PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Abortion, gun control & gay marriage


Ralphy Boy
09-23-2008, 12:40 AM
Okay I realize I'm probably asking for it in posting this and I don't want to step on anyone's views but...here I go.
I'm curious what everyone’s views are on abortion, gun control and gay marriage.
First with abortion. Personally I think it is something that should occur only when the mother is in danger or was a rape/incest victim. I've always viewed the "choice" as having been made once the woman has chosen to have sex. I think it should be more regulated than it is, yet pro-choice advocates say that it shouldn't be monitored. It is not uncommon for a woman to have multiple abortions. It is horrible for their body, but the reality is that it happens with some regularity and if you have friends or family members working at an abortion clinic, they'll tell you that; although they really don't want it to get out. We have a very self centered society and we are getting that way more so every day. People have gotten so self absorbed that they want whats best for them and if a child gets in the way of that then they just run down to the abortion clinic and get it taken care of and that troubles me. The unknown amounts of women that have multiple abortions frightens me. If it was just a one-time thing for a woman who made a really bad mistake, it would be one thing but we have no way of knowing because it isn't monitored.

That leads me to gun control. I have no problem with the government knowing what guns I carry. I think every person that wants to carry a gun should have to apply and pass a background check and the guns should be registered.

Most liberals want to regulate the snot out of gun control and not place any control on abortion. It seems to me that guns have the potential to take a life, while abortion does take a life, so if you're going to monitor one then the other should be at least monitored equally. I thought that democrats were supposed to stand up for the little man, but when that little man is a baby in the belly of a woman, they let their cries fall silent and I don't get that. I realize the number is far higher in the poverty segment of our society and I realize that if they weren't aborted, they'd probably grow up a liberal. My point is that there were 1.21 million abortions in 2005, no matter how you slice it that is 1.21 million lives that were terminated in the US with no record. We're worried about Iraq and our borders and our economy and we talk about it all the time, its on every television station and in every published article yet we say nothing about the babies that can't say anything for themselves. I don't know what that says about our country or our world, but I don't think it says anything good. We take our greatest gift for granted to the point where we don't even discuss it anymore. We're so worried about stem cell research and curing cancer, and those are legitimate issues, but we give no voice to those children. We stand silently by while they die and call it patient privacy.

That brings me to gay marriage, not necessarily that it relates as much, but I have no problem with a gay union. I don't think it should be called "marriage" but they could call it a union and I think that if two people of the same sex want to be legally connected then they should have that right. I don't think it should be called "marriage" because marriage is a religious union between a man and woman and the idea of someone attaching a biblical creation to something that goes against the bible is like saying you’re an atheist but celebrate Christmas. I don't think gay people choose to be that way, granted some might but I think they are what they are and they should be able to have the legal right to express their love for one another.

I also think that as our society evolves, we'll see politicians and many people that share these beliefs.

Thoughts?

SNR
09-23-2008, 12:44 AM
Abortion: Kill babies

Guns: Allow guns and use them to kill babies

Gays: Ban them so there's more straight sex so we can kill more babies

Logical
09-23-2008, 12:53 AM
Your instincts were correct so I will get straight to it.

Dumbass.

Saggysack
09-23-2008, 12:57 AM
All for em.

Mecca
09-23-2008, 01:01 AM
If abortion weren't legal think of how many more stupid people would populate the earth.

Logical
09-23-2008, 01:03 AM
If abortion weren't legal think of how many more stupid people would populate the earth.
Makes me think Ralphy Boy is part of Sarah Palin's religious cult and he is just another poor downe's syndrome child.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-23-2008, 01:08 AM
Makes me think Ralphy Boy is part of Sarah Palin's religious cult and he is just another poor downe's syndrome child.

Can we quickly pass him to another board, then?

SBK
09-23-2008, 01:33 AM
What's funny is the guy posts something about views, not an attack the other guy thread and gets torched. Instant dumbass status is applied and desire for him to leave is requested.

This place is always entertaining.

BigMeatballDave
09-23-2008, 01:33 AM
If abortion weren't legal think of how many more stupid people would populate the earth.Aren't you glad your mother didn't believe in abortion?

Mecca
09-23-2008, 01:34 AM
Can we quickly pass him to another board, then?

Dude......Trig Palin has a blog check it out...

http://downspalin.blogspot.com/

Mecca
09-23-2008, 01:35 AM
Aren't you glad your mother didn't believe in abortion?

Nah but there are some posters on this board that I wish they had been aborted...

BigMeatballDave
09-23-2008, 01:36 AM
Abortion - Pro-life
Gun Control - Inforce the laws on the books
Gay Marriage - Civil Union

BigMeatballDave
09-23-2008, 01:37 AM
Nah but there are some posters on this board that I wish they had been aborted...Wishing death on people, Awesome.

BigMeatballDave
09-23-2008, 01:39 AM
Abortion: Kill babies

Guns: Allow guns and use them to kill babies

Gays: Ban them so there's more straight sex so we can kill more babiesROFL

Ultra Peanut
09-23-2008, 01:39 AM
Abortion: Kill babies

Guns: Allow guns and use them to kill babies

Gays: Ban them so there's more straight sex so we can kill more babiesAre there provisions in your policies which allow for the consumption of said babies after they've been killed?

This is very important to me.

Logical
09-23-2008, 01:40 AM
Can we quickly pass him to another board, then?Outstanding cross-thread humor.:clap:

Mecca
09-23-2008, 01:40 AM
Wishing death on people, Awesome.

When it would increase the intelligence level of the human gene pool it is perfectly acceptable.

I have 0 sympathy for dumb people.

Mecca
09-23-2008, 01:40 AM
Outstanding cross-thread humor.:clap:

You need to read trig palins blog it is full of thought provoking things.

Ultra Peanut
09-23-2008, 01:43 AM
Come on guys, the clock is ticking. SNR/Mecca is looking like my dream ticket.

Mecca
09-23-2008, 01:48 AM
If I get elected the first thing I will do is launch an investigation into why Carl Peterson is still employed.

Logical
09-23-2008, 01:50 AM
You need to read trig palins blog it is full of thought provoking things.I went and checked it out, and it is frankly sort of sad. Sad that a mom would put up her child for ridicule (even obviously humor intended). Sad.

Mecca
09-23-2008, 01:51 AM
I went and checked it out, and it is frankly sort of sad. Sad that a mom would put up her child for ridicule (even obviously humor intended). Sad.

Especially when she doesn't know what the VP even does...

Guru
09-23-2008, 02:03 AM
Nice to see how horrible some liberal minded people can choose to be to others. And we wonder why America is going down the drain.

Ultra Peanut
09-23-2008, 02:43 AM
If I get elected the first thing I will do is launch an investigation into why Carl Peterson is still employed.PANDERING

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-23-2008, 02:50 AM
I'm pro-life, but I don't want those kids who would be born taking my money with their entitlement programs. Nor do I want those bastards sucking off my teat for free health care that prevents things like infant mortality (which coincidentally is 33rd in the world).

Saggysack
09-23-2008, 04:42 AM
Nice to see how horrible some liberal minded people can choose to be to others. And we wonder why America is going down the drain.

sir...

Guru
09-23-2008, 04:52 AM
sir...
I did say "some" not all. :D

patteeu
09-23-2008, 06:45 AM
What's funny is the guy posts something about views, not an attack the other guy thread and gets torched. Instant dumbass status is applied and desire for him to leave is requested.

This place is always entertaining.

Obama's charm is rubbing off on them.

patteeu
09-23-2008, 06:53 AM
Abortion: This issue is of minimal importance to me. I'm personally against abortion and think that adoption is underutilized, but I'm in favor of each state deciding it's abortion laws on it's own. I'm sympathetic with the right's view of abortion as murder, but that's not a universal view and I think the democratic process is the place to work this one out.

Gun Control: I'm against gun control in general but I'm not the kind of extremist who would say that people have the right to own a nuclear weapon. I guess I'd say that I'm opposed to moving in the direction of more gun control but I'm not energized to protest the controls we have now too much.

Gay Marriage: I'm in favor of gay marriage (including calling it "marriage"), but I think it should be the result of the democratic process not a court decision. This is another issue that divides our nation and should be resolved through persuasion of the majority, IMO.

mlyonsd
09-23-2008, 07:07 AM
Abortion: I can see both sides so I'm torn on the issue. If someone was in that situation and asked me for advice I'd lobby hard for the unborn child. I think both sides make good points so I'd leave it up to the state to decide.

Gun control: I'm ok with fully automatic rifles being banned and I don't think people should possess hand grenades but other than that it's nobody else's business how many guns I own. That being said, if you commit a crime with a gun I think you should hang from a street lamp.

Gay Marriage: I'm ok with unions but I don't think they should be called marriages. I also think this should be decided by the states and not necessarily transferrable and recognized to a state that doesn't allow it.

Bowser
09-23-2008, 08:37 AM
Abortion: This issue is of minimal importance to me. I'm personally against abortion and think that adoption is underutilized, but I'm in favor of each state deciding it's abortion laws on it's own. I'm sympathetic with the right's view of abortion as murder, but that's not a universal view and I think the democratic process is the place to work this one out.

Gun Control: I'm against gun control in general but I'm not the kind of extremist who would say that people have the right to own a nuclear weapon. I guess I'd say that I'm opposed to moving in the direction of more gun control but I'm not energized to protest the controls we have now too much.

Gay Marriage: I'm in favor of gay marriage (including calling it "marriage"), but I think it should be the result of the democratic process not a court decision. This is another issue that divides our nation and should be resolved through persuasion of the majority, IMO.

Wow, pat and I agree, for the most part.

I am pro-choice. We were in a position to choose, and chose to keep the baby. Best thing we ever did. However, I don't think anyone should have a voice in what a woman does with her fetus other than that woman. It's her choice to make, nobody else's. It's up to her how she chooses to live with her decision.

SNR
09-23-2008, 08:58 AM
Are there provisions in your policies which allow for the consumption of said babies after they've been killed?

This is very important to me.Yes, but improper disposal of carcasses would result in a $500 fine and/or community service. Local facilities would be provided for the proper organic waste disposal

BigChiefFan
09-23-2008, 09:03 AM
Abortion:I don't necessarily condone the action, but it isn't up to me to decide for others. Therefore I'm pro-choice.

Gun Control: we have a constitutional right to bear arms-that's good enough for me, but I do believe we should do background checks.


Gay Marriage: Again this is someone else's CHOICE. That's what freedom is and one of the things that is supposed to make America great. The constitution grants EVERYBODY the right to pursue happiness, how anybody can attempt to BAN in the name of the constitition is absurd. Again, government stay out of others business.

SLAG
09-23-2008, 09:11 AM
personally im against slavery, but who am I to impose my view on others.

Personally Im against Killing the Jews, but its not for me to decide for others, but maybe should be legal when the life of a pure blood is at risk or feels threatened its the pure bloods choice to keep the life of the Jew or not

SNR
09-23-2008, 09:17 AM
personally im against slavery, but who am I to impose my view on others.

Personally Im against Killing the Jews, but its not for me to decide for others, but maybe should be legal when the life of a pure blood is at risk or feels threatened its the pure bloods choice to keep the life of the Jew or notWhat about killing Jew babies? Surely you're for that, right?

SLAG
09-23-2008, 09:19 AM
What about killing Jew babies? Surely you're for that, right?
personally im not for it but
if the jew baby is a threat to a pure blood who am I to decide

patteeu
09-23-2008, 09:26 AM
personally im against slavery, but who am I to impose my view on others.

Personally Im against Killing the Jews, but its not for me to decide for others, but maybe should be legal when the life of a pure blood is at risk or feels threatened its the pure bloods choice to keep the life of the Jew or not

:LOL: Fortunately, in both of the cases you describe, there is such an overwhelming consensus on the matter it's not really an imposition.

HolyHandgernade
09-23-2008, 09:32 AM
Abortion: I am pro-choice, but I would not be opposed to a more objective measure in the matter. For example, if we determine legal death by the cessation of brain wave activity, then we might conclude life begins with its onset, which roughly the second trimester, unless the health of the mother is in question.

Gun Control: I believe the 2nd Amendment speaks chiefly to a "well regulated militia", which today is the National Guard. That said, I see no reason to limit guns for purposes of hunting and self defense, but with restrictions on things like automatic weapons and armor piercing bullets.

Gay Marriage: I believe the term "marriage" should be reserved for religious purposes and the term "unions" should be reserved for civic purposes. If a religion wants only to recognize a "marriage" as between a man and a woman, between any two individuals, between any numerous individuals, as a one time eternal bond or grant the right to divorce, etc., that's their business. The state could then set the parameters for a legal "union" for purposes of taxes and probate. People could get one, the other, or both. Keep the provinces of religion and government separate.

-HH

SLAG
09-23-2008, 09:35 AM
:LOL: Fortunately, in both of the cases you describe, there is such an overwhelming consensus on the matter it's not really an imposition.
you understand my point- at one point the consensus could change again and who would stop it.

that the thing, Abortion is discrimination against the unborn.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4UHeCOeoC_s&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4UHeCOeoC_s&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0" width="482" height="360" id="playEmbed" align="middle"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.realcatholictv.com/playEmbed.swf?id=1019" /><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff" /> <embed src="http://www.realcatholictv.com/playEmbed.swf?id=1019" quality="high" bgcolor="#ffffff" width="482" height="360" name="playEmbed" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" /></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/us_y9GP_-DA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/us_y9GP_-DA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Jenson71
09-23-2008, 09:37 AM
Abortion: against, except in terms of life-threatening situation to mother. Can give child up for adoption. Can leave child at Catholic monastery.

Gun laws: for. Common sense restrictions should be in place.

Gay marriage: against in the Catholic Church, but this stems from take that marriage is a religious ceremony. No problem with civil unions and marriage-parallel state benefits that come with them. No problem with other religions granting marriage status to gays and lesbians if they so choose, and state recognizing them as such if accepted.

patteeu
09-23-2008, 10:00 AM
Gay Marriage: I believe the term "marriage" should be reserved for religious purposes and the term "unions" should be reserved for civic purposes. If a religion wants only to recognize a "marriage" as between a man and a woman, between any two individuals, between any numerous individuals, as a one time eternal bond or grant the right to divorce, etc., that's their business. The state could then set the parameters for a legal "union" for purposes of taxes and probate. People could get one, the other, or both. Keep the provinces of religion and government separate.

-HH

I'll amend my gay marriage answer to incorporate your fine suggestion distinguishing between religious "marriages" and civic "unions".

Carlota69
09-23-2008, 10:01 AM
First with abortion. Personally I think it is something that should occur only when the mother is in danger or was a rape/incest victim. I've always viewed the "choice" as having been made once the woman has chosen to have sex.


That brings me to gay marriage, not necessarily that it relates as much, but I have no problem with a gay union. I don't think it should be called "marriage" but they could call it a union and I think that if two people of the same sex want to be legally connected then they should have that right. I don't think it should be called "marriage" because marriage is a religious union between a man and woman and the idea of someone attaching a biblical creation to something that goes against the bible is like saying you’re an atheist but celebrate Christmas. I don't think gay people choose to be that way, granted some might but I think they are what they are and they should be able to have the legal right to express their love for one another.

I also think that as our society evolves, we'll see politicians and many people that share these beliefs.

Thoughts?

Regarding abortion--I am sick of people putting all of it on the woman. It is her choice, but it takes two to tango. So if her choice starts at sex, then so does his. And what do you propose we do about the fathers who 'Choose" not to be a part of the babies life? Do we force them to raise the child, as well? Seriously, if we ban abortions except in the cases of incest/rape, how do we make sure the father also sticks by his 'Choice"? I agree, abortion is a discapable use of birth control, and there should be something to insure that people arent using it in that manner, but to say the woman chose it at sex is unbelievable.

Regarding gun control--I think background checks are approppriate, but I'm all for the right to bear arms.

Gay marriage--I find it funny that marriage is considered a term used for the religious. I've heard the term 'marriage" used in many forms before to explain bringing two elements together. I've heard in regards to combining ingredients, music, ideas etc...so now all of the sudden its only for religious consideration? Hmmm....I'm all for gay marriage, civil unions whatever...

I find it interesting though that conservatives, who boast about small govt, are all about getting involved in peoples sex lives, whether it be about who they're ****ing or what they choose to do with the result of that said ****ing.

Cannibal
09-23-2008, 11:36 AM
I am a registered independent, but I lean left, especially after the last 8 years.

Abortion: You paint with WAY too broad a brush to claim that ALL Democrats want no restriction at all on abortion. It sounds like a talking point from right wing radio. In my opinion, abortion should be restricted to the first trimester, unless the health of the baby or mother is in jeopardy past that. If a woman can't decide on something that important in 12 weeks, she should probably have the child.

Guns: I am not in favor complete gun control. Criminals will always find a way to get guns no matter how strict the laws are. So if the intention by gun control is to remove access to them from criminals, I do not believe it works. I do believe there should be some limits to the types of guns one can own and I do believe that registration is the right thing to do.

Gay Marriage I have no issue with it whatsoever. If fact, I think if they want to call it marriage, let them. How the f()ck does it affect me???

Brock
09-23-2008, 11:38 AM
I don't care about abortion at all.

The second amendment guarantees the right of the citizen to own guns without government infringement, so that pretty much explains what I think.

I don't care about gay marriage at all.

Saggysack
09-23-2008, 11:44 AM
I'll amend my gay marriage answer to incorporate your fine suggestion distinguishing between religious "marriages" and civic "unions".


Amend it again. My legal "marriage" certificate was not issued by any religion. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that yours wasn't either. If anything should be considered a union, it should be religious union.

patteeu
09-23-2008, 11:46 AM
Amend it again. My legal "marriage" certificate was not issued by any religion. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that yours wasn't either. If anything should be considered a union, it should be religious union.

WTF are you talking about? I think I'll stick with what I've already said.

Saggysack
09-23-2008, 11:51 AM
WTF are you talking about? I think I'll stick with what I've already said.

dumdeedum....

nothing

BIG_DADDY
09-23-2008, 12:08 PM
dumdeedum....

nothing

Pretty standard

clemensol
09-23-2008, 01:16 PM
Abortion: Pro-choice

Gun-Control: Opposed to any form of it... though I don't think gun control laws are unconstitutional.

Gay Marriage: Completely for it, but I don't think the courts should have any role in the decision.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-23-2008, 01:40 PM
Abortion - Pro-JESUS
Gun Control - Only laws should be those that require citizens to carry them.
Gay Marriage - who cares this is not an issue, leave the gays to do as they wish

ClevelandBronco
09-23-2008, 01:46 PM
Abortion — Opposed in the vast majority of cases, but allow the states to decide individually.

Gun laws — Opposed in the vast majority of cases.

Gay marriage — Fine with me, but allow the states to decide individually.

BigMeatballDave
09-23-2008, 02:16 PM
Especially when she doesn't know what the VP even does...STFU. YOU don't even know the day-to-day duties of the VP.:rolleyes: At least, not without looking. I sure don't.

bkkcoh
09-23-2008, 02:25 PM
Abortion -- Pro-choice, but the choice should be made before conception.

Gun Control -- Hitting what you aim at.

Gay Marriage -- Don't call it marriage.

Sully
09-23-2008, 02:36 PM
Abortion- Anti abortion. Laws? Pro choice.

Gun Control- Register all guns.

Gay Marriage- Should be legal. If it's a religious objection, your church will not be required to perform them.

Reaper16
09-23-2008, 02:39 PM
Pro-choice
Pro-guns
Pro-Gay marriage

KILLER_CLOWN
09-23-2008, 02:41 PM
I like what i'm seeing here with gun control, even most libs agree we should be well armed.

Reaper16
09-23-2008, 02:50 PM
I like what i'm seeing here with gun control, even most libs agree we should be well armed.
I'm liberal as Hell, but I also grew up in a hunting family. Heck, I'm even for concealed carry.

Garcia Bronco
09-23-2008, 03:47 PM
I am
Pro-death (aka pro-choice) I just don't believe the Federal Governemnt should legislate this - and they haven't(part of the problem)
Pro-gun
Anti-Gay Marriage, but I support equal protection under the law and that's exactly what a civil union is. Marriage is between a man and a woman. It's pure semantics, but that's my view.

SLAG
09-23-2008, 04:02 PM
<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/Ac6yA4L1Gw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="390" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>

WilliamTheIrish
09-23-2008, 04:04 PM
I'm going to settle in for this. Should be entertaining.

Guns.

Abortion.

Gays.

We've never had this thread before on Chiefsplanet.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-23-2008, 04:06 PM
I'm going to settle in for this. Should be entertaining.

Guns.

Abortion.

Gays.

We've never had this thread before on Chiefsplanet.

Gunning down abortionists gayly?

BIG_DADDY
09-23-2008, 04:09 PM
<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/Ac6yA4L1Gw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="390" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>

The fact that the libs continue to blatantly lie about his position when it comes to the gun issue with his hard line positions in the past as well as being on the board of the Joyce Foundation for 8 years is ridiculous.

Adept Havelock
09-23-2008, 04:19 PM
Abortion: Personally opposed in many cases, but unwilling to impose my personal dislike on others through legislation. Feel that on such a divisive issue, it's a decision best left to the individual.

Gun Control: I see no reason for private ownership of fully automatic weapons, grenades, mortars, mines, artillery, man-pack missiles, and other military equipment. Other than that..:shrug:

Gay Marriage: Oppose forcing any church to perform such a ceremony. Support civil ceremonies, or religious ones from willing churches. I feel marriage is simply a civil contract, and religion really plays no part in it.

clemensol
09-23-2008, 04:45 PM
Abortion - Pro-JESUS
Gun Control - Only laws should be those that require citizens to carry them.
Gay Marriage - who cares this is not an issue, leave the gays to do as they wish

I seriously hope you're not serious about the gun control....

KILLER_CLOWN
09-23-2008, 04:52 PM
I seriously hope you're not serious about the gun control....

Although not a bad idea, i defer to the Constitution on this issue.

"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."

Without this amendment, all others are meaningless. This amendment is a guarantee to the people of the United States of America that the right to keep and bear arms can not, shall not, nor will not be infringed upon.

To infringe upon - by definition - is the attempt to limit the right of:

legal or moral entitlement to do - or refrain from doing - some thing;
legal or moral entitlement to obtain - or refrain from obtaining - an action, thing or recognition in civil society. In the Second Amendment, the entitlement is the right to the action(s) of keeping and bearing a thing called arms by the people.

What this means is, the people, who in times of need may form a militia, have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms without fear of such right being vacated. In order to be an effective militia - an integral part of a free society - the people should be armed in equal or greater proportion than any potential threat - foreign or domestic - and trained to use such armament. Additionally, the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms is the most powerful deterrent to tyranny.

clemensol
09-23-2008, 05:02 PM
I agree with you about the right to bear arms...

but are you serious about requiring citizens to bear arms?

KILLER_CLOWN
09-23-2008, 07:17 PM
I agree with you about the right to bear arms...

but are you serious about requiring citizens to bear arms?

Studies have shown much lower crime rates in areas where that is the case.

Adept Havelock
09-23-2008, 08:49 PM
Studies have shown much lower crime rates in areas where that is the case.

How large is the sample of those studies? Link?

How many locations REQUIRE every adult to carry a firearm? ROFL
I'm sure there might be a small town or two with such an ordinance , but enough for a study? LMAO

Thanks...I needed a laugh.

irishjayhawk
09-23-2008, 08:53 PM
Abortion: This issue is of minimal importance to me. I'm personally against abortion and think that adoption is underutilized, but I'm in favor of each state deciding it's abortion laws on it's own. I'm sympathetic with the right's view of abortion as murder, but that's not a universal view and I think the democratic process is the place to work this one out.

Gun Control: I'm against gun control in general but I'm not the kind of extremist who would say that people have the right to own a nuclear weapon. I guess I'd say that I'm opposed to moving in the direction of more gun control but I'm not energized to protest the controls we have now too much.

Gay Marriage: I'm in favor of gay marriage (including calling it "marriage"), but I think it should be the result of the democratic process not a court decision. This is another issue that divides our nation and should be resolved through persuasion of the majority, IMO.

Pretty much me except pro-choice, stridently, I might add.

irishjayhawk
09-23-2008, 08:54 PM
Abortion: Personally opposed in many cases, but unwilling to impose my personal dislike on others through legislation. Feel that on such a divisive issue, it's a decision best left to the individual.

Gun Control: I see no reason for private ownership of fully automatic weapons, grenades, mortars, mines, artillery, man-pack missiles, and other military equipment. Other than that..:shrug:

Gay Marriage: Oppose forcing any church to perform such a ceremony. Support civil ceremonies, or religious ones from willing churches. I feel marriage is simply a civil contract, and religion really plays no part in it.

I spoke too soon. This one pretty much sums up my EXACT position.

Sully
09-23-2008, 09:11 PM
Abortion: This issue is of minimal importance to me. I'm personally against abortion and think that adoption is underutilized, but I'm in favor of each state deciding it's abortion laws on it's own. I'm sympathetic with the right's view of abortion as murder, but that's not a universal view and I think the democratic process is the place to work this one out.

Gun Control: I'm against gun control in general but I'm not the kind of extremist who would say that people have the right to own a nuclear weapon. I guess I'd say that I'm opposed to moving in the direction of more gun control but I'm not energized to protest the controls we have now too much.

Gay Marriage: I'm in favor of gay marriage (including calling it "marriage"), but I think it should be the result of the democratic process not a court decision. This is another issue that divides our nation and should be resolved through persuasion of the majority, IMO.

I'm astonished. I agree almost word for word with this.

Direckshun
09-23-2008, 09:38 PM
This is a good topic. I like it when people have to actually tackle issues on this forum. It doesn't happen enough.

Abortion

There's not a lot that's good that can be said about abortion. But the debate largely centers around a question that can never be definitively answered: when does a fetus become a person? The moment of conception? Until it's born? The third trimester?

Unlike virtually everybody who has a hardcore belief in this issue, I don't pretend to know. I don't know, nor will I ever know, when a fetus becomes a human. So I don't base my decision-making on that -- I instead look to more practical matters, rather than make a theological guess and cross my fingers that I'm right. And practically, abortion is abhorrent but it can prevent a whole lot of trouble for our society. Crime in particular is highly connected with people who were not raised well. Banning abortion invites millions more of these crappy families which will likely yeild serious troublemakers for society to deal with.

A necessary evil. I am pro-choice, and not particularly proud of it.

Gun Control

I'm pretty strict on gun control, but I don't take the hardline approach of banning guns. I think bullets should be more expensive, and I think guns should be a lot harder to obtain. I'm all for gun-control classes throughout society and I support banning the worst kinds of guns, such as AK-47s.

I do not see much positive influence in this society with the ownership of guns. But it's a constitutional right, I believe that people should have it for sport and for protection. But I believe access to guns should be sharply limited, and their use sharply regulated.

Gay Marriage

This is really a semantics debate. Marriage is just a symbolic word created by religious institutions. They are essentially civil unions, legally, with a beautiful word attached to it.

Now, these religious institutions are private, and they have every right to deny marriage to anybody they want -- gays, minorities, atheists, whoever. But if there is a church out there or another similar institution that's okay with allowing homosexuals to marry, the government should similarly stay out of it. Let them do what they want. Banning gay marriage is as obscene an overreach as banning any type of marriage.

Now, I do believe government should preserve the right to civil unions (basically legal marriages, with all the relevant rights and priviledges, without the name) for people of all sexual orientations. But as far as regulating marriage goes, leave it up to the religious institutions.

Logical
09-23-2008, 09:46 PM
Abortion: Personally opposed in many cases, but unwilling to impose my personal dislike on others through legislation. Feel that on such a divisive issue, it's a decision best left to the individual.

Gun Control: I see no reason for private ownership of fully automatic weapons, grenades, mortars, mines, artillery, man-pack missiles, and other military equipment. Other than that..:shrug:

Gay Marriage: Oppose forcing any church to perform such a ceremony. Support civil ceremonies, or religious ones from willing churches. I feel marriage is simply a civil contract, and religion really plays no part in it.

I knew you were smart, I agree with your views 100%

Logical
09-23-2008, 09:56 PM
personally im against slavery, but who am I to impose my view on others.

Personally Im against Killing the Jews, but its not for me to decide for others, but maybe should be legal when the life of a pure blood is at risk or feels threatened its the pure bloods choice to keep the life of the Jew or notI love theater of the absurd used as a counter argument. You would be a fun debate victim.

patteeu
09-24-2008, 05:26 AM
I knew you were smart, I agree with your views 100%

Well? Which is it?

:p

KILLER_CLOWN
09-24-2008, 07:57 AM
How large is the sample of those studies? Link?

How many locations REQUIRE every adult to carry a firearm? ROFL
I'm sure there might be a small town or two with such an ordinance , but enough for a study? LMAO

Thanks...I needed a laugh.

GEUDA SPRINGS, Kansas (AP) -- This tiny south-central Kansas community has passed an ordinance requiring most households to have guns and ammunition.

Noncomplying residents would be fined $10 under the ordinance, passed 3-2 earlier this month by City Council members who thought it would help protect the town of 210 people. Those who suffer from physical or mental disabilities, paupers and people who conscientiously oppose firearms would be exempt.

"This ordinance fulfills the duty to protect by allowing each individual householder to provide for his or her protection," said Councilman John Brewer.

"This is simply using the U.S. Constitution -- Second Amendment in particular -- to the city of Geuda Springs' advantage."

Geuda Springs has no local police force; the Sumner County Sheriff's department is responsible for policing the area. Sheriff Gerald Gilkey said the ordinance makes him concerned for the safety of his officers.

"This throws up red flags," he said.

The town's city attorney, Thomas Herlocker, also opposes the measure, which has not taken effect because it has yet to be published. He said he plans to ask the council to reverse itself on the issue. The council meets next on Dec. 1.

Whitney Watson, a spokesman for Attorney General Phill Kline, declined to comment on the legality of such an ordinance, which is similar to one passed in Kennesaw, Georgia, 21 years ago that is still in effect.

Many Geuda Springs residents refused to talk about it, and others were tightlipped, saying outsiders should stay out of it.

"It's nobody's business but our own," said Phillip Russell, who owns a motorcycle shop in the town. "Everybody out of town is making this their business."

Brock
09-24-2008, 08:02 AM
I support banning the worst kinds of guns, such as AK-47s.

Yes, because they are so frequently used in commission of crimes.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-24-2008, 08:05 AM
U.S.
U.S. Town Requires Residents to Own Guns

By Matthew Bigg
Reuters

KENNESAW, Georgia (April 18) - The Virginia Tech killings have set off calls for tighter U.S. gun laws but anyone wanting to know why those demands likely will make little headway should visit Kennesaw, a town where owning a gun is both popular and mandatory.

The town north of Atlanta had little prominence until it passed a gun ordinance in 1982 that required all heads of a household to own a firearm and ammunition.
Town Requires Residents to Own Guns


Kennesaw's law was a response to Morton Grove, Illinois, which had passed a gun ban earlier that year as a step to reduce crime.

But it also was an affirmation of what gun advocates say is a blanket U.S. constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, for citizens to keep and bear arms. Gun opponents challenge that right and say the language in the Constitution is open to interpretation.

The Kennesaw law has endured as the town's population has swelled to about 30,000 from 5,000 in 1982.

"When the law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime ... and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then," said police Lt. Craig Graydon. "We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area.

Residents say they are comfortable with the image the gun law projects on the city as a bastion of gun freedom.

"There's been no move to get rid of the law . Why would you?" said Robert Jones, president of the Kennesaw Historical Society. "The law is a great tourist attraction. It's the town with the Gun Law .

"People in Europe feel they need to be protected by the government. People in the U.S. feel they need to be protected from the government," said Jones, the owner of a .357-caliber Magnum.

FAMILY TRADITION

Many U.S. citizens see gun ownership as an essential freedom on a par with free speech and the view is particularly strong in rural areas and the South where sport hunting is often a family tradition.

In a bid to expand gun rights, a bill was introduced in Georgia's state legislature to allow individuals with no criminal record or history of mental illness to conceal a weapon in their car.

The state Senate adjourned debate on the bill on Tuesday, fearing it would send the wrong message in the wake of the Virginia rampage.

Dent "Wildman" Myers, 76, styles himself as a keeper of the flame when it comes to Kennesaw's gun ordinance. His downtown shop contains a cornucopia of artifacts, including old uniforms and dozens of flags of the Confederacy that fought the Union in part in defense of slavery in the Civil War. At the back is a Ku Klux Klan outfit with a noose and a hood.

There also are posters praising defenders of the white race, White Power CDs and a sign that reads: "No Dogs Allowed, No Negroes, No Mexicans." Someone had crossed out the first part of the sign and added "Dogs Allowed."

Myers said he wanted to protect the values that made the town and the South distinct from other parts of the United States.

GUNS AS TOOLS

"They destroyed anything historic and replaced it with the PC (politically correct) stuff. It's become a cookie cutter town," Myers said, his hands resting lightly on two .45-caliber guns at his hips. He said he considered his guns to be tools, much like a rake or a shovel.

Since the Virginia Tech shootings, some conservative U.S. talk radio hosts have rejected attempts to link the massacre to the availability of guns, arguing that had students been allowed to carry weapons on campus someone might have been able to shoot the killer.

Without guns the students of Virginia Tech were "26,000 sitting ducks," said Chris Krok of Atlanta 's WSB radio in a view echoed by many residents of Kennesaw.

When the town's gun law was passed, about 70 percent of households likely owned a gun , Graydon said. But Atlanta commuters have since swelled the town's population and gun ownership now is about 50 percent.

An amendment to the gun ownership law grants exceptions to convicted felons, conscientious objectors and those who cannot afford a gun . No one has ever been prosecuted for failure to own a firearm, Graydon said.

The law may deter criminals but proactive policing and close police liaison with community and business groups were the main reasons why crime has stayed low, he said.

Some residents said they found the law objectionable or silly and simply ignored it.

But Linda Warman, who works in a Kennesaw shop, said she lived alone and was taking no chances.

"I wouldn't hesitate to use it," she said of the gun she keeps loaded with hollow-point bullets. "My little .22. It'll do whatever I want it to."

bkkcoh
09-24-2008, 08:46 AM
I like what i'm seeing here with gun control, even most libs agree we should be well armed.

While I am not speaking for most conservatives, I would say that most conservatives probably don't see a true need for fully automatic weapons either.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 10:09 AM
Yes, because they are so frequently used in commission of crimes.

There is no good reason for a citizen to own an AK-47.

Brock
09-24-2008, 10:24 AM
There is no good reason for a citizen to own an AK-47.

That's not a hurdle the 2nd amendment needs to overcome.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 10:26 AM
That's not a hurdle the 2nd amendment needs to overcome.

So you support an 48-year-old rapist who just got out of prison to own a bazooka?

Because the 2nd amendment doesn't explicitly prevent that, either.

Brock
09-24-2008, 10:27 AM
So you support an 48-year-old rapist who just got out of prison to own a bazooka?

Because the 2nd amendment doesn't explicitly prevent that, either.

Wave to the straw man everybody.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 10:28 AM
Wave to the straw man everybody.

Sure it's a strawman, but it's to illustrate a point.

Why prevent a 48-year-old rapist out of prison from owning a bazooka?

There is nothing in the second amendment that specifically prevents that.

Surely the founders thought it was okay, right?

Brock
09-24-2008, 10:30 AM
Sure it's a strawman, but it's to illustrate a point.

Why prevent a 48-year-old rapist out of prison from owning a bazooka?

There is nothing in the second amendment that specifically prevents that.

Surely the founders thought it was okay, right?

Felons can't vote, either. That has nothing to do with what TYPE OF GUNS that are proscribed by the 2nd amendment, which is anything above and beyond that of the militia of the day.

Radar Chief
09-24-2008, 10:34 AM
There is no good reason for a citizen to own an AK-47.

Really. How so?
I use an equivalent, an SKS, for everything from hunting to plinking, it's a fantastic Kansas brush rifle. Those seem like pretty good reasons right there. If I had an AK I’d use it for similar things.
So what really is your fear of the Kalishnikov? Because it looks scary? Because terrorists shake and fire them in the air?

Brock
09-24-2008, 10:35 AM
Basically there is no reason that a law-abiding citizen shouldn't be allowed to own an AK-47, aside from the irrelevant "need" argument.

Iowanian
09-24-2008, 10:37 AM
There is no reason a law abiding citizen can't own an AK.....SKS.....AR-15...Mini 14....


I don't recall the 2nd amendment requiring an explanation.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 10:37 AM
Felons can't vote, either. That has nothing to do with what TYPE OF GUNS that are proscribed by the 2nd amendment, which is anything above and beyond that of the militia of the day.

The 2nd amendment does not say that citizens aren't allowed to own guns beyond that of what a militia possesses. It says that insofar as there needs to be a militia, citizens can own guns. You're adding on that other part.

And that's fine. We're supposed to add onto the Constitution, and interpret it in our own ways.

Neither one of us read the 2nd amendment as a blank check to own any gun you want, even though it doesn't explicitly prevent that. So we agree there.

We also agree that restrictions on what types of guns are available and for whom are necessary.

So don't throw the "that's not what the 2nd amendment says" argument at me when you're doing the exact same thing.

Iowanian
09-24-2008, 10:38 AM
Why don't you abide by your right to choose not to own one.....and stay out of my cabinet.



Outside of the Model 1911 .45 semi auto pistol....I read recently that the AR-15 is the most popular model being purchased now.


Black Rifle disease is spreading like obamania.....a lot of people are buying them just in case hoperah gets into office.


Let those of you who don't believe in gun rights come and get them from those that do....

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 10:40 AM
Really. How so?
I use an equivalent, an SKS, for everything from hunting to plinking, it's a fantastic Kansas brush rifle. Those seem like pretty good reasons right there. If I had an AK I’d use it for similar things.
So what really is your fear of the Kalishnikov? Because it looks scary? Because terrorists shake and fire them in the air?

It doesn't take a gun expert (which, I should add, I'm not) to know that an AK-47 and similar guns are far more dangerous than regular joe shotguns.

I respect your desire to use guns for sport, but to pretend that an SKS or AK-47 are necessary for a good time is ridiculous.

Brock
09-24-2008, 10:40 AM
The 2nd amendment does not say that citizens aren't allowed to own guns beyond that of what a militia possesses. It says that insofar as there needs to be a militia, citizens can own guns. You're adding on that other part.

And that's fine. We're supposed to add onto the Constitution, and interpret it in our own ways.

Neither one of us read the 2nd amendment as a blank check to own any gun you want, even though it doesn't explicitly prevent that. So we agree there.

We also agree that restrictions on what types of guns are available and for whom are necessary.

So don't throw the "that's not what the 2nd amendment says" argument at me when you're doing the exact same thing.


That's all well and good, but at least try and stop determining what everybody else "needs". Also, try to become a bit better informed about what types of guns are problems in our society instead of just looking at what bad guys use in movies.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 10:41 AM
Why don't you abide by your right to choose not to own one.....and stay out of my cabinet.

I'm not concerned with your cabinet. I'm concerned with the cabinets of people who have much nastier plans.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 10:42 AM
That's all well and good, but at least try and stop determining what everybody else "needs". Also, try to become a bit better informed about what types of guns are problems in our society instead of just looking at what bad guys use in movies.

I know what types of guns are problems in our society. Problem #1, far and away, is handguns.

That doesn't mean that because AK-47s aren't common when it comes to crime sprees doesn't mean they're less lethal than a handgun. I don't know a soul on earth that'd argue that.

Iowanian
09-24-2008, 10:42 AM
If I want to spend $10k on a .50 cal sniper rifle to turn prarie dogs into mist....thats my right.


Who are you to determine Who can own what?


I have 8 long rifles, including at least 1 AR and 2 hand guns within 10' of my desk. None of those weapons has been involved in a crime.


You're also wrong about the #1 problem weapon involved in Crimes......The true answer is "stolen guns", not legally purchased hand guns or assault rifles.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 10:43 AM
Let those of you who don't believe in gun rights come and get them from those that do....

I honestly don't remember the last time I had an argument over the 2nd amendment that didn't include a implied threat.

Brock
09-24-2008, 10:44 AM
I know what types of guns are problems in our society. Problem #1, far and away, is handguns.

That doesn't mean that because AK-47s aren't common when it comes to crime sprees doesn't mean they're less lethal than a handgun. I don't know a soul on earth that'd argue that.

They aren't *more* lethal than a a lot of handguns, shotguns, or a deer rifle for that matter.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 10:44 AM
If I want to spend $10k on a .50 cal sniper rifle to turn prarie dogs into mist....thats my right.

Who are you to determine Who can own what?

I'm nobody. I'm one guy. I don't want the right to determine who owns what. I want the people to determine it, but of course I'm hoping they'll see things from my point of view.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 10:45 AM
They aren't *more* lethal than a a lot of handguns, shotguns, or a deer rifle for that matter.

Sure they are.

I'll give us both one hour to target as many people on the Plaza as possible.

You use a handgun.

I'll use an AK-47.

Let's see who can rack up the bigger numbers.

Brock
09-24-2008, 10:45 AM
I honestly don't remember the last time I had an argument over the 2nd amendment that didn't include a implied threat.

I don't remember arguing over the second amendment much without having someone who knows very little about guns trying to tell the rest of us what we need or don't need either.

Iowanian
09-24-2008, 10:46 AM
There is no implied threat.

The entire reason for gun rights is to protect the citizen.....from the govt.


I think your arguement is doucheeeee though.

I honestly don't remember the last time I had an argument over the 2nd amendment that didn't include a implied threat.

Brock
09-24-2008, 10:46 AM
Sure they are.

I'll give us both one hour to target as many people on the Plaza as possible.

You use a handgun.

I'll use an AK-47.

Let's see who can rack up the bigger numbers.

I sincerely doubt you've ever picked up a gun in your life, so if I hadn't the decency to decline your ghoulish bet, I'd take it.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 10:46 AM
I don't remember arguing over the second amendment much without having someone who knows very little about guns trying to tell the rest of us what we need or don't need either.

Yeah, that's the exact same thing there.

Did you hone your debate skills at Dartmouth, by any chance?

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 10:48 AM
I sincerely doubt you've ever picked up a gun in your life, so if I hadn't the decency to decline your ghoulish bet, I'd take it.

You're just jumping off point now.

Take two guys with the exact same gun skills.

One of them has a handgun. The other one has an AK-47.

Who's going to rack up more bodies on the Plaza?

Iowanian
09-24-2008, 10:48 AM
I'm nobody. I'm one guy. I don't want the right to determine who owns what. I want the people to determine it, but of course I'm hoping they'll see things from my point of view.


They already have. The People have determined that I can legally own anything short of a fully automatic machine gun.

I can own a grenade launcher.....but I can only purchase flares for it.

Brock
09-24-2008, 10:48 AM
Yeah, that's the exact same thing there.

Did you hone your debate skills at Dartmouth, by any chance?

Why don't you try to keep the personal insults out of it?

Brock
09-24-2008, 10:49 AM
You're just jumping off point now.

Take two guys with the exact same gun skills.

One of them has a handgun. The other one has an AK-47.

Who's going to rack up more bodies on the Plaza?

It depends.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 10:49 AM
They already have. The People have determined that I can legally own anything short of a fully automatic machine gun.

I can own a grenade launcher.....but I can only purchase flares for it.

I understand I'm in the minority on this issue. Like many issues.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 10:51 AM
It depends.

Of couuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurse it does.

Frankie
09-24-2008, 10:51 AM
Abortion, gun control & gay marriage


Wedge issues. People vote on this shit and ignore the real issues every f@#king election.

Brock
09-24-2008, 10:51 AM
Of couuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurse it does.

Terrific counterargument. If I was of a mind to, I'd denigrate whatever Ivy League college you're a product of.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 10:53 AM
Wedge issues. People vote on this shit and ignore the real issues every f@#king election.

Doy.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 10:54 AM
Terrific counterargument. If I was of a mind to, I'd denigrate whatever Ivy League college you're a product of.

Missouri-educated, my friend. And I'm loving your complaint on my counterargument when you literally argued "it depends."

Fact is, if I were insane and wanted to kill as many people on the Plaza as I could before the authorities over took me, I'd down far more folks with an automatic than I would with a handgun.

I just don't see the upside of the AK-47 and similar automatic firearms.

Radar Chief
09-24-2008, 10:56 AM
It doesn't take a gun expert (which, I should add, I'm not) to know that an AK-47 and similar guns are far more dangerous than regular joe shotguns.

You do realize there’s a difference between a shotgun and a rifle, right?
But comparing an AK-47 to an “average Joe” rifle still doesn’t make sense. They’re both firing a projectile typically faster than the speed of sound.
Can you spell out differences for me?


I respect your desire to use guns for sport, but to pretend that an SKS or AK-47 are necessary for a good time is ridiculous.

Oh, now you’re talking about “need”?

Radar Chief
09-24-2008, 10:58 AM
You're just jumping off point now.

Take two guys with the exact same gun skills.

One of them has a handgun. The other one has an AK-47.

Who's going to rack up more bodies on the Plaza?

Whichever one has the most desire to kill. :shrug:

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 10:58 AM
You do realize there’s a difference between a shotgun and a rifle, right?
But comparing an AK-47 to an “average Joe” rifle still doesn’t make sense. They’re both firing a projectile typically faster than the speed of sound.
Can you spell out differences for me?

Oh, now you’re talking about “need”?

Absolutely I'm talking about need. When it comes to guns that can fire bullets with the repetition of a hummingbird's wings, it should only be restricted to need.

That's my main bitching point about automatics. Compare that to your run-of-the-mill handgun and any shotgun that can only hold a few rounds and there's a world of difference in the amount of chaos you can create.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 10:58 AM
Whichever one has the most desire to kill. :shrug:

Then I hope to **** he's got the handgun.

Radar Chief
09-24-2008, 11:02 AM
Absolutely I'm talking about need. When it comes to guns that can fire bullets with the repetition of a hummingbird's wings, it should only be restricted to need.

That's my main bitching point about automatics. Compare that to your run-of-the-mill handgun and any shotgun that can only hold a few rounds and there's a world of difference in the amount of chaos you can create.

You do realize an AK-47 sold to the general public is a semi-automatic unless illegally modified, right?
The cyclic rate is the same as any other semi-automatic.

Radar Chief
09-24-2008, 11:03 AM
Then I hope to **** he's got the handgun.

The people slain are just as dead.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 11:03 AM
You do realize an AK-47 sold to the general public is a semi-automatic unless illegally modified, right?
The cyclic rate is the same as any other semi-automatic.

And?

Brock
09-24-2008, 11:04 AM
Absolutely I'm talking about need. When it comes to guns that can fire bullets with the repetition of a hummingbird's wings, it should only be restricted to need.

That's my main bitching point about automatics. Compare that to your run-of-the-mill handgun and any shotgun that can only hold a few rounds and there's a world of difference in the amount of chaos you can create.

Your concern appears to be magazine capacity, and not the lethality of the projectile. I could pick off more people with a scoped 30.06 than you could with an AK, no matter how many bullets you actually fired.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 11:04 AM
The people slain are just as dead.

Except there's a fair chance there's fewer.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 11:06 AM
Your concern appears to be magazine capacity, and not the lethality of the projectile. I could pick off more people with a scoped 30.06 than you could with an AK, no matter how many bullets you actually fired.

I absolutely care about the lethality of the projectile. I care about prices, restrictions on who should own and who shouldn't, and I care about the ability to carry, conceal, and use off one's own property. I care about a lot of different aspects on this topic.

I can't touch 'em all at once.

Brock
09-24-2008, 11:08 AM
I absolutely care about the lethality of the projectile. I care about prices, restrictions on who should own and who shouldn't, and I care about the ability to carry, conceal, and use off one's own property. I care about a lot of different aspects on this topic.

I can't touch 'em all at once.

Well, so far, your argument has been pretty shallow and uninformed for someone with such deep concerns.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 11:10 AM
Well, so far, your argument has been pretty shallow and uninformed for someone with such deep concerns.

Shrug.

Unless somebody can tell me why you need an AK-47, I don't think it's necessary. And when we're talking about something as lethal as a gun, it should come down to need in an overwhelming majority of cases.

Brock
09-24-2008, 11:11 AM
Shrug.

Unless somebody can tell me why you need an AK-47, I don't think it's necessary. And when we're talking about something as lethal as a gun, it should come down to need in an overwhelming majority of cases.

Sure, as soon as you give a compelling reason why I *don't* need one.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 11:12 AM
Sure, as soon as you give a compelling reason why I *don't* need one.

Because they are very dangerous and can kill a lot of people.

Brock
09-24-2008, 11:13 AM
Because they are very dangerous and can kill a lot of people.

It's not dangerous, nor is it likely to kill even one person in my hands.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 11:14 AM
It's not dangerous, nor is it likely to kill even one person in my hands.

It's not your hands that I'm worried about.

Brock
09-24-2008, 11:16 AM
It's not your hands that I'm worried about.

Right, it's the other many, many mass killers who have used them in the US in recent years.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 11:22 AM
Right, it's the other many, many mass killers who have used them in the US in recent years.

Well, yeah. It's the people who kill with guns.

Brock
09-24-2008, 11:25 AM
Well, yeah. It's the people who kill with guns.

i.e. not law-abiding citizens whose rights you're willing to trample.

Iowanian
09-24-2008, 11:26 AM
Because they are very dangerous and can kill a lot of people.

Your mother and wife/girlfriend have the tools to be a prostitute, but it doesn't mean they're selling vagina by the half hour.




I can only imagine how fun a card game with Direckshun, Jaz, Irish and Jettio would be.

So much burden and white guilt. Uvulating for the lost old growth forest?

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 11:26 AM
i.e. not law-abiding citizens whose rights you're willing to trample.

Eh, we differ on what rights citizens should actually have regarding guns.

bkkcoh
09-24-2008, 11:26 AM
Your mother and wife/girlfriend have the tools to be a prostitute, but it doesn't mean they're selling vagina by the half hour.


Only Redrum's mom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 11:27 AM
Your mother and wife/girlfriend have the tools to be a prostitute, but it doesn't mean they're selling vagina by the half hour.

You understand you're comparing gun ownership to prostitution, now?

I mean, there were 15 ways you could have gone with that that could have made for a punchy counterarg, but instead you bolt to a blatantly illegal practice.

bkkcoh
09-24-2008, 11:29 AM
You understand you're comparing gun ownership to prostitution, now?

I mean, there were 15 ways you could have gone with that that could have made for a punchy counterarg, but instead you bolt to a blatantly illegal practice.

But it kind of seems like people are assuming that weapons are going to be used illegally without exception. I would dare say, without proof or course, that the majority of the guns made aren't used in the act of crimes.

Iowanian
09-24-2008, 11:29 AM
You understand that you're comparing owning a gun(or vagina) with the insinuation that they'll be used for the wrong thing?

Shooting people, unless its in defense of self or others is illegal already. Just as prostitution is illegal.

Its perfectly legal to have a vagina or an AR-15. They both cost men a lot of money, even when used legally, but are both capable of killing people and getting men incarcerated for misusing them.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 11:34 AM
But it kind of seems like people are assuming that weapons are going to be used illegally without exception. I would dare say, without proof or course, that the majority of the guns made aren't used in the act of crimes.

Where you see things that have happened, I see potential for things to happen.

Arguing that just a small percentage of a really dangerous tools are used in crimes doesn't make it any better. Guns rights folks don't like to hear this, but we have to act as if anybody who could buy a gun may use it for the wrong reasons.

So in my opinion we have to tightly regulate what kinds of guns we allow people to have, and tightly regulate how exactly they should be allowed to use them.

Iowanian
09-24-2008, 11:37 AM
A small percentage of total vaginas are used for illegal capitolism. A respectable percentage of those contain virus that are harmful and potentially deadly.

A single bullet can realistically only harm 1, possibly 2 people.

An infected Vajeen could take out a platoon of startrek convention attendees.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 11:39 AM
A small percentage of total vaginas are used for illegal capitolism. A respectable percentage of those contain virus that are harmful and potentially deadly.

A single bullet can realistically only harm 1, possibly 2 people.

An infected Vajeen could take out a platoon of startrek convention attendees.

Man, you really need to whack off so we can get this conversation back on track.

Iowanian
09-24-2008, 11:40 AM
Man, you need to stop being a douchebag so this conversation can continue.


Maybe I could relate a single infected anus, and you'd be able to relate better.??

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 11:44 AM
Man, you need to stop being a douchebag so this conversation can continue.

Maybe I could relate a single infected anus, and you'd be able to relate better.??

I just can't follow your logic in the comparison between gun ownership and prostitution. It's lost on me.

Maybe you could try a different metaphor.

Iowanian
09-24-2008, 11:45 AM
Its difficult to hold a reasoned conversation with a dillusional loon.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 11:47 AM
Its difficult to hold a reasoned conversation with a dillusional loon.

Maybe you're right. Maybe I'm just too stuck in my ways to see the parallel between gun ownership and prostitution.

BIG_DADDY
09-24-2008, 11:47 AM
Eh, we differ on what rights citizens should actually have regarding guns.

People who want to take our guns should be shot, period.

CoMoChief
09-24-2008, 11:49 AM
Nah but there are some posters on this board that I wish they had been aborted...

Good lord man it's just an internet forum.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 11:49 AM
People who want to take our guns should be shot, period.

Implied threat #2.

Radar Chief
09-24-2008, 11:49 AM
Except there's a fair chance there's fewer.

No, not really.

Radar Chief
09-24-2008, 11:52 AM
Shrug.

Unless somebody can tell me why you need an AK-47, I don't think it's necessary. And when we're talking about something as lethal as a gun, it should come down to need in an overwhelming majority of cases.

Good thing you’re not in charge of determining “need” then. I’ve already given you valid reasons for ownership.

HC_Chief
09-24-2008, 11:52 AM
Your concern appears to be magazine capacity, and not the lethality of the projectile. I could pick off more people with a scoped 30.06 than you could with an AK, no matter how many bullets you actually fired.

Yeah, well, you are making a comparison to the AK... which is great if you want a peasant army to throw thousands of rounds down range. I, personally, own an AR... a weapon that actually hits what you're aiming at. :D

bkkcoh
09-24-2008, 11:53 AM
Where you see things that have happened, I see potential for things to happen.

But you can't worry about what may happen, can you? If that is the case, you must spend a lot of sleepless nights. Doesn't that reek of Big Brother watching, and people were real ticked with the rights that were eliminated or restricted with Ashcroft.


Arguing that just a small percentage of a really dangerous tools are used in crimes doesn't make it any better. Guns rights folks don't like to hear this, but we have to act as if anybody who could buy a gun may use it for the wrong reasons.

That is a crock of crap. I am sure and positive that there are a lot of red necks that have bought guns and ammo legally and haven't ever shot anything other then game and targets and have no desire to shoot another human unless they were protecting themselves or loved ones.

Do you always look at things in such a pessimistic way?


So in my opinion we have to tightly regulate what kinds of guns we allow people to have, and tightly regulate how exactly they should be allowed to use them.

I think they should be regulated, but not as much as you. I feel that the penalty should be severe is they use a gun to commit a crime.

I have serious issues on things like Meagan's law also because they have technically done what the state has mandated them to do, but they are still being punished for it. Do I think they can truly be rehabilitated, no I don't. But we can't keep them in prision for their life if they haven't killed anyone, and only in some situations.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 11:59 AM
Good thing you’re not in charge of determining “need” then. I’ve already given you valid reasons for ownership.

I beat you to the punch like 20 posts before you did.

I've acknowledged sport and defense as two reasons to own a gun -- but neither one of these require semiautos.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 12:01 PM
I am sure and positive that there are a lot of red necks that have bought guns and ammo legally and haven't ever shot anything other then game and targets and have no desire to shoot another human unless they were protecting themselves or loved ones.

Do you always look at things in such a pessimistic way?

How on earth do you distinguish between the people who are going to use a gun for good reasons and those who will use it for bad reasons?

Seriously. Find out a way to distinguish between the two and figure out a way to write it into law, and it will have my support.

Until then, we have to assume the worst and heavily restrict what guns we sell, to whom, and how they're to be used.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 12:02 PM
No, not really.

I don't share the viewpoint that all legal guns are equal.

Radar Chief
09-24-2008, 12:03 PM
Maybe you're right. Maybe I'm just too stuck in my ways to see the parallel between gun ownership and prostitution.

Personal responsibility. If you’re blaming the gun for what people do with it you should blame the vag for what a woman does with it.

Radar Chief
09-24-2008, 12:04 PM
I beat you to the punch like 20 posts before you did.

I've acknowledged sport and defense as two reasons to own a gun -- but neither one of these require semiautos.

On whose deterimination? Depends on what sport you’re participating in.

bkkcoh
09-24-2008, 12:04 PM
How on earth do you distinguish between the people who are going to use a gun for good reasons and those who will use it for bad reasons?

Seriously. Find out a way to distinguish between the two and figure out a way to write it into law, and it will have my support.

Until then, we have to assume the worst and heavily restrict what guns we sell, to whom, and how they're to be used.

That is the problem, you can't determine that. But to assume that all people are going to do so it absolutely wrong also. What is it that gives you such a jaded outlook on people.

I firmly believe that everyone given the right, or wrong depending on your point of view, could be capable of murder, some might say it was self-defense.

Radar Chief
09-24-2008, 12:05 PM
I don't share the viewpoint that all legal guns are equal.

Who posted they were equal?

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 12:05 PM
Personal responsibility. If you’re blaming the gun for what people do with it you should blame the vag for what a woman does with it.

All penis metaphors aside, a gun is not a necessary, inseparable part of a person's body.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 12:06 PM
On whose deterimination? Depends on what sport you’re participating in.

I don't believe they have a place in sports period.

Hell, you can devise a sport for anything.

BIG_DADDY
09-24-2008, 12:06 PM
Implied threat #2.

Quit being a pussy I wasn't threatening you,I was just posting my opinion.

Radar Chief
09-24-2008, 12:06 PM
All penis metaphors aside, a gun is not a necessary, inseparable part of a person's body.

Tell it to Iowanian. I’m just trying to help you understand his metaphor.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 12:07 PM
That is the problem, you can't determine that. But to assume that all people are going to do so it absolutely wrong also. What is it that gives you such a jaded outlook on people.

I firmly believe that everyone given the right, or wrong depending on your point of view, could be capable of murder, some might say it was self-defense.

Me too. That's my fear and that's why we should be especially careful with the guns we allow citizens to own.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 12:08 PM
Who posted they were equal?

In terms of lethality, you.

If you think I could kill the same number of people on the Plaza in an hour with any legal gun available, then that's what you're arguing.

Radar Chief
09-24-2008, 12:08 PM
I don't believe they have a place in sports period.

I do. Your loss.

Hell, you can devise a sport for anything.

True, how many date back to the time man picked up tools to hunt?

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 12:08 PM
Tell it to Iowanian. I’m just trying to help you understand his metaphor.

k

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 12:09 PM
True, how many date back to the time man picked up tools to hunt?

Loads. I don't see what that's supposed to legitimize, though.

Radar Chief
09-24-2008, 12:11 PM
In terms of lethality, you.

Please quote where then.

If you think I could kill the same number of people on the Plaza in an hour with any legal gun available, then that's what you're arguing.

That’s not what I posted. You’re making the assertion that more could be killed with a rifle and I’m disagreeing. It’s far to situational dependent to come up with any realistic determination.

Iowanian
09-24-2008, 12:11 PM
Maybe you're right.

You could have just stopped there and been ahead.

Radar Chief
09-24-2008, 12:12 PM
Loads.

Like?

I don't see what that's supposed to legitimize, though.

Competing at hunting skills is a sport that’s been around since the beginning of man.
You really don’t get that though? And you think you have enough information do make determination of what others should or shouldn’t have?

Brock
09-24-2008, 12:13 PM
In terms of lethality, you.

If you think I could kill the same number of people on the Plaza in an hour with any legal gun available, then that's what you're arguing.

You keep coming back to this fallacious argument. In terms of greatest number of casualties, the AK, or really any semiauto rifle wouldn't be the tool best suited for the job. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.

BIG_DADDY
09-24-2008, 12:13 PM
Me too. That's my fear and that's why we should be especially careful with the guns we allow citizens to own.

Well if you ever researched successful defensive gun uses in this country -vs- gun deaths related to civilian ownership of guns you would realize your case against guns is a joke.

HC_Chief
09-24-2008, 12:14 PM
Until then, we have to assume the worst and heavily restrict what guns we sell, to whom, and how they're to be used.

Wrong. Second Amendment. Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Iowanian
09-24-2008, 12:17 PM
"With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects"

BIG_DADDY
09-24-2008, 12:18 PM
Wrong. Second Amendment. Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

I honestly believe Direckshun is just holding the party line especially since his home boy Obama is a huge anti-gun guy.

Iowanian
09-24-2008, 12:19 PM
George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence."

Thomas Jefferson: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Patrick Henry:"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.

Samuel Adams:"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

George Mason:"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Thomas Jefferson: "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

Tench Coxe: "Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize ... the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

Thomas Jefferson: "One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."

Thomas Jefferson:"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Thomas Jefferson: "None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important."

Alexander Hamilton: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government."

Thomas Jefferson: "Most codes extend their definitions of treason to acts not really against one's country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government, and acts against the oppressions of the government. The latter are virtues, yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former, because real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries."

George Mason: "Who are the militia? They consist of the whole people, except a few public officers."

Thomas Jefferson: "It astonishes me to find... [that so many] of our countrymen... should be contented to live under a system which leaves to their governors the power of taking from them the trial by jury in civil cases, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce, the habeas corpus laws, and of yoking them with a standing army. This is a degeneracy in the principles of liberty... which I [would not have expected for at least] four centuries."

Thomas Jefferson: "I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."

bkkcoh
09-24-2008, 12:21 PM
Wrong. Second Amendment. Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

"With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects"

I honestly believe Direckshun is just holding the party line especially since his home boy Obama is a huge anti-gun guy.

With all rights come responsibility. Without responsibility, one's rights are deminished. I can understand if someone does something against the law that they might lose some of the rights, but having done nothing wrong or illegal, I don't agree with that.

BIG_DADDY
09-24-2008, 12:21 PM
George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence."

Thomas Jefferson: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Patrick Henry:"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.

Samuel Adams:"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

George Mason:"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Thomas Jefferson: "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

Tench Coxe: "Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize ... the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

Thomas Jefferson: "One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."

Thomas Jefferson:"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Thomas Jefferson: "None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important."

Alexander Hamilton: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government."

Thomas Jefferson: "Most codes extend their definitions of treason to acts not really against one's country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government, and acts against the oppressions of the government. The latter are virtues, yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former, because real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries."

George Mason: "Who are the militia? They consist of the whole people, except a few public officers."

Thomas Jefferson: "It astonishes me to find... [that so many] of our countrymen... should be contented to live under a system which leaves to their governors the power of taking from them the trial by jury in civil cases, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce, the habeas corpus laws, and of yoking them with a standing army. This is a degeneracy in the principles of liberty... which I [would not have expected for at least] four centuries."

Thomas Jefferson: "I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."

Those guys aren't shit Obama and the UN says guns are bad for citizens to own.

bkkcoh
09-24-2008, 12:27 PM
Those guys aren't shit Obama and the UN says guns are bad for citizens to own.

Come on, he is quoting a beer guy and a university, what do they know about guns.



:D:rolleyes::doh!:

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 12:38 PM
Well if you ever researched successful defensive gun uses in this country -vs- gun deaths related to civilian ownership of guns you would realize your case against guns is a joke.

I'm not against defensive gun uses.

BIG_DADDY
09-24-2008, 12:40 PM
I'm not against defensive gun uses.

You are entirely missing the point.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 12:40 PM
Competing at hunting skills is a sport that’s been around since the beginning of man.
You really don’t get that though? And you think you have enough information do make determination of what others should or shouldn’t have?

I'm not against using guns for sport.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 12:41 PM
You are entirely missing the point.

Indulge me, then.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 12:41 PM
You keep coming back to this fallacious argument. In terms of greatest number of casualties, the AK, or really any semiauto rifle wouldn't be the tool best suited for the job. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Go on.

Brock
09-24-2008, 12:42 PM
Go on.

Accurate shooting > Spray and pray.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 12:44 PM
Accurate shooting > Spray and pray.

I understand that but I'd rather deal with a guy who has to actually square up the crosshairs versus a guy who's spraying the crowd.

Brock
09-24-2008, 12:49 PM
I understand that but I'd rather deal with a guy who has to actually square up the crosshairs versus a guy who's spraying the crowd.

The guy who squares up the crosshairs is going to kill a lot more people. A lot. A metric shitload.

Iowanian
09-24-2008, 12:50 PM
I understand that but I'd rather deal with a guy who has to actually square up the crosshairs versus a guy who's spraying the crowd.


FAIL!!!!!





Then you'd be an idiot.

Radar Chief
09-24-2008, 12:51 PM
I'm not against using guns for sport.

So, you’re just for limiting what sports can be participated in?

BIG_DADDY
09-24-2008, 12:57 PM
Indulge me, then.

Heavy legislation on firearms will reduce the amount that law abiding citizens have which will reduce SDGU's. Firearm legislation doesn't work it only takes them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Your boy Obama doesn't think any of us citizens should have guns and spent 8 years and millions of dollars on the board of the Joyce Foundation trying to take them away.

BTW

When anti-gun activists list the number of deaths per year from firearms, they neglect to mention that 60% of the 30,000 figure they so often use are suicides. They also fail to mention that at least three quarters of the 12,000 homicides are criminals killing other criminals in disputes over illicit drugs, or police shooting criminals engaged in felonies. Subtracting those, we are left with no more than 3,000 deaths in the entire country that I think most would consider valid.

Self Defense Statistics
Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.
Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime
Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.
Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime
As many as 200,000 of the 2.5 million are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime
In 1993 'only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.
Newsweek, November 15, 1993
In 89.6% of violent crimes directed against women, the offender does not have a gun; and only 10% of rapists carry a firearm. Thus, armed women will usually have a decided advantage against their attackers.
Don B. Kates, Jr., Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control, (1990), at 29, citing U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).
Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148.
In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation.
Kleck, 'Crime Control,' at 13.
85% of Americans believe people should have the right to use firearms to defend themselves in their homes, 64% favor allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for personal protection outside their homes, and 72% favor stiffer sentences for criminals who use a gun in crime rather then more gun laws.
Survey of voters, Lawrence Research, 1998.

Radar Chief
09-24-2008, 01:04 PM
I understand that but I'd rather deal with a guy who has to actually square up the crosshairs versus a guy who's spraying the crowd.

I've told this story before but you may not have been around to read it.
So I meet a lot of people in the course of my job.
One was an EMT in Joplin that told me a story about this drive by he had worked.
Seems some knuckle head had pissed off the leader of this gang so they caught him on the street in front of a theater and pulled a drive by with an AK. 20 some bullets fired into a crowd and the only shot that hit was one that ricocheted off the pavement into the knuckle heads calf.
Police are called, ambulance with EMT buddy works the scene. They put knuckle head into the back of their ambulance then talk to the police before leaving. While they were talking with the Joplin Poh-poh a dipshit from the gang sees knuckle head loaded into the back, sneaks into the ambulance and says “this is from so-&-so” then procedes to empty a 9mm with 17 round clip without hitting the knuckle head once. At least 37 rounds fired and only one found its mark and that was by accident.

Iowanian
09-24-2008, 01:14 PM
...but I'll bet the guy looked really, really cool ripping off those rounds.

HC_Chief
09-24-2008, 01:56 PM
...but I'll bet the guy looked really, really cool ripping off those rounds.

Wonder if he had these attached : http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/08/22/sideways_gun_sight.jpg

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 02:11 PM
I've told this story before but you may not have been around to read it.
So I meet a lot of people in the course of my job.
One was an EMT in Joplin that told me a story about this drive by he had worked.
Seems some knuckle head had pissed off the leader of this gang so they caught him on the street in front of a theater and pulled a drive by with an AK. 20 some bullets fired into a crowd and the only shot that hit was one that ricocheted off the pavement into the knuckle heads calf.
Police are called, ambulance with EMT buddy works the scene. They put knuckle head into the back of their ambulance then talk to the police before leaving. While they were talking with the Joplin Poh-poh a dipshit from the gang sees knuckle head loaded into the back, sneaks into the ambulance and says “this is from so-&-so” then procedes to empty a 9mm with 17 round clip without hitting the knuckle head once. At least 37 rounds fired and only one found its mark and that was by accident.
Why does this argument always go one way?

"Guy with a gun you don't like tried to kill lots of people, but because the weapon is so unreliable, he failed."

Doesn't that mean the opposite is true as well, and accidental deaths are also more likely with this kind of weapon?

Or are killers the only ones who are inaccurate with the weapons you'd like to remain legalized?

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 02:12 PM
So, you’re just for limiting what sports can be participated in?

No, I'm for limited which guns can be used. You guys can figure out the sports you like with the legal ones.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 02:14 PM
Heavy legislation on firearms will reduce the amount that law abiding citizens have which will reduce SDGU's. Firearm legislation doesn't work it only takes them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Your boy Obama doesn't think any of us citizens should have guns and spent 8 years and millions of dollars on the board of the Joyce Foundation trying to take them away.

I'm not for taking guns away, I'm for limiting which guns are legal.

There's no reason that you couldn't have five perfectly acceptible guns in your house in case an intruder broke in.

Radar Chief
09-24-2008, 02:25 PM
Why does this argument always go one way?

"Guy with a gun you don't like tried to kill lots of people, but because the weapon is so unreliable, he failed."

Where in my post did you read that either weapon was unreliable or failed?

Doesn't that mean the opposite is true as well, and accidental deaths are also more likely with this kind of weapon?

How so?

Or are killers the only ones who are inaccurate with the weapons you'd like to remain legalized?

I think Hollywood has conned you into believing shooting someone is as simple as pointing and clicking your mouse button.
Hint: it isn’t. It’s a skill that takes time and practice to hone into some semblance of accuracy.

Radar Chief
09-24-2008, 02:27 PM
No, I'm for limited which guns can be used.

Which then limits what sport shooting events one may participate in.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 02:32 PM
Where in my post did you read that either weapon was unreliable or failed?

Well then your story basically boils down to "it's a good thing these two guys were idiots."

I don't know how that advances your argument or deflates mine.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 02:33 PM
Which then limits what sport shooting events one may participate in.

By extension, yeah.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 02:36 PM
And I'm sorry, I have to respond to this ludacris charge:

I think Hollywood has conned you into believing shooting someone is as simple as pointing and clicking your mouse button.
Hint: it isn’t. It’s a skill that takes time and practice to hone into some semblance of accuracy.

I've read news stories ad nauseum about toddlers killing their parents, kids shooting other kids, and distressed women unloading on attackers.

These are not target shooters, they are in some circumstances as inexperienced behind the barrel as I am. In other instances they are wrecked with fright.

I'm not saying it's easy to shoot someone, but the idea that it can only happen with proper training is proven wrong in local news headlines on a daily basis.

Radar Chief
09-24-2008, 02:37 PM
Well then your story basically boils down to "it's a good thing these two guys were idiots."

I don't know how that advances your argument or deflates mine.

I'd rather deal with a guy who has to actually square up the crosshairs versus a guy who's spraying the crowd.

Well that’s stupid.

Giving an example of why that’s a stupid plan.

You really are just lost in this conversation, aren’t you?
Just aimlessly arguing with whoever will have a go.

Direckshun
09-24-2008, 02:39 PM
You really are just lost in this conversation, aren’t you?
Just aimlessly arguing with whoever will have a go.

Not really.

You really are arguing that because these two were idiots and had no idea how to operate a gun than therefore... what?

Maybe I am lost. Maybe it has less to do with me being a dumbshit as it does being barraged by 18 different arguments at the same time. Let's give me some benefit of the doubt here.

Radar Chief
09-24-2008, 02:43 PM
And I'm sorry, I have to respond to this ludacris charge:



I've read news stories ad nauseum about toddlers killing their parents,

:spock: Then post one.

kids shooting other kids, and distressed women unloading on attackers.

Accidents do, sadly, happen. But we were talking about someone with the intent to kill.
Or do you really know what you’re arguing about? :shrug:

Radar Chief
09-24-2008, 02:44 PM
Let's give me some benefit of the doubt here.

I’m trying, but you’re not making it easy.

Iowanian
09-24-2008, 02:56 PM
The only people affected by gun legislation are people who already follow gun laws.


Maybe the direckshuns' of the world would support gun rights if guns were used to perform abortions.

Reaper16
09-24-2008, 04:03 PM
I'd think that mass murderers would always be able to obtain guns. The bad guys will always have access to guns, no matter how strict the laws are.

Super-strict gun laws weaken the citizenry while providing little to no effect on the criminals.