Fairweather Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 I posted this in another thread where you subsequently posted but chose not to prognosticate about what you think Obama may or may not do if elected. What do you think? Is he going to push for broad changes in firearms regulation? I think certain key members of congress will--and Obama would be unlikely to veto any bill they sent to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Hey estupidias; I fixed it for you: pro choice nuts are just nuts when it comes to abortion, so there's no point in discussing the subject because they aren't capable of being reasonable about it. they like killing and want their right to do so because they just like things that sweep "problems under the rug and they aren't capable of conceiving of any situation where any limitation, registration or regulation of abortion is or would be acceptable because they just like it and that's the end of it. a pile of dead kids in a dumpster behind a clinic won't change their minds because they are impervious to evidence or reason when it comes to their passion. Thousands of people killed by abortion every year doesn't change their minds or even raise the vaguest hint of a doubt in their minds because they just want to go on about their selfish pursuits. ... any form of so called rational argument they use to justify their passion is just a verbal smokescreen. talking to inanimate objects is a more fruitful use of one's time than debating abortion with pro choice nuts because they'll never give one millimeter of ground no matter how unreasonable they are being because they are just so in love with the concept of no consequences for irresponsible actions. Abortion clinics are for killing, plain and simple, and these places were specially designed for killing humans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STP Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 gun nuts are just nuts when it comes to guns, so there's no point in discussing the subject because they aren't capable of being reasonable about it. they like guns and want their guns because they just like things that shoot projectiles and they aren't capable of conceiving of any situation where any limitation, registration or regulation of guns is or would be acceptable because they just like guns and that's the end of it. a pile of dead kids at an elementary school won't change their minds because they are impervious to evidence or reason when it comes to their passionate love of guns. thousands of people killed by guns every year doesn't change their minds or even raise the vaguest hint of a doubt in their minds because they just want guns. their arguments in favor of unfettered, uncontrolled gun ownership are just bullshit and it doesn't matter because those arguments aren't the reason why they own guns. they don't own guns because they are concerned about protecting everyone from potential government tyrany, they just like shooting guns and that's it, and any form of so called rational argument they use to justify their passion is just a verbal smokescreen. talking to inanimate objects is a more fruitful use of one's time than debating guns with gun nuts because they'll never give one millimeter of ground no matter how unreasonable they are being because they are just so in love with guns. guns are for killing, plain and simple, and handguns are guns specially designed for killing humans. Your response speaks volumes about your own thinking rather than shed light on the issue. You objectify all gun owners basically as killers and that really is a disservice to these individuals and to understanding their position. First, there are gun owners of all persuasions, not just Republican or conservative. Did you know that some civil rights workers armed themselves for protection? [Civil Rights and Gun Sights--ReasonOnLine]. Second, your myopic view exposes your own intolerance of other viewpoints. Third, you presuppose that gun owners do not feel the pain of needless death. I'd venture to say that conscientious gun owners are the best advocate for safety and responsible firearms usage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STP Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 It is really quite simple: We are given the right to bear arms and I will continue to do so. I am a responsible gun owner and enjoy the recreational aspects of the sport, the historical aspects of the birth of our freedom as well as the personal protection guaranteed by my ongoing practice aptitude with a firearm. Simple as that. Good luck taking mine away; all I have to say. I don't think it's that simple, at all. What "arms" were you given the right to bear? Tanks? Artillery? What "arms", if any, are you willing to outlaw? Should people be able to own nuclear weapons? Where does it stop? Surely you agree with some form of gun control, as I doubt many would argue that citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons. So, where do you draw the line? I don't think it's "simple as that." This reference ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act) will probably clarify some of your questions. Specifically: While NFA weapons as a whole are perceived by the American public as dangerous, their use in crime is exceedingly rare. Legally-owned (ie, NFA-registered) machine guns have been used in only two murders since 1934, one of which was committed by a police officer.[9] A previous director of the ATF testified before Congress[citation needed] that fewer than ten registered machine guns (out of over 240,000 in the nation) have ever been used in any type of crime (including nonviolent offenses such as failing to notify ATF of address changes, etc.). The criminal use of other legally-owned NFA weapons is similarly rare. The Title II weapons used in prominent crimes, such the AK-47s used in the North Hollywood shootout of 1997, have universally been illegally-owned or illegally-converted weapons. --reference above You'll also find this interesting: snip...the Act's application is derived from the federal legislature's Constitutionally enumerated power of regulation over interstate commerce ...snip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No. 13 Baby Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Guns don't kill people...bullets do... Why not raise the taxes on bullets to the point where it costs more to shoot someone, than you would gain in robbing someone.. and since you generally, unless you are a very poor shot, kill a deer/elk/bear/moose/goose, whatever with one shot, not multiple...I would venture to say a moose is worth a $50.00 bullet...just don't miss. wasn't this somebody's comedy routine? Wasn't just anybody's comedy routine... it was one of those scary black guys the gun nuts are so afraid of! [video:youtube]PdJGcrUk2eE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el jefe Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 responsible gun owners would be in favor of regulating firearms, just the way responsible drivers are in favor of laws against driving intoxicated and mandatory auto insurance provisions. if you are opposed to regulating firearms, then you are an irresponsible gun owner. it isn't difficult. i'm not opposed to the idea of people owning guns, but i am fed up with the nra/gun nut position that gun owners shouldn't be subject to any sort of regulation or oversight because the fact that they own guns somehow protects my freedom. my point is that there's no "light" to shed on this issue if gun owners are going to insist that we all just have to trust them to be responsible, period, and can't ask that they register or account for their firearms in any way. look at this thread, there's no conversation gin on here, no give and take of ideas. the gun people just keep saying that any restriction/regulation/registration/whatever of firearms is unacceptable. nothing anyone says, no matter how reasonable (e.g., should nuclear weapons be off limits? how about fully automatic weapons?) is going to make them budge one millimeter from their extreme stance, so why bother talking to them about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el jefe Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 hey bedwetter, the fact that fondling a handgun gives you a hardon doesn't mean that i'm the one who is "strange"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STP Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Sure, why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 hey bedwetter, the fact that fondling a handgun gives you a hardon doesn't mean that i'm the one who is "strange"... Fortunately, my position is protected in the Bill of Rights from nut jobs like you. The fact that you live in Portland doesn't help your case regarding "strange". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el jefe Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 yes, tacoma is sooo much more desirable. if i lived there, then i, too, could boast that i live in the town that spawned the famed serial killer ted bundy. by the way, portland is "weird", not "strange". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el jefe Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 hey bedwetter, the fact that fondling a handgun gives you a hardon doesn't mean that i'm the one who is "strange"... Fortunately, my position is protected in the Bill of Rights from nut jobs like you. The fact that you live in Portland doesn't help your case regarding "strange". actually, bedwetter, the second amendment reads as follows: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. my argument hinges on the first part, yours on the latter part. as usual, the founding fathers left it all muddled up for us. right now the supremes back you, but if the configuration of the court changes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STP Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 The Democrats may likely sweep the Congress and the Presidency however I believe that their hands will be full dealing with the economic repercussions of the financial crisis. Regarding the Supreme Court, it's just as likely that the more activist-minded justices will be replaced rather than the justices who take a more conservative stance in the court. But, as O'Connor proved sometimes it's difficult to deterministically predict the outcome of a decision. It's more likely that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned than the 2nd Amendment being reinterpreted. Who knows? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 (edited) I actually stopped by a local gun shop today and noticed it was a very busy place. I thought their hunting season would have peaked long ago, so I asked the clerk why it was so busy. He replied that sales of guns and ammunition are triple what they were this time prior year and that most are buying handguns and mil spec-type weapons in anticipation of an Obama victory next week and eventual attacks by the democrat congress and Obama on gun rights. FWIW Edited October 26, 2008 by Fairweather Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 I actually stopped by a local gun shop today and noticed it was a very busy place. I thought their hunting season would have peaked long ago, so I asked the clerk why it was so busy. He replied that sales of guns and ammunition are triple what they were this time prior year and that most are buying handguns and mil spec-type weapons in anticipation of an Obama victory next week and eventual attacks by the democrat congress and Obama on gun rights. FWIW damn Fairweather - why you got to make fun of gun-nuts for being paranoid ignorant idiots? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 (edited) Not making fun of them at all. I think their concerns are legitimate if not premature. I'll even bet many of them were union Dem's voting for Obama. Edited October 26, 2008 by Fairweather Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 I heard on the radio that if Obama is elected president then gay Scout leaders will be sleeping in tents with young boys. Also that life as we know it would cease to exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 That was according to Focus on the Family. WHO KNOWS???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal_Con Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Johnny mac: This country is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions. Rush: What do you mean, biblical? Sarah: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor... real Wrath-of-God-type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. FW: Rivers and seas boiling! Haninty: 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanos. Rush:The dead rising from the grave! FW: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 i thought it was chris rock! hey, this conversation would have a lot more clarity if bill and the other so-regretably-labeled "gun-nuts" would answer the basic question: what weapons (if any) are you willing to allow the state to ban/restrict? surely you can understand why even non-liberals can't accept "none" right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Johnny mac: This country is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions. Rush: What do you mean, biblical? Sarah: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor... real Wrath-of-God-type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. FW: Rivers and seas boiling! Haninty: 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanos. Rush:The dead rising from the grave! FW: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria! walter peck - classic bad-guy in all movies - "real genius"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 (edited) It is really quite simple: We are given the right to bear arms and I will continue to do so. I am a responsible gun owner and enjoy the recreational aspects of the sport, the historical aspects of the birth of our freedom as well as the personal protection guaranteed by my ongoing practice aptitude with a firearm. Simple as that. Good luck taking mine away; all I have to say. I don't think it's that simple, at all. What "arms" were you given the right to bear? Tanks? Artillery? What "arms", if any, are you willing to outlaw? Should people be able to own nuclear weapons? Where does it stop? Surely you agree with some form of gun control, as I doubt many would argue that citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons. So, where do you draw the line? I don't think it's "simple as that." No, it's not a simple issue at all. The second amendment is cryptic and ambiguous. If the government ever decides to confiscate guns, despite all the bluster from blowhards like AKA, they'll just come and take them...and AKA and every other "cold dead hand-ites" in the country will just give them up...just like they've done fuck all while the government took away their privacy, habeaus corpus, and probable cause rights. What, you're going give up your freedom, life, your family's life, and everything you own so you can keep guns you need to protect all of the above? I'm snickering over here. Fuck you, blowhards. There isn't anyone in this fine country who believes your obvious posing. Edited October 26, 2008 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 There isn't anyone in this fine country who believes your obvious posing. not that i'd pick hairs w/ you pat (see my new TR - look some fucks on this board DID climb 2day!) - but isn't this sentence the very example of the word "tautology?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal_Con Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Don't worry they can always do a useless pathetic stand like Randy Weaver or if they are "lucky" Timmy McVeigh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 There isn't anyone in this fine country who believes your obvious posing. not that i'd pick hairs w/ you pat (see my new TR - look some fucks on this board DID climb 2day!) - but isn't this sentence the very example of the word "tautology?" not that the declaration of independence itself isn't bereft of such tautologies: "we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal" i mean like, hello, have you SEEN me in the shower? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Don't worry they can always do a useless pathetic stand like Timmy McVeigh. that didn't work out well for ANY of us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.