what motivates a man to be anti-gun?

[zombul]

BOTTOM LINE; I should not be deprived of a firearm because some other dumbass makes a mistake.You don't make more gun laws you have stiffer sentences for people who break the law in every aspect of life.

 

[maniclion]

Living in Hawaii and with 5 dogs I see no need for a gun since gun violence is low here. If I lived elsewhere I would probably have holsters screwed under a table or behind a bookshelf in a few rooms, and of course everyone in my family would go to the target range every month at least. You guys know me I am very liberal, but the liber in my liberal means liberties.

 

[Dale Mabry]

What? Are you drunk? Seriously, what are you talking about?

We are granted certain rights. The government is in place to PROTECT those rights, not take them away. For the government to step in and take away any of our rights it's supposed to have a damn good reason.

I'm hoping you see the absolute lunacy in this comparison? I mean, come on, Dale!

That's like saying Condoms should be illegal because sexual assault is illegal.

No it's not, it is a line that is drawn by the gov't. it just so happens that this line is drawn over something you care about. Me, I don't care about guns, but when ole Uncle Sam decided he needed to start censoring everything after Janet Jackson exposed that nasty nipple, I thought it was shit. I personally believe abortions should be legal, but regulated, just like guns.

I agree the gov't shouldn't be taking rights away, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere on most issues or people will abuse a priviledge, and that is what the gov;t is there for. The gov't is supposed to be a representation of what the people believe.

 

[ALBOB]

No it's not, it is a line that is drawn by the gov't. it just so happens that this line is drawn over something you care about. Me, I don't care about guns, but when ole Uncle Sam decided he needed to start censoring everything after Janet Jackson exposed that nasty nipple, I thought it was shit. I personally believe abortions should be legal, but regulated, just like guns.

I agree the gov't shouldn't be taking rights away, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere on most issues or people will abuse a priviledge, and that is what the gov;t is there for. The gov't is supposed to be a representation of what the people believe.

Okay, when you phrase it that way I understand what you're talking about. That other post sounded like you were chanelling Reverend Jim.

Yes, we agree, the government should establish reasonable limits on certain activities. But, as I've already stated, if they are inclined to set a limit on ANYTHING, they better have a damn good reason. Not just, "because we don't see a need for it."

 

[clemson357]

Don't worry Wit, I'll be the first to admit I don't know much about this topic and I'm not going to be blindly biased on one side or the other. Having said that, Brady Bill or not, I still think we need harsher gun laws. No reason why assault rifles should be purchasable.

There are two common traits that link almost everyone I have ever talked to that supports gun control:
1.) they have very very little, if any, actual experience with guns
2.) they are very uninformed on virtually everything to do with the topic: the current laws, past laws, the way a gun works, how to distinguish different types of guns, historic trends between gun control and crime rates, etc., etc.
You have done nothing but confirm that.



Remember when the Brady Bill lapsed in 2004? Remember all the press it got? The liberal media predicted that the streets would run red with blood. Most people you talked to didn't even know that an "assault weapon" is a semi-automatic weapon, they thought it was a machine gun. 10 months after the Brady Bill lapsed, violent crime was down 3.6% according to FBI stats. You wouldn't know it though, the media didn't cover that at all. You also wouldn't know that even before the Brady Bill, "assault weapons" were used in less than 1% of all gun crimes.

The Brady Bill is was a symbolic victory by people who oppose the civilian right to own a firearm, nothing more.

 

[clemson357]

The intent of a car is transportation, the intent of a gun is to shoot something. If you take alcohol out of the equation for both, one is meant to kill, the other to get people places. I suppose a case could be made for both in sport, but I don't know of any sport that uses assault rifles.

Also, "just because someone doesn't see a need for something doesn't mean it should be illegal" can be used for anything. That is what the gov't is for.

The "intent," or purpose of a car is to go from point A to point B. The purpose of a gun is to kill. Both purposes are legal in some contexts and illegal in others.

When a crack addict breaks into your home in the middle of the night and is posing a threat to you and your family, killing is legal and a gun is the best tool for the job.

When someone is paroled and cannot leave the State, or is drunk and not allowed to drive, or is underage, or is fleaing the police after committing a crime, etc., traveling from point A to point B in a car can be illegal. So when it happens, why don't people blame it on the car the way they blame murder on guns?

 

[ALBOB]

Remember when the Brady Bill lapsed in 2004? Remember all the press it got? The liberal media predicted that the streets would run red with blood. Most people you talked to didn't even know that an "assault weapon" is a semi-automatic weapon, they thought it was a machine gun. 10 months after the Brady Bill lapsed, violent crime was down 3.6% according to FBI stats. You wouldn't know it though, the media didn't cover that at all.

Oddly enough, the same thing happens every time a city gets ready to pass a right to carry law. The press wails about people getting gunned down in the middle of the street in broad daylight. But in every case, crime rates have gone down. Gee, I wonder why that is.

 

[Dale Mabry]

The "intent," or purpose of a car is to go from point A to point B. The purpose of a gun is to kill. Both purposes are legal in some contexts and illegal in others.

When a crack addict breaks into your home in the middle of the night and is posing a threat to you and your family, killing is legal and a gun is the best tool for the job.

When someone is paroled and cannot leave the State, or is drunk and not allowed to drive, or is underage, or is fleaing the police after committing a crime, etc., traveling from point A to point B in a car can be illegal. So when it happens, why don't people blame it on the car the way they blame murder on guns?

There are an infinitely higher number of circumstances where it is legal to go from point A to point B than to kill.

 

[clemson357]

Oddly enough, the same thing happens every time a city gets ready to pass a right to carry law. The press wails about people getting gunned down in the middle of the street in broad daylight. But in every case, crime rates have gone down. Gee, I wonder why that is.

Most people also have no idea that concealed carry permits are issued in 48 states (I think that is right, its somewhere around there). Every single day you encounter citizens than are lawfully carrying guns, and you have no idea. It is the people who are going to carry guns whether it is legal or not that you need to worry about, not the ones who through the trouble to get a permit.

 

[goandykid]

And that's a reason to make something illegal? What's the highest speed limit in the country? Why does anybody need an automobile that can go faster than that? Expecially considering that automobiles kill far greater numbers of people than guns to do every year.

Please don't take this as a slam, it's not meant to be. Just because YOU don't see a need for something shouldn't be a criteria for it being made illegal. I happen to own a couple of very expensive rifles that would definitely be considered assault rifles. I have a great deal of fun with them going to organized matches and pitting my long range rifle skills against other shooters. So there's definitely a place for them in the public.

Not taken as a slam at all, I understand your point. However, a competing long range rifleman is different from Average Joe in DC getting one as easily.

You can own as many as you want, I trust you have all your licenses in order and are experienced, and not on edge. To obtain an assault rifle I PERSONALLY BELIEVE that should be a lot harder to obtain.

 

[DOMS]

BOTTOM LINE; I should not be deprived of a firearm because some other dumbass makes a mistake.

This should apply to everything.

 

[clemson357]

There are an infinitely higher number of circumstances where it is legal to go from point A to point B than to kill.

And this is where the conversation digresses into absurdity.

You can point out all the trivial distinctions you want, it doesn't change anything. Cars kill more people than guns. Guns are designed to kill. Cars are used to break more laws than guns. Traveling in a car is more often legal than killing with a gun. Cars are bigger than guns. Cars come in a variety of colors, guns do not. Guns are less expensive than cars generally. Cars have four wheels, guns have triggers. None of those facts change anything. Guns and cars are both inanimate objects. They are both tools that people manipulate. Both can be used for legal applications, or illegal ones. When a crime occurs, you can blame it on an inanimate object, or you can blame it on the person.


[Btw, guns are used 2.5 million times each year by law abiding citizens to defend themselves. Obviously not as often as cars are driven, but I bet it was a lot more than you thought.]

 

[goandykid]

When a crack addict breaks into your home in the middle of the night and is posing a threat to you and your family, killing is legal and a gun is the best tool for the job.

Remember the last thread we argued in, and I said that you basically gave the argument away? You make the worst points, you're lucky Wit and Albob are carrying your views well.

Oh yea, when was the last time you drove a car, and then when was the last time a crack addict broke into your home in the middle of the night and tried to kill your family?

 

[goandykid]

There are two common traits that link almost everyone I have ever talked to that supports gun control:
1.) they have very very little, if any, actual experience with guns
2.) they are very uninformed on virtually everything to do with the topic: the current laws, past laws, the way a gun works, how to distinguish different types of guns, historic trends between gun control and crime rates, etc., etc.
You have done nothing but confirm that.



Remember when the Brady Bill lapsed in 2004? Remember all the press it got? The liberal media predicted that the streets would run red with blood. Most people you talked to didn't even know that an "assault weapon" is a semi-automatic weapon, they thought it was a machine gun. 10 months after the Brady Bill lapsed, violent crime was down 3.6% according to FBI stats. You wouldn't know it though, the media didn't cover that at all. You also wouldn't know that even before the Brady Bill, "assault weapons" were used in less than 1% of all gun crimes.

The Brady Bill is was a symbolic victory by people who oppose the civilian right to own a firearm, nothing more.

The majority of the people that have uber experience with guns are going to be pro gun...Thats why they use them so much.

That's like saying a priest can't wail against condoms b/c he never used them.

 

[Dale Mabry]

This should apply to everything.

I would agree with this...

Abortion, listen to/watch porn on any channel I want at any time, no censorship on the radio, etc. Unfortunately, people are stupid and will use abortion as contraception, not prevent their kids from watching/listening to questionable material. And now that society rewards stupidity with multi-million dollar lawsuits, we are doomed.

 

[goandykid]

No it's not, it is a line that is drawn by the gov't. it just so happens that this line is drawn over something you care about. Me, I don't care about guns, but when ole Uncle Sam decided he needed to start censoring everything after Janet Jackson exposed that nasty nipple, I thought it was shit. I personally believe abortions should be legal, but regulated, just like guns.

I agree the gov't shouldn't be taking rights away, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere on most issues or people will abuse a priviledge, and that is what the gov;t is there for. The gov't is supposed to be a representation of what the people believe.

Good post. That nipple really was nasty.

 

[DOMS]

There are two common traits that link almost everyone I have ever talked to that supports gun control:
1.) they have very very little, if any, actual experience with guns
2.) they are very uninformed on virtually everything to do with the topic: the current laws, past laws, the way a gun works, how to distinguish different types of guns, historic trends between gun control and crime rates, etc., etc.
You have done nothing but confirm that.

Ignorance is a leading cause of dumb-ass laws.

 

[goandykid]

Ignorance is a leading cause of dumb-ass laws.

God damnt, this is where the conversation ends. I keep forgetting what I'm posting w/ those tits waving back and forth in my face.

 

[Dale Mabry]

And this is where the conversation digresses into absurdity.

You can point out all the trivial distinctions you want, it doesn't change anything. Cars kill more people than guns. Guns are designed to kill. Cars are used to break more laws than guns. Traveling in a car is more often legal than killing with a gun. Cars are bigger than guns. Cars come in a variety of colors, guns do not. Guns are less expensive than cars generally. Cars have four wheels, guns have triggers. None of those facts change anything. Guns and cars are both inanimate objects. They are both tools that people manipulate. Both can be used for legal applications, or illegal ones. When a crime occurs, you can blame it on an inanimate object, or you can blame it on the person.


[Btw, guns are used 2.5 million times each year by law abiding citizens to defend themselves. Obviously not as often as cars are driven, but I bet it was a lot more than you thought.]

Those are ridiculous comparisons, of course if you regress the argument as far down and to the smallest detail possible it becomes ridiculous. I don't think for 2 seconds you don;t see the difference between the 2. And, of course you blame it on the person, I have no problem with people having guns, i see no need for assault rifles or something that can mowdown an entire schoolyard in 5 seconds. Tell me how having a gun that can fire 100 rounds in 60 seconds is necessary for any of the 2.5 million instances where someone uses a gun legally to defend themselves each year. I used to hunt, still own 2 hunting rifles, and went clayshooting last year. All good times, and all safe. I don't feel having an assault rifle or any weapon with that capability is safe...I do bet it is fun, though.

 

[DOMS]

God damnt, this is where the conversation ends. I keep forgetting what I'm posting w/ those tits waving back and forth in my face.

 

[clemson357]

Remember the last thread we argued in, and I said that you basically gave the argument away? You make the worst points, you're lucky Wit and Albob are carrying your views well.

Oh yea, when was the last time you drove a car, and then when was the last time a crack addict broke into your home in the middle of the night and tried to kill your family?

You might genuinely be the most unintelligent person I have ever encountered.

What difference do you think your observation makes? I would really be interested in hearing you try to articulate why it matters "the last time I drove a car," and "the last time a crack addict broke into your home in the middle of the night and tried to kill your family." Why don't you ask me when the last time I tried to evade parol, or fled from the cops, or drove drunk, or drove underage? Those examples were used in my post as well. Perhaps the idea of an analogy or an example is beyond you. The fact remains that both guns and cars have legal and illegal applications. Can you wrap your head around that, or do I need to explain it again?

 

[goandykid]

 

[DOMS]

I would agree with this...

Abortion, listen to/watch porn on any channel I want at any time, no censorship on the radio, etc. Unfortunately, people are stupid and will use abortion as contraception, not prevent their kids from watching/listening to questionable material. And now that society rewards stupidity with multi-million dollar lawsuits, we are doomed.

We could always pass a law allowing the hunting of stupid people. Just think of it as the fast track to Darwinism.

 

[goandykid]

You might genuinely be the most unintelligent person I have ever encountered.

What difference do you think your observation makes? I would really be interested in hearing you try to articulate why it matters "the last time I drove a car," and "the last time a crack addict broke into your home in the middle of the night and tried to kill your family." Why don't you ask me when the last time I tried to evade parol, or fled from the cops, or drove drunk, or drove underage? Those examples were used in my post as well. Perhaps the idea of an analogy or an example is beyond you. The fac remains that both guns and cars have legal and illegal applications. Can you wrap your head around that, or do I need to explain it again?

Remember the last thread we argued in and I told you how bad you were at it? Remember when you got flustered b/c you weren't capable of continuing your very simple point, so you lashed out in a hateful manner, making yourself look even more like a complete dipshit?

Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me.

 

[DOMS]

Milk. It does a body good.

 

[goandykid]

We could always pass a law allowing the hunting of stupid people. Just think of it as the fast track to darwinism.

George Carlin did a piece on something like that. Take 4 states noone cares about, fence them off, put people like that in one, murderers in one, sexual predators in one, and I forget what the 4th one was. Then for 10 seconds every month open all the gates between and let them rush through. Then televise it.

 

[Dale Mabry]

We could always pass a law allowing the hunting of stupid people. Just think of it as the fast track to darwinism.

That would never work, the pussy dems wouldn't allow it and it would eliminate most of the middle class so the GOP wouldn't have anyone to tax.

 

[goandykid]

That would never work, the pussy dems wouldn't allow it and it would eliminate most of the middle class so the GOP wouldn't have anyone to tax.

 

[clemson357]

Those are ridiculous comparisons, of course if you regress the argument as far down and to the smallest detail possible it becomes ridiculous. I don't think for 2 seconds you don;t see the difference between the 2. And, of course you blame it on the person, I have no problem with people having guns, i see no need for assault rifles or something that can mowdown an entire schoolyard in 5 seconds. Tell me how having a gun that can fire 100 rounds in 60 seconds is necessary for any of the 2.5 million instances where someone uses a gun legally to defend themselves each year. I used to hunt, still own 2 hunting rifles, and went clayshooting last year. All good times, and all safe. I don't feel having an assault rifle or any weapon with that capability is safe...I do bet it is fun, though.

"Assault weapons" were used in less than 1% of all crimes, even prior to the Brady Bill.

I am not trying to sound condescending here, but do you even know how an assault weapon is defined? It is defined by features like bayonet lugs, pistol grips, and folding stocks. It does not have any higher firing capacity than any other semi-automatic weapon. When was the last time someone was killed with a bayonet??

Moreover, I don't even need to argue that people needs assault weapons. Are you familiar with the concept of liberty? A free society? People should be free to do what they want to do unless they are hurting someone else. Assault weapons are virtually never used in crime, why should they be illegal? You might as well be arguing that Ferraris should be illegal so as to prevent auto-collision fatalities. It just doesn't add up. I have no reason to own an assault rifle, a corvette, a 72'' plasma TV, or a 1957 Gibson Les Paul. I DO NOT NEED THESE THINGS. However, if it isn't hurting you I should be able to own them in any society that values individual liberty.

 

[clemson357]

Remember the last thread we argued in and I told you how bad you were at it? Remember when you got flustered b/c you weren't capable of continuing your very simple point, so you lashed out in a hateful manner, making yourself look even more like a complete dipshit?

Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me.

You are the one who got personal first. If you need a refresher, the scroll bar is on the right hand side of your screen, just scroll up.

Now can you, or can you not, articulate any single meaningful point illustrated by your post: "Oh yea, when was the last time you drove a car, and then when was the last time a crack addict broke into your home in the middle of the night and tried to kill your family?"

I am willing to bet you can't.