Guns Defend... [Pic]

Submitted by: SweepOfDeath 3 years ago in

... Not enough.
There are 125 comments:
Male 6,227
I`m realizing I failed to address the question at the end of your last post.

The former expression you gave as an example is absolutely preferable to the term *Pavement Ape*. Why?

Unlike *Pavement Ape*, the former expression--

1. Doesn`t dehumanize the subject. The slur is especially poisonous because it hearkens back to well over a century of racist drawings in this country`s past that portrayed Blacks as ape-like.

2. Doesn`t make use of a term popular with manifestly racist groups, such as White Power groups and the KKK.

Hope that helps explain why the first phrase, although a bit troubling, isn`t anywhere near as problematic as the slur.

Have to hit the hay. Goodnight!
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ OldOllie: My point is that, assuming your goal was to have a productive dialogue and maybe win over some minds to your point of view, you`d have done better to ask Lauriloo to clarify what she was saying and ask her why she felt that way rather than call her a bigot. People misstate things and are misinterpreted all the time.

And just to be clear, all this stuff is just me chatting out of my own interest in debate; I`m not writing in any moderator capacity here. Your calling her a bigot wasn`t any official problem; rudeness is allowed. (But not abuse, which is where another IABer in the same thread got in trouble.)

I`m just saying as a friend that when you go for the jugular as you did, the person you`re chatting with no longer listens to what you`re saying and fights you every inch of the way--if they keep exchanging ideas with you at all. Per Ben Franklin, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
S4S, I get your point. I should have chosen a different term to insult that particular fat ugly violent idiot f***tard whore who, BTW, also happened to be black. I realize that blacks are a privileged class who are immune from the same kind of derogatory racial terms that they CONSTANTLY throw at us, e.g., honky, cracker, redneck, whitey, etc.

That doesn`t change the fact that LL made a CLEARLY UNAMBIGUOUS bigoted remark about an ENTIRE GROUP of people when she said, "...I`m worried about the mostly lower class white guys..."

Seriously, had I said "I`m worried about mostly lower-class black guys being allowed to own guns," that would that have been acceptable, but using a politically incorrect term to insult a fat ugly violent idiot f***tard whore who, BTW, just happens to be black, is off limits?

Double standard much?
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ OldOllie:

*Pavement Ape* is a racist slur usually used to insult a large demographic. Most people using that expression harbor racist views; for that reason, people who are not bigots tend to avoid the term.

That said, I DON`T think you`re a bigot. (Crotchety? Yes. Smart and funny? Yes. Possessing zero tolerance for fools? Yes.) Nor was the main point of my post to criticize your "Pavement Ape" remark. The point I was making was that when you made that remark, I didn`t get in your grill and call you a bigot. Nor did the person who called you out on your unfortunate choice of words. Rather, he wrote, "When you say things like that, Ollie, you sound...."

I`m simply suggesting that you might want to give others the same benefit of the doubt as you were given. Not only will it make you a better debater, it just might make you a bit less crotchety. :-)
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@normalfreak2 Let me try to explain this using only small words. If one person deserves to be insulted, it`s okay to insult that person. But, it`s NOT okay to insult an entire group if there are people in that group who do NOT deserve to be insulted.

So, to recap:

It is okay to insult people who deserve to be insulted.

It is NOT okay to insult people who do NOT deserve to be insulted.

Why is that so f***ing hard for you to understand?
0
Reply
Male 7,941
Saying that about one person isn`t as bad as saying to more than one person? If it`s something you wouldn`t say to one you probably shouldn`t say it about the other. Just saying.


It was still an inappropriate comment.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Correct me if I`m wrong, but it wasn`t long ago that a certain someone on here used that favorite term of White Power groups and the KKK, "Pavement Ape," and was called out on it. [/quote]
S4S, that was an insult directed at one specific person, not at and entire class of people, which is what LL did.

HUGE difference.
0
Reply
Male 8,557
lauriloo-[quote]there`s little violence at Tea Party rallies because the average age is 65[/quote]
Like I said, `Willfull Ignorance`.
0
Reply
Female 231
I would feel far more at ease if say, my police were less armed than they currently are, and they had civilian restrictions on the weapons they used. Or more restrictions, ideally. I do not trust police. Or our government. To be wise when handling any weapons.

I, however, think the excess of power in firearms today is ridiculous. I feel there should be repercussions on officers who pull their weapons when there is no immediate threat. And I also feel that our enforcers should have some teeth pulled.

They are a civilian body, and it`s time they are reminded of it.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Gauddith

You`re mistaken as to which arm of the government would be the likely vector of oppression. There`s no modern precedent that suggests that the US military would be used to, let alone willing to, support a wide scale attack on US citizens in this country. The notion that the Marines would suddenly begin using their F-18s to bomb US cities is patently absurd.

Rather, the likely vectors of oppression are the many layers of law enforcement; these are the people we should be concerned with - not the military.

So, to answer your question, firstly, we have a Constitutional guarantee that we may possess firearms; it is explicitly stated so. Secondly, the extent to which we may possess firearms should match or exceed the extent to which our combined policing forces are capable.

How could such a limitation be a bad thing?
0
Reply
Male 2,694

0
Reply
Male 2,694

0
Reply
Female 231
So where do you set boundaries? Because you seem to think that everybody would be better off owning a gun. Fine, that might help against crazed gunmen, but it still doesn`t go to the original point of that constitutional right we have. You see, that right was there to protect us from an over-reaching government with military power far greater than it`s peoples.

I`m pretty sure that boundary has already been passed. I`m also positive that I would leave the country were that kind of military power ever given back to the people. You see, I hate the concept of how devastating our weapons currently are. And I also hate that our government has those weapons. But I hate the idea of random people having that kind of fire power more.

Interesting how people fail to understand the implications of new technology VS old laws. By all means, get your 17th century guns and bear the heck out of them, see what good that does you in the face of a AR15.
0
Reply
Female 231
"weapons, not sporting goods" I would just like to point out, again, that our bloody sporting goods are at least twice as effective as their military weapons. I`m sure you hunt Ollie, or perhaps you just like to think you do. But if you have ever taken a shot at a deer you will understand that it takes a lot to take one down. Their guns did have the firepower to do this back then, and that was also more than enough to engage in combat, and fend for your own life. Now, we have the precarious task of deciding just how much is too much. Where do we limit our weapons?

Sensibly, people should BE the governments military power. (That was how we were founded. You brought your gun in, shot it at the bad guys, and took it home.) And that would be how a government is limited in it`s military hold over their peoples. Sadly, due to international disputes and wars, this can no longer be the case.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ OldOllie: "At least you`re willing to admit you`re a bigot."

Correct me if I`m wrong, but it wasn`t long ago that a certain someone on here used that favorite term of White Power groups and the KKK, "Pavement Ape," and was called out on it.

Glass houses, Ollie. Glass houses.

And no, I`m not calling you a bigot. I give you the benefit of the doubt whenever I can--a courtesy you might consider extending to Lauriloo.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@LL [quote]I see an increased incidence of people getting killed by gun owners for simply being annoying to the shooter...[/quote]
I haven`t seen that at all. Perhaps you can post a few links. An "increased incidence" should warrant at least 3 stories.

Go ahead. I`ll wait.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@LL [quote]I`m worried about the mostly lower class white guys...[/quote]
You may be the most intellectually honest liberal here. At least you`re willing to admit you`re a bigot.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@HG [quote]what do you think the point of "a well regulated militia" phrase was?[/quote]
Well, back in the day when grammar was actually taken seriously, that was part of what`s called a "non-restrictive gerund phrase." That means that it does not alter or restrict the meaning of what follows, "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I would also like to point out that "shall not be infringed" is much, MUCH stronger language than "Congress shall make no law," insofar as it explicitly forbids ALL levels of government, from the feds down to the town council, from restricting in any way the right to keep (own and possess) and bear (carry upon one`s person) arms (weapons, not sporting goods). Yet if we were to put anywhere NEAR the level of restrictions on the 1st amendment as we do on the 2nd, the libs would be squealing like stuck pigs.
0
Reply
Male 4,891

You just can`t argue with lariloo`s fear based ill-logic. She speaks from her heart, not her brain. Forgive her, she is too blinded by her fear to understand and learn regarding this particular subject.

Lariloo, I apologize for the rude comments I have made about you in the past, but the simple truth is that you don`t have ground to stand on in this particular argument. Your lack of knowledge is apparent. Your comments are clearly coming from emotion...and your "facts" are made up.

Take it from a true non-nice individual, stick to what you know. I keep my nose out of the majority of IAB debates. I speak up on firearms because I know the subject, but you don`t. I don`t pick sides left or right. For AGW or against...etc. Your inexperience in the subject is obvious.

0
Reply
Male 14,331
@AGit

Ooohhh the Spain one thought you were talking about Holys article. No idea there`s more to it than blaming guns cause Spains on the more permissive side of gun laws in Europe.
0
Reply
Male 406
@McGovern: If you think that acting responsibly with the guns you poses is optional, you shouldn`t complain about some neighbor`s kid using is fathers gun while breaking into your house and - in case you accidentally run into him - trying to kill you and your family in order to not be shot first. Or about that kid who finally had enough of being bullied and now is shooting down everybody who bullies and everybody who looked away.

You don`t want that to happen? Make sure it can`t happen, make sure you will act responsibly. If you don`t why should anybody else?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote] Puppet army for the Koch brothers, NRA and such who pull all the strings in the background. Filling their heads with fears about the "Other" taking away their freedoms and wealth. "Prepare yourself before it`s too late!!"[/quote]



Girl you just reached Alex Jones level crazy there.
0
Reply
Male 414
"It`s convienent anti gunners use school shootings the most as examples considering it`s the smallest percentage of gun deaths when the most are gang related which is the actual problem..."

So, I`d say that`s kinda like pro gunners mostly complaining about home invasions. But I guess focusing on school kids getting shot up is over-dramatizing...as opposed to, say, the picture of a car plowing through a bunch of bikers, which must happen everyday considering the stats that were posted comparing gun deaths to car deaths.
0
Reply
Male 995
@McGovern, I honestly can`t prove that "gun free" works, as there are many variables that possibly should be taken into account, but I have pointed out (and for the third and last time, I must say that you have ignored) that in the example I gave regarding Spain (and I repeat, it does not imply that both countries and situations are comparable), there is a "gun free zone" in the whole place that has led to a total of 0 victims.
Are there crimes with firearms in Spain? Yes, there are, but at an extremely low percentage (0.15 per 100,000 if the wikipedia is to believed).
But I`ll repeat again that it isn`t my intention to change your opinion, I was simply trying to point out that your reasoning was quite sloppy.
It`s nearly two in the morning, I`m off. I bid you good night!
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]I believe that I did not, I refuted stating that the data was placed in doubt (even if it`s a technicality, the data is flawed) and offered an example backed with a source that has yet to be put in doubt and that has not been addressed. That is no where near demagoguery. [/quote]

So you`re saying the data you posted goes around the issue on a technicality because of the data I provided but couldn`t ever be considered "demagoguery:passioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace(AKA B.S. well mainly)" I don`t know call me crazy but twisting the issue around the fact they do have armed guards(yes not teachers) kind of sounds like that to me. Here`s some data I already stated politicians and most of their kids have armed guards for themselves paid for by us yet we get "gun free zones" how is that leading by example or proving "gun free" works?
0
Reply
Female 1,803
No, there`s little violence at Tea Party rallies because the average age is 65. Old white people afraid the good old days are slipping away from them… railing against social programs while they say "Keep your mitts off my Medicare, Kenya Obama!!"

I`m worried about the mostly lower class white guys who obsessively listen to Beck and more right wing extremists. Puppet army for the Koch brothers, NRA and such who pull all the strings in the background. Filling their heads with fears about the "Other" taking away their freedoms and wealth. "Prepare yourself before it`s too late!!"
0
Reply
Male 995
@McGovern, I don`t know how to say this without sounding like a smartarse, which I can assure that it not my intent, but it seems that you don`t know the meaning of demagoguery. You presented a colourful poster with incorrect data, insults to an undefined group labled "liberals", appealing to sentiment without any kind of source or backing.
I believe that I did not, I refuted stating that the data was placed in doubt (even if it`s a technicality, the data is flawed) and offered an example backed with a source that has yet to be put in doubt and that has not been addressed. That is no where near demagoguery.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
It`s convienent anti gunners use school shootings the most as examples considering it`s the smallest percentage of gun deaths when the most are gang related which is the actual problem.... hmmmm what would you call that hmmmmmmmmmmm...oh how about DEMAGOGUERY!??!?! Meh I just prefer bulls**t myself.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@AGit
Oh this fact?

[quote">Rest assured however, they are under armed protection. In most cases it is an armed guard or a soldier that will accompany a class, not the teacher. And my guess is that the woman with the gun is a security guard, not a teacher.[/quote">

So yes you`re are but on a lame technicality that really just doges the truth. There`s your demagoguery.
0
Reply
Male 8,557
lauriloo-[quote]It`s a combination of trends that I find unsettling. [/quote]
It`s a combination of trends that you `feel`, but are not supported by the facts.

Change `ignorance` to `willfull ignorance`.
0
Reply
Male 8,557
lauriloo-[quote]I see an increased incidence [/quote]
It`s a case of man bites dog.

The number criminal killing with guns still FAR OUTNUMBERS the `annoyed shooters` and the `stand your grounds`. The criminal ones are not reported because 1) it`s so common it`s not news & 2) Big cities like Chicago want to downplay their voilence.

The `annoyed shooters` and `stand your grounds` make news becasue they are NOT common, they are the exception, not the rule.

lauriloo-[quote]disproportionate anger by the right wing groups against the left.[/quote]
Let me guess, you think that Tea Party members are violent (when there`s been no arrest at any Tea Party gathering and they leave the site cleaner than it was) and think that the Occupy Movement was peacefull (despite the arrests for vandolism, rape, violence).

Please quit getting your news from MSNBC.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]I see an increased incidence of people getting killed by gun owners for simply being annoying to the shooter, with an undercurrent of pent-up aggression about unrelated issues that apparently can be set off at any minute. Stand your ground laws embolden people to commit these crimes without punishment.[/quote]

Citation needed.

[quote]Add to that the current irrational, disproportionate anger by the right wing groups against the left.[/quote]

That just shows how condescending you are, you can`t make rational coherent argument and resort to belittling the opposition.
0
Reply
Male 995
*couldn`t and *convenient whoops!
0
Reply
Male 995
@McGovern, erm... no you didn`t, at least on the post I was refering to, it was demagoguery and apparently, as HolyGod`s link pointed out, completely untrue. On the other hand, I did not offer demagoguery as far as I can tell (please point out if otherwise).
I also could help but notice that you only addressed part of my post, perhaps ignoring the rest as it isn`t inconvenient (I`m assuming here, nothing more), which more or less proves my point to a certain extent.
0
Reply
Female 1,803
"The fact that you are more afraid of law abiding citizens than criminals demonstrates an irrational fear not based on facts. That fear is based on ignorance of the subject matter. "

I see an increased incidence of people getting killed by gun owners for simply being annoying to the shooter, with an undercurrent of pent-up aggression about unrelated issues that apparently can be set off at any minute. Stand your ground laws embolden people to commit these crimes without punishment. Add to that the current irrational, disproportionate anger by the right wing groups against the left. White, middle/lower class people (men) are feeling frightened about losing their power structure in the US. It`s a combination of trends that I find unsettling.
0
Reply
Male 174
Replace the word "defend" with "shoot"
0
Reply
Male 8,557
lauriloo-[quote]Nobody`s coming for your guns, honey.[/quote]
You are correct, I doubt they will.

But the question wasn`t about them `coming for my guns`. It`s a general gun debate.

The fact that you are more afraid of law abiding citizens than criminals demonstrates an irrational fear not based on facts. That fear is based on ignorance of the subject matter.

Again...it`s the `feels` that count, not the facts.
0
Reply
Female 1,803
"Yup, definitely irrational and ignorant."

There`s plenty of irrational to go around. Nobody`s coming for your guns, honey. You can relax. Put the gun down for a second.
0
Reply
Male 8,557
lauriloo-[quote]`d like the freedom to not be afraid of saying or doing something minor someone doesn`t like and getting shot because of it. [/quote]
Sorry, that`s not a freedom you enjoy anywhere in the world, and will never enjoy.

lauriloo-[quote]honestly think I have a higher probability of getting shot by a "non-criminal" than by a criminal [/quote]
See, that just demonstrates your irrationality and/or ignorance on the subject.

It`s not about facts, it about how you `feel`.

lauriloo-[quote]People routinely walking around with guns will be more oppressive to our freedom of expression [/quote]
Yup, definitely irrational and ignorant.
0
Reply
Female 1,803
"idiots have no problem taking away others` RIGHT to a fireamr BEFORE such a demonstration."

Who`s doing that? No one here. There`s that black and white thinking again.

"freedom to those who are frightened by the nature of it and the responsibility that goes with it."

I`d like the freedom to not be afraid of saying or doing something minor someone doesn`t like and getting shot because of it. I honestly think I have a higher probability of getting shot by a "non-criminal" than by a criminal in this country based on how emotionally volatile the pro-gun people always are when discussing the subject. People routinely walking around with guns will be more oppressive to our freedom of expression than anything the NSA could do.
0
Reply
Male 414
"I think I`ll go find the nearest outhouse owner and ask them if they like an elevator installed. It would be less of a waste of time than trying to explain freedom to those who are frightened by the nature of it and the responsibility that goes with it."

Oh, are we talking about guns or gay marriage now?
0
Reply
Male 2,694
I think I`ll go find the nearest outhouse owner and ask them if they like an elevator installed. It would be less of a waste of time than trying to explain freedom to those who are frightened by the nature of it and the responsibility that goes with it.
0
Reply
Male 39,948

Keep getting rid of guns.
Criminals just love that!
0
Reply
Male 8,557
Darkalen-[quote]as can a baseball bat or a knife or a spoon or a pillow [/quote]
And yet some people are irrationally afraid of only the one that goes `boom`.

Darkalen-[quote]people do not rampage a school with a dratting CAR[/quote]
0
Reply
Male 8,557
lauriloo-[quote]well that made no sense.[/quote]
You want a car comparison that makes sense?

I don`t want people who demonstrate they are irresponsible and dangerous with cars to be able to drive. So if you`re a drunk driver, reckless driver and put others at risk, I think you should not be allowed to drive.

In the same manner, I don`t want people who demonstrate they are irresponsible and dangerous with guns to be able to have them. So if you`re a drunk shooter, reckless shooter and put others at risk, I think you should not be allowed to own a gun.

The difference is that while a persons priviledge to drive will only be taken away AFTER he demonstrates his inability to responsibly own one, idiots have no problem taking away others` RIGHT to a fireamr BEFORE such a demonstration.
0
Reply
Male 414
"270 million guns did not kill anyone yesterday, on average there are 30 murders with guns per day. That means 0.000011% of guns killed.
Whereas over 3 times that percent (0.000037%) of cars killed. (~254 million cars, 93 deaths per day)."

You know, I dratting can`t stand that argument. While I understand the validity that, yes, a car can be used as a lethal weapon, as can a baseball bat or a knife or a spoon or a pillow (or as Riddick showed all too well, a tea cup), people do not rampage a school with a dratting CAR. People do not take children as hostages by threatening them with a Toyota. You do not see home-grown militias stockpiling mini-vans for the end-of-days. And really, how many out of your 93 deaths per day by car were caused by weather, or mechanical failure, or texting as opposed to straight-up vehicular homicide? Not to mention that most states have some kind of drivers class requirement before issuing a license.
0
Reply
Female 1,803
MeGrendel- well that made no sense. thanks for evading my question. Your car example just illustrates how careless people are with a potentially deadly weapon. You want them to have gun, too? Of course, you should factor in the number of hours in a day cars are in active use compared to the number of hours per day a gun is in active use. Bet if people were using their guns an equivalent amount of time, gun deaths would go way up.

"Oh ya forgot that all those politicians children go to school with armed guards imagine that. Nice leading by example."

Well, if you can prove your kid has had hundreds of death threats sent to them on a regular basis you can have an armed guard, too.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
Good points on both sides, with a sprinkling of humor, which is always nice. Thanks for keeping it civil, guys.
0
Reply
Male 8,557
uunb-[quote]you don`t really need your guns [/quote]
`Need` is not part of any requirement for your rights.

If you are an athiest, you don`t `need` freedom of religion. But it`s nice to have anyway.
0
Reply
Male 8,557
lauriloo-[quote]define "proper working order". [/quote]
270 million guns did not kill anyone yesterday, on average there are 30 murders with guns per day. That means 0.000011% of guns killed.
Whereas over 3 times that percent (0.000037%) of cars killed. (~254 million cars, 93 deaths per day).

Whis is more `proper`?

But, to answer your question:
Proper: of the required type.
Working: functioning or able to function
Order: Double-cheeseburger, side of fries.
0
Reply
Male 1
Come on, just admit it, you don`t really need your guns for any particular reason, you just love them because they go bang-bang and you don`t want to lose your toys. But this love is carved so deeply into your mindset that there`s virtually no hope for you - you have your guns and school shootings because of who you are no the other way around.
BTW anybody who finds the sight of the Israeli photo comfortable and correct has definitely some mental problem.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]@McGovern: They`re in lots of schools, affluent ones too. Even Canada has them, @holygod is 10 years behind in his thinking... lolz! That debate is long over & done! [/quote]

Oh ya forgot that all those politicians children go to school with armed guards imagine that. Nice leading by example.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]Not that I`d consider changing your mind on the subject, have all the guns you wish for all I care, but at least try to put forward real arguments and not this blatant demagoguery.[/quote]

I did give you actual argument you just only see what you want too. Talk about blatant demagoguery....
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HolyGod

It`s a prefatory clause and was a common grammatical structure in that era.


As explained in the landmark case regarding this (DC v. Heller):

"The Amendment`s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause`s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

Furthermore:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Here is another example of a prefatory clause:

Being that apples are delicious, people should eat them.

Hopefully you do not conclude that the only reason to eat apples is that they are delicious; however, that is how you choose to interpret the 2nd Amendment.
0
Reply
Male 203
America...most powerfull third world country.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
@Shelworth: Excellent round-up!

@F-Fan: No, in most cases it literally means "zero guns". Even security guards are not allowed to carry them. Check facts next time, eh?

[quote]BTW don`t they already have armed police officers at schools in the ghetto?[/quote]
@McGovern: They`re in lots of schools, affluent ones too. Even Canada has them, @holygod is 10 years behind in his thinking... lolz! That debate is long over & done!

@holygod: There ALREADY ARE armed cops in many American schools! Canadian schools too!
Resource Officer = armed cops in a school.
Double fail for you! That money is already being spent, those cops are already there. Your `boogeyman` is yet another straw man...

0
Reply
Female 1,803
OK, MeGrendel, define "proper working order". I would say with all the shootings the US has, our "militia" is NOT in proper working order.

In my opinion, a well-regulated militia means an organized group of people who train together regularly as a counter to the government`s army to protect the citizenry from government tyranny. This group is organized enough to be able to communicate with each other to decide whether action is needed to prevent tyranny. Knowing how crazy people are nowadays, this concept frankly scares me and considering the overwhelming weapons power the gov NOW has makes the entire concept ludicrous and should be thrown out.

Millions of random people running around with guns doing their own thing is NOT a well-regulated militia. Neither is a Waco-style group of people.
0
Reply
Female 1,803
"So why do you fear good guys with guns?`

I fear people who think using a gun is the best/easiest way to solve any dispute they get into (theater shooter/texting guy, George Zimmerman, any guy in a bar/club shooting, spouse killers). People with gun muscles who don`t avoid conflict or use their brain.

I fear careless gun owners who don`t secure their weapons from kids and crazies in their family or in their car that can be broken into (how ironic)

I fear people who think they are going to be a hero and end up shooting MORE innocent people because their estimation of their skills under stress being exactly like at the gun range is totally out of whack.

I fear the gun hoarder who is sure armageddon is right around the corner and stockpiles weapons and ammo. When armageddon doesn`t come fast enough, he starts his own.

I fear people who sell their guns to criminals when they need a few bucks.
0
Reply
Male 8,557
FellatioFan-[quote]The law of the land is "District of Columbia v. Heller"[/quote]
Please try to keep up, HolyGod asked specifically why that particular phrase was included in the 2nd Amendment when it was written.
0
Reply
Male 8,557
FellatioFan-[quote]Your pulled-from-your-ass definition of "militia" or "well regulated"[/quote]
I`m sorry, I didn`t realize actually researching the definitions of words and phrases as they were actually writtin, from the time they were writtin, was `pulling-it-from-your-ass`.

So, which definition do you dissagree with?
That in 1789 the term `militia` meant all able-bodied white males aged 18 to 45 not in jail? Or
That `well regulated` meant `in proper working order`.
0
Reply
Male 8,557
HolyGod-[quote]Means this: [/quote]
This is what the 2nd Amendment means.
There are two clauses (prefatory and operative). The prefatory clause sets the table and lays out the driving purpose, and the operative clause gets the actual work done.

First clause:
A well regulated (an effective and proficient) militia (all white males aged 18 to 45, who were healthy and not in jail) being necessary (required) to the security (safety) of a free state (the US).

Second clause:
the right (not `a` right, but THE right) of the people (who? the people. not cops, not military, `the people`) to keep and bear arms (possess, carry, train with and use weapons and ammo) shall not be infringed (the government cannot take away).
0
Reply
Male 995
@McGovern, I`m sorry that I`m not able to post a pretty totally "unbiased" picture to give a random example as an answer but, for instance:

How Spain protects school children: No Guns
School shooting deaths in the past 18 years: 0
And 18 years comes from this page General bla de bla on bang bangs, I believe you could go back pretty much to the Civil War (1936 to 1939, by the way)

Not that I`d consider changing your mind on the subject, have all the guns you wish for all I care, but at least try to put forward real arguments and not this blatant demagoguery.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
McGovern1981

The Israel / teacher / gun thing is a myth. Don`t pass around myths. Do your research.

myth
0
Reply
Male 9,769
Megrendel

"Because the phrase `well-regulated militia` means they wanted `functioning militia`."

So in your eyes this:

"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."

Means this:

A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And they are completely unrelated?
0
Reply
Male 58
MeGrendel: And you can point to this requirement in the Second Amendment?

Nobody said there was. We`re just pointing out that the T-shirt logic employed here is idiotic.

MeGrendel: "Well regulated militia."

Bullpoo. The law of the land is "District of Columbia v. Heller" which actually states that the 2nd amendment DOES confer an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms. It also concludes that the right is not ulimited. Before blathering further, read the decision, or at least the wii version.

Your pulled-from-your-ass definition of "militia" or "well regulated" has no part in this. heller is the law of the land - you probably actually like the heller ruling, but for the love of peter don`t just pull nonsense explanations out of your arsehole.
0
Reply
Male 8,557
RdDan-[quote]Americans should be allowed [/quote]
We are not `allowed` guns. Our right is `recognized` in our Bill or rights, into which our founders wisely set down `shall not be infringed`.

RdDan-[quote]take them on holiday[/quote]
Americans do not go `on holiday`. We take vacations.

RdDan-[quote]I just don`t think you should be allowed any ammunition.[/quote]
That`s covered in the 2nd Amendment, too. `the right of the people to keep and bear Arms`.

Arms - /ärmz/ - [noun]: 1) weapons and ammunition; armaments.

Sarcasm aside, if you can`t understand basic definitions please stay out of the discussion.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
BTW don`t they already have armed police officers at schools in the ghetto?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@HolyGod

We don`t seem to have a problem paying for that for politicians.
0
Reply
Male 8,557
HolyGod-[quote]what do you think the point of "a well regulated militia" phrase was?[/quote]
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before the 2nd Amendment was written, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

Oversight or regulations governing has nothing to do with the term `Well Regulated`.

HolyGod-[quote]Why is it even in there? [/quote]
Because the phrase `well-regulated militia` means they wanted `functioning militia`.
0
Reply
Male 2,694
Ahhh, more reasoned argument from across the pond. Don`t worry. The next time things go south over there the US will help save your bacon again. You`re welcome.
0
Reply
Male 759
I think you Americans should be allowed as many and as varied a collection of guns as you wish.

You should be allowed to carry them openly, take them on holiday, sleep with them under your pillow, wave them out the window whilst driving to work.

You should have a designated break in the day where you all huddle up and discuss guns and how much you love them.
You should be able to declare loudly and possibly in allcaps that gun ownership is in you constitution and your country is the only one out of nearly 200 that is actually free.

You should be free to declare in a rational and well researched way that countries without gun ownership are all hellholes with criminals staging home invasions nightly and without resistance from homeowners or law enforcement.

I just don`t think you should be allowed any ammunition.
0
Reply
Male 414
Who said anything about it being an armed "police officer"? Just someone with a gun, anyone apparently, will do...as long as we`ve been assured (somehow) that the person isn`t mentally "abnormal" or a criminal.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
MeGrendel

"And you can point to this requirement in the Second Amendment?"

If you think the second amendment simply means that every american should have a gun whether they have had any training whatsoever or have any idea what they are doing, what do you think the point of "a well regulated militia" phrase was? Why is it even in there?
0
Reply
Male 9,769
Real quick question.

Are conservatives OK raising taxes so that there is an armed police officer in every school in america?

I can`t think of a single time I have heard anyone say they are against having armed police officers in schools, however considering my kids` school can`t afford copy paper and has to asks parents to donate it, I don`t know where you guys think their salary is going to come from.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]The president DOESN`T rely on well intentioned armed strangers to protect him[/quote]

ROFL! Yes he has a close personal friendship with all his secret service agents. So what you`re trying to say is politicians should have people with guns around to protect them but everyday citizens shouldn`t be able to have one for their own protection because sopmehow now it doesn`t protect them....unlike the politicians.
0
Reply
Male 8,557
jbwhite-[quote]trained professionals who have undergone vigorous training do[/quote]
And you can point to this requirement in the Second Amendment?

Draculya-[quote]Try bringing a gun to meet the president.[/quote]
John Hinckley, Jr.

7eggert-[quote]If you want to handle a gun...*followed by BS*[/quote]
None of which are requirements to exercise your rights.
0
Reply
Male 2,694
[quote]a `gun free zone` means no guns except by those law enforcement officers explicitly authorized to carry them. it doesn`t mean `no defense.`[/quote]

And when there aren`t any "good guys" packin` in the area some nut has free reign to get busy with his gun. The old adage applies...when seconds count the cops are only minutes away.

I keep hearing that people want guns because they are afraid. It`s not really that. It`s about simply being prepared. I take a tent camping not because I`m afraid to sleep outside. It`s just more comfortable especially if it rains.

Loo you say you walk the streets of the world without fear. That leads me to the conclusion that you don`t fear bad guys with guns. Fine. So why do you fear good guys with guns?
0
Reply
Male 7,941
@Xprez no reason for courts and murder laws. I mean criminals are just going to break them anyways......Better you are judge jury and executioner with no punishment for your bad decisions. That sounds like a fun world
0
Reply
Male 414
@Shelworth: Shh...people are still avoiding Lauriloo`s funding comment too much to talk about from where the education comes.
0
Reply
Male 58
holy poo this is idiotic. a `gun free zone` means no guns except by those law enforcement officers explicitly authorized to carry them. it doesn`t mean `no defense.` The president DOESN`T rely on well intentioned armed strangers to protect him. I`m not anti-gun, but only idiots would fall for the rhetoric of this stupid t-shirt "logic."
0
Reply
Male 502
Drugs? We need education.
Drunk driving? We need education.
Smoking? We need education.
Sex? We need education.
Guns? Holy Crap!, don`t touch, don`t look, don`t even think about those evil things!
0
Reply
Male 17,511
If President Obama thinks guns are so bad, why doesn`t he just sign an executive order disarming his bodyguards?
0
Reply
Male 1,983
Can`t say as there were many teachers I had that, in hindsight, should EVER be let -near- a firearm in public.

Talk about an epidemic of school kids getting shot!
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Soooo, gun owners are pre-cogs who could have shot him BEFORE he shot those people?[/quote]
Soooo, your solution is to wait till the shooter runs out of bullets, hope that he doesn`t shoot you, and then fight him barehanded?

You go ahead. I`ll hold your coat.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
I have to hit the hay. All of you arguing for 2nd Amendment rights for responsible adults try not to kill anyone in a fit or rage or incite a riot in here tonight, OK? :-)
0
Reply
Female 6,381
We have (or had) signs at the main entrance routes into the city reading "Welcome to Vancouver, a nuclear weapons free zone." Of course, it meant nothing, because US Navy ships refuse to disclose if they`re packing nukes when they come to port. They bring them into our port if they feel like it, and no sign is going to make them go away.
Seems kinda parallel to warnings of "gun free zones," dunnit?
0
Reply
Female 1,803
"...AFTER he shot 18 people killing 6."

Soooo, gun owners are pre-cogs who could have shot him BEFORE he shot those people? How many seconds does it take to shoot 18 people with a 9mm Glock? Glad someone mentioned the chaos making it impossible for someone with a gun to shoot him first. Really trying to understand your point.
0
Reply
Male 29
Everyone who bothers to debate whether something should be legal or not legal is completely missing the point of how our injustice system works.

Without the Criminals their would be no point for the Judges, IRS, Tax Collectors, Civilian`s on Patrol to exist.

The ones who run this Injustice System have to use the criminals to fill us with fear. Really guys you kill a criminal inside your house and you have to report it to them so they can investigate and throw you in jail for being a victim? Then it is your burden to prove you acted rationally defending yourself or YOUR FAMILY?

Wake up I-am-Bored readers this isn`t about criminals this is about the injustice system scaring us into HIGHER TAXES so they can line their pockets and not give the real heros" Civilians on Patrol better pay.

Better Idea would be to Legalize everything and punish based on the idea of YOU ACTUALLY HURT A PERSON PHYSICALLY,EMOTIONALLY THAT ISN`T ATTEMPTING TO HURT YOU,
0
Reply
Female 1,803
No, they got their guns because liberal idiots like you emptied out the mental institutions because they supposedly violated the "human rights" of dangerously insane people."

Actually it is the lack of funding for mental health treatment. Wonder which side fights funding that?
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Patricia Maische stopped Jared Loughner from Reloading[/quote]
...AFTER he shot 18 people killing 6.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@Lauriloo [quote]OldOllie- Didn`t those guys get their guns legally because our gun laws are so lax and owners so careless?[/quote]
No, they got their guns because liberal idiots like you emptied out the mental institutions because they supposedly violated the "human rights" of dangerously insane people.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Tupinambis: I suspect you wrote your post for humorous effect; unfortunately, it could be interpreted as a threat. Please show better judgment going forward.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@lauriloo [quote]But the fact that the gunman had to stop and reload a normal-size magazine, giving someone in the crowd time to tackle him and stop him from shooting more people, worked great. You pretty much walked into that one![/quote]

"On January 8, 2011, U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and eighteen others were shot during a constituent meeting held in a supermarket parking lot in Casas Adobes, Arizona, in the Tucson metropolitan area. Six people died, including federal District Court Chief Judge John Roll; Gabe Zimmerman, one of Rep. Giffords` staffers; and a nine-year-old girl, Christina-Taylor Green."

Yeah, that worked out REALLY GREAT! F***ing liberal idiot.
0
Reply
Female 1,803
OldOllie- Didn`t those guys get their guns legally because our gun laws are so lax and owners so careless?
0
Reply
Female 1,803
"Dedicated pro-gun control Congresswoman Gabby Giffords shot in the head in a Gun Free Zone.
That strategy didn`t work too well."

But the fact that the gunman had to stop and reload a normal-size magazine, giving someone in the crowd time to tackle him and stop him from shooting more people, worked great. You pretty much walked into that one!
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Turdburglar: I don`t know if you were right. I was so stunned by the abuse in your first comment I wasn`t able to process the points you were making. And I`m not asking for "nice" in these threads; basic civility, even frosty civility, will do fine.
0
Reply
Female 1,803
Aw, gee, I guess I missed another pearl of wisdom from the far right.

P.S. I routinely travel alone all over the US, Mexico and Europe. I`ve walked alone at night in Manhattan, Berlin, Paris, Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis, Cancun, Barcelona, Rome, Prague, Athens, London, Edinburgh, etc. etc. NO PROBLEM. I feel sorry for people so crippled by fear they can`t fully function in the world without a delusional belief that owning a gun will protect them.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Criminals are normal people.[/quote]
0
Reply
Male 1,152
@zeggert

Posting arrest rates is not a sound argument here. Many people argue that the police are over ambitious and hassle innocent citizens. Conviction percentages would be more accurate.
0
Reply
Male 4,891

Squirlz - You know I`m right, but I should have been nicer.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
...and then call someone with a gun when it`s too late.

Actually, Gerry, I think the Giffords shooting was the ONLY multiple-victim public shooting in the last 50 years that DIDN`T take place in a gun-free zone. One of the attendees had a concealed handgun and might have stopped it sooner, but he said he was too far away, and he couldn`t get a clear shot, because too many people in the crowd were too f***ing stupid to hit the dirt when the shooting started.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Turdburglar: Thanks for the self-deletes. I appreciate it. :-)
0
Reply
Male 4,891

Ok, squirlz, you`re right. I will censor myself.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Turdburglar: "Just face it lauriloo... [remainder of statement deleted because I don`t want to repeat it even by quoting it]."

C`mon, Turdburglar. You aren`t going to win any debates by being abusive like that. I`m pretty open to both sides of the gun control argument, but when you go off like that, you lose me as a sympathetic reader.

Take it down a notch or two, please.
0
Reply
Male 567
@lauriloo
Please stay in your house. It`s for your own safety. Well, you know, there are people with guns out and about. Especially near local voting centers and other areas where you might have influence on the future of this here, the greatest nation, the USA.
0
Reply
Male 39,948

Dedicated pro-gun control Congresswoman Gabby Giffords shot in the head in a Gun Free Zone.
That strategy didn`t work too well.
0
Reply
Male 406
@turdburglar: You sound like somebody who hasn`t got his temper under control. I wouldn`t trust you not to shoot somebody in anger. Doy you trust yourself?

BTW: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/06/half-of-blacks-arrested-23_n_4549620.html
"By age 23, 49 percent of black males, 44 percent of Hispanic males and 38 percent of white males have been arrested."

If you declare criminals to be "not normal persons", you`re allowing yourself to treat them badly, just like the Nazis allowed themselves to kill the Jews, just like your ancestors allowed themselves to kill Native Americans. Same "excuse".
0
Reply
Male 406
If you want to handle a gun, first get professional training about how to use it and - more important - how to avoid having to use it. Even the professionals get it wrong sometimes, so you shouldn`t expect to magically do the right thing.

Besides that, keep them safe. They aren`t toys for your children to play with, nor to use in momentary anger or out of frustration. The aren`t ego-boosters to carry around and get into a fight either. They are a responsibility.

PS: Most people won`t shoot you if they don`t feat to be shot first.
0
Reply
Male 1,744
"Laws don`t affect criminals, they are CRIMINALS for a reason. These laws only make it harder for normal people to own a gun."

Criminals are normal people.
0
Reply
Male 2,694

0
Reply
Female 1,803
"Laws don`t affect criminals, they are CRIMINALS for a reason. These laws only make it harder for normal people to own a gun. "

Most mass killers don`t start out as criminals so that argument doesn`t mean anything. And since one of the most common ways criminals get guns is by getting non-criminals to buy them for them, it`s not a bad thing to make it harder for non-criminals to get guns.
0
Reply
Male 4,891

There are laws to protect your house, car and other possessions from being lost or stolen, yet you don`t hesitate to buy insurance...because laws don`t stop criminals.

Be responsible.
0
Reply
Male 701
you can use that analogy on any thing.
0
Reply
Male 39,948
0
Reply
Male 40,764
@jbwhite: Cops are still humans, they make mistakes just like everyone else.

And criminals rarely obey "no guns" signs...
0
Reply
Male 676
Yeah well, who defends us when the "trained professionals" are 10 minutes away and you only have 30 seconds to react to a home invasion?
Laws don`t affect criminals, they are CRIMINALS for a reason. These laws only make it harder for normal people to own a gun. Most of these people that shoot up places had several warning signs that they were about to do something crazy. That`s what we need to crack down on, the warning signs
0
Reply
Male 15,271
All the above are gun free zones with the exception of sworn law enforcement.

Try bringing a gun to meet the president.
0
Reply
Male 414
Yes, because every law enforcement officer is a rights-stealing, evidence planting, murderous criminal. But hey, by that logic, every teacher and priest must be a child molester; every person from Canada must be a Justin Bieber sympathizer, maple syrup addict and socialist; and every male from the southern US is a fat bastard racist that married his sister and drives a `69 Charger. I mean, if we are throwing blankets around covering an entire demographic. We are doing that, right?
0
Reply
Male 3,213
Professionals who`ve undergone vigorous training on how to circumvent our rights, plant evidence and beat folks while "Acting in accordance with their training, and within departmental guidelines".
I`d druther keep my guns, thank you all the same.
0
Reply
Female 1,803
"we dont, trained professionals who have undergone vigorous training do."

Exactly.
0
Reply
Male 2,694
In before the leftist poop storm.
0
Reply
Male 1,292
we dont, trained professionals who have undergone vigorous training do.
0
Reply
Male 938
Link: Guns Defend... [Pic] [Rate Link] - ... Not enough.
0
Reply