Crazy F*ckers and Mr. Glock

[fenderfour]

Let me help this discussion.

 

There are gun people - They will interpret things to bolster their argument.

 

There are anti-gun people - They will interpret things to bolster their argument.

 

These two groups will never agree. Get over it.

 

Then there are the pagetop people...

Edited April 23, 2007 by fenderfour

[archenemy]

Pagetop people should be shot.

Obviously.

[Dechristo]

One night, this nasty group of fuckers were on my front porch, knocking HARD on my front door. I parted the curtains slightly and saw they all were brandishing :pagetop:s. My hand on the door knob ready to open it, I steeled myself, set my teeth on edge, and with my other hand ready, I flung open the door and pulled out my...

[archenemy]

halloween candy?

[mattp]

These two groups will never agree. Get over it.

 

I disagree with what I think you are suggesting for two reasons.

 

(1) those gun people are full of dookie and they have blood on their hands, a lack of self-esteem, and I hate them - those little complainers (waah waah waah, the liberals want to take away our rights...) and

 

(2) this an important issue that bears discussion even if it becomes a circular one.

[ashw_justin]

I think it is easy to believe this while everything goes smoothly. But I'll guess you've never done something pretty bad and try to get away with it. When a cop catches up with you, the threat of violence is clear. The domination, even when violence is not used, sends a message that is unmistakable. I am sure quite of few of us here have been arrested and jailed for something. Most likely, it raised your awareness of cops and the power they wield. Don't it?

 

When a rational and innocent person submits to a cop it is not because he has a gun, it is because the cop is doing his job, i.e. carrying out the 'will of the people' as codified by the law. Those who have a problem with that will quickly realize that they should blame the law and the system that created it, not some random guy trying to make a living.

 

But of course the rational and innocent people are not the problem. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, and that is why we have a police force. The problem with taking violent justice into your own hands is that the common person is not qualified to administer the law, just as your common person would make a pretty terrible math professor without proper education, training, and discipline.

[billcoe]

These two groups will never agree. Get over it.

 

I disagree with what I think you are suggesting for two reasons.

 

(1) those gun people are full of dookie and they have blood on their hands, a lack of self-esteem, and I hate them - those little complainers (waah waah waah, the liberals want to take away our rights...) and

 

(2) this an important issue that bears discussion even if it becomes a circular one.

 

I think you just turned it into a circle. I'll re-read it.

[archenemy]

I think it is easy to believe this while everything goes smoothly. But I'll guess you've never done something pretty bad and try to get away with it. When a cop catches up with you, the threat of violence is clear. The domination, even when violence is not used, sends a message that is unmistakable. I am sure quite of few of us here have been arrested and jailed for something. Most likely, it raised your awareness of cops and the power they wield. Don't it?

 

When a rational and innocent person submits to a cop it is not because he has a gun, it is because the cop is doing his job, i.e. carrying out the 'will of the people' as codified by the law. Those who have a problem with that will quickly realize that they should blame the law and the system that created it, not some random guy trying to make a living.

 

But of course the rational and innocent people are not the problem. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, and that is why we have a police force. The problem with taking violent justice into your own hands is that the common person is not qualified to administer the law, just as your common person would make a pretty terrible math professor without proper education, training, and discipline.

Good point.

[wfinley]

One thing to note in all of this in regards to the law... in the case of Mr. Cho it turns out that under Federal law he was not allowed to purchase a gun; however Virginia was for some reason not complying with Federal law and thus the background check did not mark Cho as ineligible. (See NYT article) I imagine both sides will use this argument to their advantage... the right saying that this is proof gun control doesn't work and the left saying this is proof that gun control, as it exists today, is a farce.

[archenemy]

I agree wholeheartedly with background checks. I don't agree with invasive ones, but since reading about this case and people's comments here, I can see that public records about mental health should be considered when selling a person a gun. But I am not yet convinced that depression is a valid reason for denying someone the right to buy a gun.

[tvashtarkatena]

This discussion is so depressing I want to shoot myself.

 

 

[archenemy]

Don't let me stop you.

[fenderfour]

These two groups will never agree. Get over it.

 

I disagree with what I think you are suggesting for two reasons.

 

(1) those gun people are full of dookie and they have blood on their hands, a lack of self-esteem, and I hate them - those little complainers (waah waah waah, the liberals want to take away our rights...) and

 

(2) this an important issue that bears discussion even if it becomes a circular one.

 

Why bother if you know it is a circular issue? Disagreeing can be enough.

 

Next up: The chicken and the egg

[archenemy]

it was most certainly the egg.

[archenemy]

no, wait.

 

it was the chicken

[archenemy]

I got it!

 

It was the Rooster!!!!!

[fenderfour]

no, wait.

 

it was the chicken

 

And why doesn't anyone mention the rooster? Didn't he have at least a small part in this? You know, some hot cloaca on cloaca action?

 

Dammit Arch beat me...

Edited April 23, 2007 by fenderfour

[deathdealer]

I do not know how to add the neat little "quote thingy"

 

but this is in reply to ivan.

 

"how essential is gun ownership in 2007 compared to 1797?

 

at our countries founding current situation we were in close contact with hostile indian tribes countries and nation-states psychos far more powerful sicker than us - most americans lived on the frontiers cities or in the sticks ghettos and needed their weapons for home defense and obtaining meat keeping the neighbor from raping thier daughters - the police were quite primitive undermanned and under gunned, could not be called quickly and were to busy to get to every call, and could not be counted on at all for protection, certainly not rapidly- our armies were equally unreliable and a strong militia of self-equipped citizens was essential to repel attacks for which we would have virtually no warning

 

which of those conditions is still so pressing today?"

 

I think all of them concern me very much, but I am just a gun nut.

 

 

 

 

[ashw_justin]

You forgot to do this part our armies were equally unreliable and a strong militia of self-equipped citizens was essential to repel attacks for which we would have virtually no warning. Or are you going to convince us that there is any conceivable serious attack on the country of the United States of America in which private handgun ownership would make a lick of difference?

[deathdealer]

At my house yes it would make a difference, but i like violent video games, violent movies and I can pass an instant check at the local gun shop.

[AlpineK]

Hmmm. How do you figure things will go when your house is surrounded by an army of 50 thousand taun tauns.

 

 

Edited April 24, 2007 by AlpineK

[tvashtarkatena]

I just installed a solar powered, IR + motion guided roof mounted particle beam weapon on my pre-existing 40 foot radio surveillance tower. Fully automated target acquisition, tracking, and interdiction...and Green. Runs on a Vista platform: 100% reliable without additional command and control hardware.

 

I haven't seen a squirrel or stray cat since it came on line.

 

Bring on the taun tauns.

[Fairweather]

These two groups will never agree. Get over it.

 

I disagree with what I think you are suggesting for two reasons.

 

(1) those gun people are full of dookie and they have blood on their hands, a lack of self-esteem, and I hate them - those little complainers (waah waah waah, the liberals want to take away our rights...) and

 

(2) this an important issue that bears discussion even if it becomes a circular one.

 

Meanwhile in Olympia, WA: The Dems have a mega-majority in the state house, a solid majority in the senate, the governorship, five US congressmen and two liberal US senators to help promote the concept.... what are they waiting for!?!? Just ban guns in Washington State! ...Well, there's that pesky constitution again...and the fact that gun control is p-o-l-i-t-i-c-a-l s-u-i-c-i-d-e...even in this otherwise liberal state. I guess holding on to power is more important than imposing the will of Seattle/King County elites, eh? Smart move. Those on my side of this would love to see the Washington State Dems lead the way....to a new Republican majority here.

 

 

[foraker]

Meanwhile, at the White House, Honor and Dignity are still sitting out on the front porch.

[Fairweather]

Try to stay on topic, foraker. Your Bush-hatred need not be woven into every thread. It is well documented.