what motivates a man to be anti-gun?

[Dale Mabry]

So plutonium should be readily available to any group of people since it can be used for nuclear power, which is legal? No, it is regulated to prevent an idiot from getting their hands on it, which is sort of the point of most laws.

 

[DOMS]

So plutonium should be readily available to any group of people since it can be used for nuclear power, which is legal? No, it is regulated to prevent an idiot from getting their hands on it, which is sort of the point of most laws.

I didn't know that there's a recreational use for plutonium.

 

[Witmaster]

go forth and vote pro-gun

go forth and vote pro-gun

 

[maniclion]

At the age of 14 I had a semi-auto .22 rifle and a .410 shotgun both kept in my room and I was allowed to wander off into the woods with either one or both at any time. I was also allowed to take my dads .22 pistol with me in the woods. So I would have the shotgun slung across my back, .22 rifle in hand and pistol holstered on my belt. I killed many a snake, squirrel and rabbit for my dad and uncle to eat. I had 3 different shot for the .410 from quail, buck to slugs. My dad made me practice with the slugs all the time. His theory was if could hit something at least half decent with a slug, I could be dead on accurate with a rifle.

My idea of gun control:
[SIZE=-1]BRASS - Breathe-Relax-Aim-Sight-Squeeze[/SIZE]

 

[Witmaster]

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.

Ok, Like ALBOB, I see your point but you are drawing the conclusion on an assumption that I was in favor of the censorship following the JJ wardrobe "malfunction". Like you, i was appaulled at the knee-jerk reaction of the hyperconservative holier-than-everyone else.

There are two (maybe three) arguements being presented here, One side is all for the wholesale bannishment of firearms alltogether. The other side is steadfastly in favor of every American's God-given right to own a 30mm Vulcan Cannon in his living room for home defense. The 3rd group doesn't seem to care either way but, like many, simply base their opinion on what "feels" warm and fuzzy at the moment.

Now, I'm not going to go all out and be so outrageous that i would demand the right to own a 30mm cannon but I'm sure as hell drawing the line at 20mm.

 

[maniclion]

Ok, Like ALBOB, I see your point but you are drawing the conclusion on an assumption that I was in favor of the censorship following the JJ wardrobe "malfunction". Like you, i was appaulled at the knee-jerk reaction of the hyperconservative holier-than-everyone else.

There are two (maybe three) arguements being presented here, One side is all for the wholesale bannishment of firearms alltogether. The other side is steadfastly in favor of every American's God-given right to own a 30mm Vulcan Cannon in his living room for home defense. The 3rd group doesn't seem to care either way but, like many, simply base their opinion on what "feels" warm and fuzzy at the moment.

Now, I'm not going to go all out and be so outrageous that i would demand the right to own a 30mm cannon but I'm sure as hell drawing the line at 20mm.

My neighbors in Houston owned a cuople little cannons in their backyard, every New Year and July 4th we would pack them with powder and wad and BAAAAOOOOOMMMMMM
more fun than fireworks especially the time we laid out a whole army camp with plastic men and aimed the cannons toward it and foooom like nuclear strikes.....!!!!1

 

[clemson357]

So plutonium should be readily available to any group of people since it can be used for nuclear power, which is legal? No, it is regulated to prevent an idiot from getting their hands on it, which is sort of the point of most laws.

I grow weary of going in circles.

Think whatever you want. An assault weapon is exactly the same as plenty of other semi-automatic rifles, except it has nonfunctional features such as a bayonet lug. They are used in less than 1% gun of crime; that was true before, during, and after the ban. Most crimes that they are used in could be accomplished with any gun; the rest could be accomplished with basically any weapon that has a detachable clip. Banning them didn't cause crime to go down. If all that logic does nothing for you, there isn't much else I can do. If banning things that look scary is your perrogative, don't let logic stand in your way. For that matter, we might as well do away with antiquated ideas like liberty and freedom from governmental intrusion.

 

[goandykid]

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.

For one, you have to be joking to come out with a "you started it" point, an incorrect one at that. I'm the most unintelligent person you've ever met, right?

Secondly, my post wasn't complicated, at least to the majority of the non-retarded population. I was pointing out your terrible, lop-sided analogy.

Not exactly complicated Clemson, now pay up.

 

[goandykid]

go forth and vote pro-gungo forth and vote pro-gun

EDIT: Shame it doesnt double quote those pictures.

 

[clemson357]

For one, you have to be joking to come out with a "you started it" point, an incorrect one at that. I'm the most unintelligent person you've ever met, right?

Secondly, my post wasn't complicated, at least to the majority of the non-retarded population. I was pointing out your terrible, lop-sided analogy.

Not exactly complicated Clemson, now pay up.

Your posts are so far below any level of intelligence worthy of responding to that it is actually humorous.

 

[goandykid]

Your posts are so far below any level of intelligence worthy of responding to that it is actually humorous.

I love how you take debates so far into left field that people forget what they're even talking about. Thanks for proving my point once again. You sir, really are a true genius.

 

[Witmaster]

I love how you take debates so far into left field that people forget what they're even talking about. Thanks for proving my point once again. You sir, really are a true genius.

He's PRO-GUN, Jackass. Get it straight. It's RIGHT field

 

[goandykid]

He's PRO-GUN, Jackass. Get it straight. It's RIGHT field

 

[clemson357]

Maybe I'll try using animated smiley faces in my posts. Does that make them easier for you to understand? It is doubtful, as you have entirely missed the substance of nearly everything that has been said in this thread.

 

[goandykid]

Maybe I'll try using animated smiley faces in my posts. Does that make them easier for you to understand? It is doubtful, as you have entirely missed the substance of nearly everything that has been said in this thread.

Screw the outfield, you're somewhere in the parking lot at this point. Just STFU when you know your moment is gone.

 

[clemson357]

Why don't we start with something simple:

What makes an analogy between a car and a gun inherently inappropriate? You may recall that this is an assertion that you have made.

In discussing this question you may want to consider that the analogy was designed to illustrate that inanimate objects that are dangerous yet have both legal and illegal applications are not to blame for the actions of humans.

 

[goandykid]

Why don't we start with something simple:

What makes an analogy between a car and a gun inherently inappropriate? You may recall that this is an assertion that you have made.

In discussing this question you may want to consider that the analogy was designed to illustrate that inanimate objects that are dangerous yet have both legal and illegal applications are not to blame for the actions of humans.

And then I very simply asked when the last time a crack addict broke into your home attempting to kill your family, and when the last time you drove a car was.

I was pointing out the biased discrepancy in the analogy, and then you went from slightly rude clemson to douche bag clemson in a span of about 30 seconds.

 

[clemson357]

And then I very simply asked when the last time a crack addict broke into your home attempting to kill your family, and when the last time you drove a car was.

I was pointing out the biased discrepancy in the analogy, and then you went from slightly rude clemson to douche bag clemson in a span of about 30 seconds.

I recall what you said, although thank you for reiterating it as if it adds something to this conversation. The hypothetical about a crack addict was designed to illustrate that killing someone is a legal thing for a civilian to do in certain situations. Do you understand the legal truth that people are allowed to defend themselves with deadly force in certain situations? Thats all I was trying to point out. Can you grasp it, or not?

 

[goandykid]

I recall what you said, although thank you for reiterating it as if it adds something to this conversation. The hypothetical about a crack addict was designed to illustrate that killing someone is a legal thing for a civilian to do. Do you understand the legal truth that people are allowed to defend themselves with deadly force in certain situations? Thats all I was trying to point out. Can you grasp it, or not?

Completely and utterly grasped, sir. I had no problem with that point, my problem was with your terrible analogy. Comparing an everyday event like driving a car with a murderous b&e crack addict is just plain awful.

 

[clemson357]

Completely and utterly grasped, sir. I had no problem with that point, my problem was with your terrible analogy. Comparing an everyday event like driving a car with a murderous b&e crack addict is just plain awful.

Like it or not, self defense is necessary. It happens every single day. People legally defend themselves with guns 2.5 million times each year. Your subjective opinion on whether or not that is "awful" is completely irrelevant and adds nothing to the conversation.

 

[goandykid]

Like it or not, self defense is necessary. It happens every single day. People legally defend themselves with guns 2.5 million times each year. Your subjective opinion on whether or not that is "awful" is completely irrelevant and adds nothing to the conversation.

When did this turn into Clemson's doctrine on gun defense and stop being a conversation? It was a terrible analogy and I pointed it out. Get over it.

 

[clemson357]

The fact that you cannot come up with anything substantive about the analogy to detract from it illustrates that it is not a terrible analogy.

You pointing out that people driving cars is an occurrence that happens more than people defending themselves with guns illustrates nothing. It is a trivial distinction. You might as well be pointing out that cars run on gasoline and guns do not; it adds nothing to the debate.

 

[goandykid]

The fact that you cannot come up with anything substantive about the analogy to detract from it illustrates that it is not a terrible analogy.

You pointing out that people driving cars is an occurrence that happens more than people defending themselves with guns illustrates nothing. It is a trivial distinction. You might as well be pointing out that cars run on gasoline and guns do not; it adds nothing to the debate.

Okay, who's not reading posts now? Read back where I mentioned how one is an everyday occurrence and the other rarely, if ever, happens. Either you don't know what detract means or you have short-term memory loss.

 

[clemson357]

2.5 million times per year = "rarely, if ever"

I am glad we have that clarified.

 

[goandykid]

2.5 million times per year = "rarely, if ever"

I am glad we have that clarified.

gun use = crack addict breaking into your home trying to kill you

I'm glad we have that clarified.

 

[goandykid]

That 2.5 million times could be anything, and you still never linked it.

 

[clemson357]

It is an EXAMPLE OF A DEFENSIVE GUN USE THAT IS LEGAL. Is it really that difficult to understand.

Guns and cars both have legal and illegal applications. I gave examples of all four: legal uses of guns, illegal uses of guns, legal uses of cars, illegal uses of cars. That is the point of the analogy.

 

[goandykid]

I completely understand your analogy, that doesn't change the fact that it was a bad one. The fact that you can't respond with a better analogy but instead get frustrated and keep repeating yourself really speaks for your own intelligence.

 

[clemson357]

So let me see if I have this straight. I made an analogy. It was directed at one specific point. It illustrates that point. In fact, the point is definitely true. And you understand the analogy, and you understand that what it illustrates is true. However, it is a bad analogy and I am stupid for not thinking of another one.

 

[clemson357]

Clemson357: Dogs are similar to cats in that they both have four legs

Goandykid: Yes, but cats meow and dogs bark

Clemson357: That really isn't relevant, what I am trying to illustrate here is that dogs and cats both have four legs

Goandykid: Yes, and I said your analogy is a bad one because cats meow and dogs bark

Clemson357: I am not asserting that cats are the same as dogs. I am directing analogy at one specific point, the fact that they both have four legs.

Goandykid: Yes. I admit that your analogy is correct. I admit that the point you are making is true. I admit that your analogy illustrates the single and only point you are trying to make. However, your analogy is a bad one because cats meow and dogs bark. The fact that you can't come up with a better analogy means you are stupid.