states. Your position will lead to no gun ownership, because that is the true heart of what organizations like the Brady Campaign, Americans For Gun Safety, Million Mom March, etc., want. Greg_W

Seattle is such a nice place, with such compliant victims. You make me sick.

Existence exists. Period. No qualifier necessary.

Your ideas of freedom warm my heart.

Rudy, you are talking out of your ass when you say "I don't care how the Bill of Rights is worded..." Plus, you have no fucking clue: NO PERSON can walk into WalMart and buy a pistol without a background check. First off, I think WalMart stopped selling handguns. Second, any buyer has to go through a 7 day waiting period AND background check; even CWP holders have to submit to the NICS check at time of purchase. The fact that you think you know what you are talking about and you come up with this is assinine. It's clueless fucking people like you that lead to stupid laws that punish law-abiding people. You make me fucking sick. Greg_W

Seattle tame? Tell that to the girl who was attacked and the guy who tried to help her (who was killed) during the Mardi Gras riots. What about WTO? Do you think that crime is no problem here? Give me a fucking break. What about the crackdown on all the hip hop clubs in Pioneer Square? Call me what you want, I don't care. Just don't infringe on my rights. Enjoy learning to love Big Brother, cause that's what you are going to get when you ask for what you're asking for.

it has been shown ever and over that the best to protect yourself and your family is to not have a gun in your home. the same way that wearing a seat belt while driving is shown to be necessary, or wearing a helmet while biking and climbing, etc ... the only difference whith these other examples is that your insistence to have the proliferation of guns go unchecked actually endangers my life and that of my family THis isn't true, j_b. Just because you can draw a correlation statistically doesn't mean it has meaning of causality. I can show you numbers that prove the fact that because I walk the streets of Seattle wearing a gun, you and your family are safer walking the streets of Seattle. do statistics show that gun owners and their families have a greater chance of getting shot? yes. case closed. does unchecked gun proliferation lead to more bad guys having guns and greater murder rate? yes. case closed. now you can spin all you want, quote the bill of rights, etc .. it won't change the statistics. full of shit, as always. Believe what you want, I don't try and change people's minds anymore.

We have the "right" to health care? Where was that in the Constitution. No fucking way, man. You apparently don't know shit.

Wrong, it expressly states that he loses his right to gun ownership, as well as the right to vote.

it has been shown ever and over that the best to protect yourself and your family is to not have a gun in your home. the same way that wearing a seat belt while driving is shown to be necessary, or wearing a helmet while biking and climbing, etc ... the only difference whith these other examples is that your insistence to have the proliferation of guns go unchecked actually endangers my life and that of my family THis isn't true, j_b. Just because you can draw a correlation statistically doesn't mean it has meaning of causality. I can show you numbers that prove the fact that because I walk the streets of Seattle wearing a gun, you and your family are safer walking the streets of Seattle.

That's an idea I've entertained. Makes as much or more so, sense than to say that these are God-given rights. In the history of Man, we had to fight for these rights and to forge a government and its guiding document. The established orthodoxy of religion sure didn't give these rights to us. The Church would have been all to glad to keep us under its thumb. Reform does not usually come from institutions (which BTW tend to be conservative). Now, as for God-given, well that makes as much sense to me as the phrase, "All men were created equal." I wasn't privileged to have an expensive private school education so maybe I'm missing something here in my interpretation of the world around us. These ideas: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness are abstractions. Government is the vehicle that imposes the order or stability on our world to realise the concrete reality of these abstractions, in other words, to make them manifest. It does worry me, to see that the opposite is becoming the case because the ruling elite is afraid of losing control. So, maybe I had a moment of lucidity in an otherwise murky existence... Simply a misunderstanding... Playing the devil's advocate. Conviction... So you're saying that this is the basis of our rights? ...our individual convictions? If you believe that a government gave you your rights, you have to believe that that same government can take them away. You can't have one without the other - and you have to accept that as your lot. I do not. I personally believe in God, and believe (as our Forefathers did) that these rights are God-given. That's my personal conviction, it doesn't have to be yours. You seem to be relying on Government quite a bit for your reality; by accepting that, you accept that government has the right to change your reality. The inalienable rights, both enumerated and not, guaranteed by the Constitution are not abstractions, you practice them every day. Note the language of the Constitution in that is says these rights are "guaranteed", not granted. You say that institutions are largely conservative, but I would have you look at where this "ruling elite" you talk about comes from. Where did the Political Correctness movement start? College campuses with liberal professors inculcating their students. Is Berkeley a conservative institution? Conservative institutions such as the Citadel, and VMI, and others, have been under attack for their convictions. Taking God out of the argument for a moment, the basis for your rights is the fact that you EXIST. You exist, you are conscious of it, and have knowledge of it. You cannot have knowledge without being conscious, and you cannot have consciousness without existing. Therefore, this logically tells us that EXISTENCE is primary. Your existence is by what you claim these rights.

So, are you saying that it is a privilege to decide HOW I can defend my self? There are ways I CAN defend myself and ways I CAN'T defend myself? Okay, Rudy, in simple, but harsh terms: Someone enters your house and threatens you (or your wife) with a knife. What privileges do you have to defend yourself with? Wouldn't you want to be able to decide, free from government intervention into your private life (which is what it is) on how best to protect your family? Who knows better how to protect your wife and darling son? You? The BATFE? Regarding your "historical documentation" about the meaning of the Second Amendment, you are flat wrong. There is an abundence of work done showing that the Second Amendment supports the INDIVIDUAL'S right, just like all the other Amendments in the Bill or Rights. Don't state your opinions as facts, it's misleading.

Doesn't the thong pull your ass hairs? No silly, I shave. Oh, right. Forgot. Why not wax? Those Brazilians are a wonder at that.

Doesn't the thong pull your ass hairs?

I would say the parent was the problem. THe gun is the owner's responsibility; i.e., the parent. My ol' man was career military. Thus, my brother and I grew up with guns, shooting at beer bottles in the water and hunting. I would have never thought of bringing a gun to school because there was the fear instilled in us by the ol'man. You see, he used to leave his coiled belt in the same closet where the rifles and ammo were. A visible reminder. So, yeah... I gotta agree with ya, Greg. Maybe we gotta point at a more elusive culprit, the loss of time to spend with kids to teach them or the lack of foresight on the part of parents or... However, I do think that access to guns has increased dramatically over time and that is part of the problem. Now, the knee-jerk reaction is to limit accessibility, which I don't necessarily accept. when I was a child all the guns in my home were on a gun rack next to the front door. It was never an issue. Do ya think that maybe there are substandard people? And that, we should raise the bar a bit in permitting people privileges such as driving? And maybe, the same reasoning could be applied albeit to rights granted by government in return for your willingness to be governed? DING DING!!! We have a winner!! Thanks for letting your true belief shine through. DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE, AS YOU SAY IN YOUR POST, THAT RIGHTS ARE GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT ??? This belief is the FUNDAMENTAL problem. No government "grants" you rights, man. Who gave rights to those before there was a government? Second, "we should raise the bar a bit permitting people priveleges such as driving"? Man, I'd hate to live your life; hoping someone "gives" you the right to do things. So, you're saying that we should bring the intelligent responsible people down to the level of the stupid and irresponsible? Hmm...that's essentially the Communist Ideal, there. I was born with my rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (as noted in the Declaration of Independence), and noone can take them away. I intend to fight to keep those rights, including my right to decide how I protect myself and those I love...not to mention the right to speak my mind (or did the government grant me that, too), associate with those groups I so choose, and deny government thugs entry to my house without proper justification.

This is because you are completely unaware.

I would say the parent was the problem. THe gun is the owner's responsibility; i.e., the parent.

Incorrect. Lack of education on the part of the father on proper gun safety, and the practice thereof, is the problem. People don't give kids enough credit; so many kids grow up with guns in the home and don't do what you describe. What is the underlying problem? It's not the gun, is it the parent?

As we have discussed in another political thread, there is always the desire to increase government. Also, don't think that high-cap magazines are the issue. It is a stepping stone to banning all handguns - they outright admit it. Your reasoning is flawed because you do no take the time to learn the lessons of history and apply them to current situations. Choose your battles, yes, but defend your rights and convictions. The way you float like a leaf on the wind (despite your girth), I can see you have to convictions. Good luck to you.

Maybe Erik realized that his cup size now rivals most of the other chics on cc.com