What is a Gun Nut? (accuse, gun owner, million, percentage)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you, or do you not believe in keeping guns out of the hands of people who are criminally insane?
I have a good answer for your question - Any criminal, whether they're insane or not belong behind bars, that's the only way to keep guns out of their hands.
It has been mentioned before millions of times, gun laws will not affect criminals, they only affect law-abiding citizens.
To answer the original question, What is a gun nut? I have several weapons and I call myself a Gun Enthusiast, not a gun nut. When a person commits a crime using a firearm, a car, a knife, a baseball bat, a sword, fertilizer (to make explosives) or any other weapon, then they are CRIMINALS, there aren't any "gun nuts".
Like the many ar15's I currently own. So I'm not a gun nut because I like old expensive guns but them I am a gun nut because I also purchase a "modern weapon" that is black and scary. Why do you not like black? The two guns I posted pictures of are black. The process of purchasing one of the guns I pictured is actualy easier than purchasing a "modern weapon."
Just what are you going to do with those "many AR15s" you own. What use do you have for them? Against whom will you use them?
Why has "blackness" entered into your conversation when nobody else has mentioned it?
Just what are you going to do with those "many AR15s" you own. What use do you have for them? Against whom will you use them?
Why has "blackness" entered into your conversation when nobody else has mentioned it?
Because he was talking about "modern weapons" which is code for ar15 rifles, which are almost always black. They function just like the rifles in the past with wood stocks, but those are not scary, the black rifle is scary.
That is why no one cares about the mini 14 even though it functions just like an ar15, takes a folding stock, pistol grip, 30 round magazines, but the stock is wood instead of black plastic so it must be OK.
I think the majority of anti-gun people are driven by a fear that they may be shot. That fear leads them to think that removing all civilian guns will eliminate the threat. That response is irrational because the likeliest shooter is overwhelmingly a criminal with criminal intent or a crazy with no reason. Removing civilian guns will NOT prevent a criminal or crazy from getting a gun. In the case of the Sandy Hook tragedy the shooter was both criminal and crazy.
-----------------------
This statement is totally wrong. It is paranoid to suggest that the majority of gun-control people are "anti-gun" and want to remove all civilian guns. Where would you get this crap since no such thing has been said by Obama, "liberals", or anybody else?
Gun "control" is what it says - CONTROL. Check a dictionary - "confiscation" and "banning" are something else! Also, you truly believe you have a right to secret ownership of any weapon you want?
As another citizen, I need to be protected from such belief systems without having to arm myself to the teeth for my own protection. Just because you tell me you are responsible I must accept that at face value? Sure - I'll do that...
It's about ACCESS to weapons without responsibility, because ongoing and recent events have shown that you cannot trust the individual to police himself. Just as we found out that the individual can't be trusted to drive safely - so we make laws which force responsibility on everyone. Would you remove all traffic laws because you drive safely, or repeal other laws because you conduct yourself responsibly?
Like it or not you are part of a society, and why a citizen would want unlimited and secret ownership of weapons is suspicious in itself.
There is absolutely no reason for all Americans to be packing heat as a "solution" to the problem of crime. That is a ridiculous scenario for any "civilized" country, and a step backward for America.
Because he was talking about "modern weapons" which is code for ar15 rifles, which are almost always black. They function just like the rifles in the past with wood stocks, but those are not scary, the black rifle is scary.
That is why no one cares about the mini 14 even though it functions just like an ar15, takes a folding stock, pistol grip, 30 round magazines, but the stock is wood instead of black plastic so it must be OK.
This statement is totally wrong. It is paranoid to suggest that the majority of gun-control people are "anti-gun" and want to remove all civilian guns.
Well consider the immediate aftermath of Sandy Hook, a roughly 90-day period where many gun control advocates were adamant that they didn't want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens; rather, they just want U.S. gun laws to more closely resemble those of the UK and Australia. ""
And then, surprise suprise, American print media outlets begin publishing an article by neocon swine John Howard with the title "I Went After Guns--Obama can, too."
At about the same time, CNN, apparently not content with merely exploiting the families of Sandy Hook, took to interviewing residents of Dunblane, Scotland, touting the merits of the UK's gun reforms following a shooting massacre at the local primary school (handgun ban, anyone?).
There's much more, of course: From mid-December onward, a simple Google search for "ban guns" can turn up dozens of results from local media outlets from numerous states (nevermind nationally distributed material) angrily demanding "comprehensive" gun control, whilst blaming any opponent of their objectives as directly complicit in murder; an Iowa state representative articulates that "we may have to start taking them [semi-automatic weapons]"; Salon.com and Huffpost published multiple articles condemning gun owners, lamenting that nothing short of an all-out ban (obviously used synonymously with "confiscation") will cure gun violence in the U.S.; Diane Feinstein drafts her AWB, which initially contained provisions for confiscation/mandatory buybacks with compensation; MSNBC commentators (need I say more?); a prospective mayoral candidate in Austin, TX remarks to an anti-gun control protestor that hopefully his fears of a gun ban will soon become legitimate (as if they weren't already); multitudes of online forums ([domain blocked due to spam], City-Data, comment boards on the NYT, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, the New Yorker, etc.) were slathered with posts comparing gun owners/opponents to Democrat-sponsored gun legislation to terrorists, murderers and pedophiles, further asserting that these people should thus be prohibited from owning firearms; is this a clear picture yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by detwahDJ
Where would you get this crap since no such thing has been said by Obama, "liberals", or anybody else?
Gun "control" is what it says - CONTROL. Check a dictionary - "confiscation" and "banning" are something else! Also, you truly believe you have a right to secret ownership of any weapon you want?
As another citizen, I need to be protected from such belief systems without having to arm myself to the teeth for my own protection. Just because you tell me you are responsible I must accept that at face value? Sure - I'll do that...
Generally speaking, a ban deligitimizes an action or an object, regardless of whether or not it does so in an immediate or prolonged fashion. The intent of, say, the federal AWB, is eventual confiscation following the owner's voluntary surrender of such weapons or the owner's death (as Feinstein explained, her legislation would "dry up the supply of these weapons over time").
What else could you possibly call this if not incremental confiscation through the back door?
And yes, my friend, I should be entitled to own property (constitutionally protected property, that is) without approval from you or your bureaucratic deities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by detwahDJ
It's about ACCESS to weapons without responsibility, because ongoing and recent events have shown that you cannot trust the individual to police himself. Just as we found out that the individual can't be trusted to drive safely - so we make laws which force responsibility on everyone. Would you remove all traffic laws because you drive safely, or repeal other laws because you conduct yourself responsibly?
It would appear that you're astoundingly ignorant to the fact that settled law has long affirmed that police forces--government entities--bear no liability for failing to protect citizens from bodily harm at the hands of an aggressor or home invader (you know, the kind of people--criminals--who actually need what you call "policing"). Perhaps this is why the police themselves have recently offered blessing to armed citizens who utilize their right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense (nevermind their nearly unanimous disagreement with current gun control proposals).
And please, until the right to keep and operate motor vehicles is addressed by the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, you people need to quit with these unapplicable, nonsensical car/driving analogies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by detwahDJ
Like it or not you are part of a society, and why a citizen would want unlimited and secret ownership of weapons is suspicious in itself.
And there we have it: the law-abiding gun owner who wishes to keep his or her private property out of a government database is the problem, and thus are the ones who must be addressed legislatively. Remember this, gun owners: it was you who caused 18 children to die at Sandy Hook; it's your fault that Mexican drug cartels have guns; the victims of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, etc. are dead because you oppose the legislative will of politically-charged phonies who have been blatantly hostile to your constitutional right to keep and bear arms for the last four decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by detwahDJ
There is absolutely no reason for all Americans to be packing heat as a "solution" to the problem of crime. That is a ridiculous scenario for any "civilized" country, and a step backward for America.
Aww, yes, it's stunningly un-Swedish of us to recognize that armed, law-abiding citizens (most notably CWP holders) have comfortably co-existed with (if not contributed to) an almost 50% decrease in violent crime over two decades.
For the past four months, you people have bullied, demonized and made every attempt to socially stigmatize gun owners and 2A advocates to an extent that's unprecedented in my lifetime (and no, I haven't forgotten the 90s).
Just keep ruthlessly blaming us for every criminological ill under the sun, pal--we really do need people like you (if anything for such flagrant displays of authoritarian snobbery).
A gun nut is a person who desperately wants and believes they need a gun when they could survive without the weapon. A mature gun owner is a person who really does not want a gun nor does he need one but has one -stored away anyway. Those thathave a fixation and un-natural lust for anything have a problem...It's called stupidity.
Good example of the mentality. As a kid we lived out in the country by a lake. We would light huge bon fires by the water in the evening. FIRE was a common thing for us...City kids who came up to visit I found were fire nuts. All they wanted to do was light a fire in the middle of the day for no apparent reason. Fire to them was something fascinating and they were fire nuts. This is similar to gun nuts.
Well consider the immediate aftermath of Sandy Hook, a roughly 90-day period where many gun control advocates were adamant that they didn't want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens; rather, they just want U.S. gun laws to more closely resemble those of the UK and Australia. ""
And then, surprise suprise, American print media outlets begin publishing an article by neocon swine John Howard with the title "I Went After Guns--Obama can, too."
At about the same time, CNN, apparently not content with merely exploiting the families of Sandy Hook, took to interviewing residents of Dunblane, Scotland, touting the merits of the UK's gun reforms following a shooting massacre at the local primary school (handgun ban, anyone?).
There's much more, of course: From mid-December onward, a simple Google search for "ban guns" can turn up dozens of results from local media outlets from numerous states (nevermind nationally distributed material) angrily demanding "comprehensive" gun control, whilst blaming any opponent of their objectives as directly complicit in murder; an Iowa state representative articulates that "we may have to start taking them [semi-automatic weapons]"; Salon.com and Huffpost published multiple articles condemning gun owners, lamenting that nothing short of an all-out ban (obviously used synonymously with "confiscation") will cure gun violence in the U.S.; Diane Feinstein drafts her AWB, which initially contained provisions for confiscation/mandatory buybacks with compensation; MSNBC commentators (need I say more?); a prospective mayoral candidate in Austin, TX remarks to an anti-gun control protestor that hopefully his fears of a gun ban will soon become legitimate (as if they weren't already); multitudes of online forums ([domain blocked due to spam], City-Data, comment boards on the NYT, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, the New Yorker, etc.) were slathered with posts comparing gun owners/opponents to Democrat-sponsored gun legislation to terrorists, murderers and pedophiles, further asserting that these people should thus be prohibited from owning firearms; is this a clear picture yet?
Generally speaking, a ban deligitimizes an action or an object, regardless of whether or not it does so in an immediate or prolonged fashion. The intent of, say, the federal AWB, is eventual confiscation following the owner's voluntary surrender of such weapons or the owner's death (as Feinstein explained, her legislation would "dry up the supply of these weapons over time").
What else could you possibly call this if not incremental confiscation through the back door?
And yes, my friend, I should be entitled to own property (constitutionally protected property, that is) without approval from you or your bureaucratic deities.
It would appear that you're astoundingly ignorant to the fact that settled law has long affirmed that police forces--government entities--bear no liability for failing to protect citizens from bodily harm at the hands of an aggressor or home invader (you know, the kind of people--criminals--who actually need what you call "policing"). Perhaps this is why the police themselves have recently offered blessing to armed citizens who utilize their right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense (nevermind their nearly unanimous disagreement with current gun control proposals).
And please, until the right to keep and operate motor vehicles is addressed by the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, you people need to quit with these unapplicable, nonsensical car/driving analogies.
And there we have it: the law-abiding gun owner who wishes to keep his or her private property out of a government database is the problem, and thus are the ones who must be addressed legislatively. Remember this, gun owners: it was you who caused 18 children to die at Sandy Hook; it's your fault that Mexican drug cartels have guns; the victims of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, etc. are dead because you oppose the legislative will of politically-charged phonies who have been blatantly hostile to your constitutional right to keep and bear arms for the last four decades.
Aww, yes, it's stunningly un-Swedish of us to recognize that armed, law-abiding citizens (most notably CWP holders) have comfortably co-existed with (if not contributed to) an almost 50% decrease in violent crime over two decades.
For the past four months, you people have bullied, demonized and made every attempt to socially stigmatize gun owners and 2A advocates to an extent that's unprecedented in my lifetime (and no, I haven't forgotten the 90s).
Just keep ruthlessly blaming us for every criminological ill under the sun, pal--we really do need people like you (if anything for such flagrant displays of authoritarian snobbery).
I never said anywhere that people shouldn't own guns.
Your inflated right-wing paranoid, delirious, distorted, and hysterical response is a prime example of why we need enforced responsibility. Everybody is a "law-abiding" gun owner up until they commit a crime.
I never said anywhere that people shouldn't own guns.
Your inflated right-wing paranoid, delirious, distorted, and hysterical response is a prime example of why we need enforced responsibility. Everybody is a "law-abiding" gun owner up until they commit a crime.
So everyone is law abiding before the drink and drive and kill someone, what's your point. Are you law abiding or a murderer?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is paranoid to suggest that the majority of gun-control people are "anti-gun" and want to remove all civilian guns. Where would you get this crap since no such thing has been said by Obama, "liberals", or anybody else? 
