bush_cheney2004 Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 So, tell me again why it was so important for the Bush Administration to allow that Clinton Era bill limiting gun magazines to 10 rounds, to sunset, so that we could end up with incidents like this one on Saturday? Because the law specifically had a sunset clause to begin with, and that's worth votes. It's not complicated. Would you be happier if only 11 people had been killed or injured? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 The reason the right to bear arms exists in the US is that it is "necessary to the security of a free State" (that's from the US constitution). Hand guns with limited magazines hardly would help to protect the security of a state in the modern day. Citizens must be allowed access to modern weaponry, including assault weapons, in order to have any chance at being effective in carrying out their purpose. But they don't have tanks so their screwed. Doesn't matter how many assault rifles they get their hands on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) That's OK....I always welcome the opportunity to disabuse anyone concerning false notions about guns and violence in America. Guns and the language of guns are integral to American history and culture. Firearms are the quintessential example and instrument of American individualism and power. It matters not that you agree or disagree...it just is...and has always been thus. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. Well at least you appear to have a sense of humour. Has it ever occurred to you that the position you have staked out is a fallacious and misguided one? Does it not concern you that a lunatic can buy a rapid fire weapon with virtually no effective oversight? Are you not concerned that the NRA owns your political class including a number of individuals on the judiciary? Edited January 11, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/963/385/661/?z00m=19930133 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/963/385/661/?z00m=19930133 Many politicians need to watch what they say. You never know how some of those crazy right-wing lunatics will react to strong words. http://hillbuzz.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/screen-shot-2011-01-10-at-1-36-34-pm.png Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LonJowett Posted January 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Many politicians need to watch what they say. You never know how some of those crazy right-wing lunatics will react to strong words. It's true. Even from looking at this board, I can see there are many psychotics who don't care about anyone getting killed unless they aren't born yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Would you be happier if only 11 people had been killed or injured? Well it certainly is fewer, I bet the additional 9 people and their families may well have been happier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704428004576074771682115128.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLETopStories&om_rid=NsfrMk&om_mid=_BNLFgoB8XMdBk7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Gun nuts seem to infest the American right. Untrue. The left likes people to be defenseless and vulnerable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Untrue. The left likes people to be defenseless and vulnerable. Not so although your gun may be your phallic symbol. As a lefty I feel neither defenseless nor vulnerable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGreenthumb Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Relative merits of the arguments aside, isn't it just as intrusive on the part of government to require people to be armed in the name of public safety as it is to require them to be unarmed? A gun lobby that says everyone should be armed is no less disrespectful of a citizen's freedoms than a government that says no one should be armed. Holy crap, I agree with Wilbur. Had to happen eventually I guess, lol. I still think pot prohibition is totally evil and wrong though, so don't worry, heheh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Not so although your gun may be your phallic symbol. As a lefty I feel neither defenseless nor vulnerable. You would feel differently if an armed intruder threatened your family, and you were at the intruder's mercy because you were unrmed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 I take it you would be comfortable being the only one in the building without a gun. If not, you are being forced to carry. Yes I would be comfortable with it. Trained and responsible gun owners are not a problem to me. My dad was a responsible gun owner, (recently gave his rifles up because he does not hunt anymore) and that showed me that as long as people are responsible and treat the gun with the respect it deserves, then there really is no problem. The problem in Arizona might be that the laws are too lax, and apparently that is how this person obtained a gun, but regardless he obtained the gun through 100% legal means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 But they don't have tanks so their screwed. Doesn't matter how many assault rifles they get their hands on. Nor do they have nuclear weapons. The Afghans are giving the world a tough time. Beat back the Russians in the nineties and the US isn't currently engaged in a cakewalk there. Unlike, Stalin, Mao and others who disarmed their citizens and then went in for the kill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) You would feel differently if an armed intruder threatened your family, and you were at the intruder's mercy because you were unrmed. What a person would do in such circumstances is really an unknown. No doubt if I felt my family was threatened I would do what I considered needed to be done to address such a situation. Edited January 11, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Well at least you appear to have a sense of humour. Has it ever occurred to you that the position you have staked out is a fallacious and misguided one? Does it not concern you that a lunatic can buy a rapid fire weapon with virtually no effective oversight? Nope...not in the least. I am more likely to be killed by somebody with a rapid fire Subaru. Are you not concerned that the NRA owns your political class including a number of individuals on the judiciary? No more than lobbyists for the education, trial lawyers, or Canadian softwood lumber industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) Nope...not in the least. I am more likely to be killed by somebody with a rapid fire Subaru. No more than lobbyists for the education, trial lawyers, or Canadian softwood lumber industry. Yes. Lyin' Brian Mulroney sold us down the river for a song. Edited January 11, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 What a person would do in such circumstances is really an unknown. No doubt if I felt my family was threatened I would do what I considered needed to be done to address such a situation. ...as would other individuals and families. In America, this includes the right to bear arms, and in many states, to carry them concealed. It ain't Canada! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 ...as would other individuals and families. In America, this includes the right to bear arms, and in many states, to carry them concealed. It ain't Canada! Surely you aren't suggesting the availabilty of a gun would determine the outcome in any given situation. For example what if that individual whose home was invaded had the tables turned on him by being disarmed by an intruder or intruders. By the way Brian Mulroney and Ronald Raygun were a cut of the same right wing cloth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 As a lefty I feel neither defenseless nor vulnerable. So you really have no concern about right wing rhetoric at all? No crazed gun toting bubba is of any concern to you whatsoever. You are being quite disingenuous since you insist upon disarming the populace. Is that for other people's safety or those friends of yours who may feel defenseless and vulnerable? We are probably going to have to live with crazies, criminals and politicians that wish to keep you in pasture, at least for the foreseeable future, and you believe that the honest, rational citizen be disarmed? Sounds like , if you are not feeling defenseless nor vulnerable, you are, in the least, a bit fearful. Is there some other reason for keeping rational people from being armed and without any means of protection. On the one hand, you are perfectly fine with disarming everyone, except the government, of course, who will protect you from others. It is obvious you don't feel safe with people being armed but guess what, that doesn't get rid of crazies or criminals who will find their way to violence in some manner if not guns. But generally they are the only ones left with guns when the rest of the rational citizens have been disarmed. Guess you never went to Boy Scouts. Their motto is "Be prepared". It's good advice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Surely you aren't suggesting the availabilty of a gun would determine the outcome in any given situation. For example what if that individual whose home was invaded had the tables turned on him by being disarmed by an intruder or intruders. In fact, suicide or unintended discharge is far more likely. So what? By the way Brian Mulroney and Ronald Raygun were a cut of the same right wing cloth. Were you even alive then? How is this relevant to the topic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) So you really have no concern about right wing rhetoric at all? No crazed gun toting bubba is of any concern to you whatsoever. You are being quite disingenuous since you insist upon disarming the populace. Is that for other people's safety or those friends of yours who may feel defenseless and vulnerable? We are probably going to have to live with crazies, criminals and politicians that wish to keep you in pasture, at least for the foreseeable future, and you believe that the honest, rational citizen be disarmed? Sounds like , if you are not feeling defenseless nor vulnerable, you are, in the least, a bit fearful. Is there some other reason for keeping rational people from being armed and without any means of protection. On the one hand, you are perfectly fine with disarming everyone, except the government, of course, who will protect you from others. It is obvious you don't feel safe with people being armed but guess what, that doesn't get rid of crazies or criminals who will find their way to violence in some manner if not guns. But generally they are the only ones left with guns when the rest of the rational citizens have been disarmed. Guess you never went to Boy Scouts. Their motto is "Be prepared". It's good advice. Guess again cybertough. Edited January 11, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 What a person would do in such circumstances is really an unknown. No doubt if I felt my family was threatened I would do what I considered needed to be done to address such a situation. You could inform the intruder that what he is doing is not only illegal but irrational. You do not believe in violence, I'm sure. You may have to go into a crazed rage to get yourself to put up a fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 You could inform the intruder that what he is doing is not only illegal but irrational. You do not believe in violence, I'm sure. You may have to go into a crazed rage to get yourself to put up a fight. I could and may if placed in such a situation. I am not a pacifist. The fight or flight quality is an innate feature of human nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) Except that the gun lobby has a financial interest in creating a climate where everyone has to own a gun. This is also part of the logic of rightwing libertarians and anarchists, who think that, instead of having police, all we need is an armed citizenry. What kind of freedom do you have if you have to worry about being shot every time you go to the store or step out in public? Trying to stay away from the gun debate, just sayin that there are situations where the "right" to do something can reach a point where it effectively eliminates the "right" not to do something. The idea that everyone should have the right to walk around armed is one of those situations where that principal applies. The idea that everyone having access to assault weapons in order to ensure a country's freedom is a peculiarly American idea that doesn't seem to apply in most other civilized countries. Personally, I don't feel the need to walk around armed all day in order to ensure my personal safety fits my idea of freedom. Quite the contrary. Edited January 11, 2011 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.