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.
Pretty typical of you, finding yourself repeatedly backed into a corner.
Your comments don't faze me. Everyone else here is laughing at you. You really thought Americans, through some "common sense thing", could vote because the constitution gave them the right, didn't you? That's why you alluded to voting alongside gun ownership. The lack of knowledge you repeatedly exhibit (on those rare times you actually try to express any) is really astounding. We don't mind you expressing stupid and thoughtless opinions, as long as they are not based on complete vacant ignorance of anything at all, but stop saying things as if they are facts. When you don't possess any, and don't know how to find any.
A gunfree USA is not a USA at all, it is something different. A gunfree USA is not better, gun ownership is a right which the founders of this U.S of A felt was pretty important, and the American culture is based on that right. You will not be able to take our weapons, many educated and important decision makers in America will fight for this right, so I doubt it would ever have any support. (Thank God for the USA!)
Your comments don't faze me. Everyone else here is laughing at you. You really thought Americans, through some "common sense thing", could vote because the constitution gave them the right, didn't you? That's why you alluded to voting alongside gun ownership. The lack of knowledge you repeatedly exhibit (on those rare times you actually try to express any) is really astounding. We don't mind you expressing stupid and thoughtless opinions, as long as they are not based on complete vacant ignorance of anything at all, but stop saying things as if they are facts. When you don't possess any, and don't know how to find any.
YAWN. Now you're mad, and aren't able to control yourself. I thought you were 70, not 7.
So answer me two questions:
1. Did people figure out ways to kill each other - en mass - before the invention of guns? YES or NO?
2. Would people still be able to kill each other - en mass - in the absence of all guns today? YES or NO?
The fact that you won't have the balls to answer either of those questions with a simple YES or NO answer is evidence of the FACT that the answers are undeniable.
The bottom line is that you have, as usual, aligned yourself with the wrong side - the side that is lacking common sense.
Since I'm not involved in any drug gangs and I'm not the police or the army, what have I got to worry about? If you're involved in drug marketing, yes, I suppose it is a good idea for you to defend your stash with an arsenal. But the rest of us don't need to bother with it.
I live in a city of 60,000, with 100 cops and an average of less than 4 murders a year. What should I be scared of? Why should I spend my life cowering in fear?
Because you live in a place where the government CAN control things... for now. But do you really expect it to always stay that way? Especially with a government that adds trillions of new debt every year and a general population that only gets poorer and more desperate as times goes on? How many of those cops will stay around when they stop getting paychecks? What would happen to the murder rate without them?
I am not so optimistic about the future. Hopefully it doesn't ever happen, but if (and more likely when) it all comes apart I would like to at least have a fighting chance to defend home and hearth. That is not cowering in fear, it is planning ahead.
I would love to live in a world that didn't need guns, but never in a world where you couldn't have one. The world is a dangerous place and suburbia USA is the anomaly, not the historical reality. If you don't want or feel the need to have a gun, great! But don't seal up doors you might want to use in the future when situations inevitably change. Otherwise, you or your progeny will find themselves in a situation similar to the good people of Juarez.
Now it's YOUR turn to cite where I ever said that. And cutting and pasting stuff together from separate posts, quoting totally out of context etc....don't count pard.
Post #90. You state that 'all DF is talking about is 'assault weapons' and since that seems to be OK with you to single out that group of firearms, all I wanted was for you to define what these evil firearms are. I have NEVER cut and pasted anything (you do....regular) and when I quote it is always in whole, never bits and pieces to skew context (you do...regular). Sheesh, ask a simple question, you either can't or don't want to answer, so you go on a baiting binge. Impotence....that is treatable too...pard
Post #90. You state that 'all DF is talking about is 'assault weapons' and since that seems to be OK with you to single out that group of firearms, all I wanted was for you to define what these evil firearms are. I have NEVER cut and pasted anything (you do....regular) and when I quote it is always in whole, never bits and pieces to skew context (you do...regular). Sheesh, ask a simple question, you either can't or don't want to answer, so you go on a baiting binge. Impotence....that is treatable too...pard
The Feinstein quote is not whole, it is a bit that does not indicate what "them" is that she favors picking up. So point the finger at your side for failing, refusing, even intentionally deleting the context of quotes. Everybody knows that she was talking then, and at all times, about assault rifles. The reason the quote leaves off that context is because it would not serve your interests to leave it whole. It would only serve the interests of truth, which is poisonous to the pro-gun lobby.
Even the NRA's own cheerleader, Chris W. Cox, knew she was tallking ab out assault weapons, and correctly put her comment into context:
In the House, HR2038 has been introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. Instead of a "reauthorization" of the earlier ban, McCarthy wants to ban millions more guns and begin a backdoor national registration scheme. All told, HR2038 is a giant step closer to the goal stated by the assault-weapons ban sponsor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on CBS "60 Minutes": "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it." http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-03-0...ns-clinton-gun
Now. I asked you to find my quote that backs up your assertion:
I am citing YOUR opinion that "certain types of firearms" can , and should, be banned .
And you give me Post #90, in which I said absolutely nothing that would imply that I have the opinion that certain types of firearms can and should be banned.
The Feinstein quote is not whole, it is a bit that does not indicate what "them" is that she favors picking up. So point the finger at your side for failing, refusing, even intentionally deleting the context of quotes. Everybody knows that she was talking then, and at all times, about assault rifles. The reason the quote leaves off that context is because it would not serve your interests to leave it whole. It would only serve the interests of truth, which is poisonous to the pro-gun lobby.
Even the NRA's own cheerleader, Chris W. Cox, knew she was tallking ab out assault weapons, and correctly put her comment into context:
In the House, HR2038 has been introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. Instead of a "reauthorization" of the earlier ban, McCarthy wants to ban millions more guns and begin a backdoor national registration scheme. All told, HR2038 is a giant step closer to the goal stated by the assault-weapons ban sponsor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on CBS "60 Minutes": "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it." 2nd Amendment / Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in - SFGate
Now. I asked you to find my quote that backs up your assertion:
I am citing YOUR opinion that "certain types of firearms" can , and should, be banned .
And you give me Post #90, in which I said absolutely nothing that would imply that I have the opinion that certain types of firearms can and should be banned.
But you seem to be OK with the singling out of 'assault rifles' by notorious firearms rights haters like Feinstein....whatever, all I asked for was what you define as an 'assault rifle' and you don't have an answer. Seems simple enough, I guess not. To me , an 'assault rifle' is a military piece of hardware. Capable of selective fire, utilizing either a high cap mag or a belt feed system. The capability of full auto function being paramount in the definition. A semi auto only don't make the cut. You seem to classify all semi autos that take a detachable mag to be 'assault rifles' (thus your defending of Feinsteins drivel). If I felt inclined to go through your post history I could find plenty to back this 'assertion' up, you have a pretty clear record on the issue of firearms rights, as do I, but truly productive discussion of the issue is quite impossible with you. You stay too busy trying to dodge in and out of the actual talking points and trying to deflect direct, and simple questions, into the realm of ambiguity and convolusion.
But you seem to be OK with the singling out of 'assault rifles' by notorious firearms rights haters like Feinstein....whatever, all I asked for was what you define as an 'assault rifle' and you don't have an answer. Seems simple enough, I guess not. To me , an 'assault rifle' is a military piece of hardware. Capable of selective fire, utilizing either a high cap mag or a belt feed system. The capability of full auto function being paramount in the definition. A semi auto only don't make the cut. You seem to classify all semi autos that take a detachable mag to be 'assault rifles' (thus your defending of Feinsteins drivel). If I felt inclined to go through your post history I could find plenty to back this 'assertion' up, you have a pretty clear record on the issue of firearms rights, as do I, but truly productive discussion of the issue is quite impossible with you. You stay too busy trying to dodge in and out of the actual talking points and trying to deflect direct, and simple questions, into the realm of ambiguity and convolusion.
Let's review. I keep asking for a citation from someone who advocates the confiscation of all guns from all private Americans. (Post #65.) And I keep getting this crap. I ask a question 65 posts ago and everybody twists it into BS, and then accuses me of dodging the issue.
Does anybody want to take all guns away from all private citizens? If so, who? Just answer my question.
Americans worship guns. To Americans a gun equals freedom; no guns, no freedoms. Gun ownership is America's highest cultural achievement.
An American male who doesn't own a gun is a wussie.
Guns have saturated this society which should make a gun-free America an impossibility.
Personally, I don't care. I also think gun owners should be able to shoot their guns in populated areas. And Americans should be able to buy machine guns as well...as many as they can afford. Enjoy, America, Enjoy!
I encourage all Americans to own guns and be able to wear them in a visible holster wherever they go.
Just remember this little jingle; in heaven there ain't no guns, that's why...
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.
....whatever, all I asked for was what you define as an 'assault rifle' and you don't have an answer. Seems simple enough, I guess not. To me , an 'assault rifle' is a military piece of hardware. Capable of selective fire, utilizing either a high cap mag or a belt feed system. The capability of full auto function being paramount in the definition. A semi auto only don't make the cut. You seem to classify all semi autos that take a detachable mag to be 'assault rifles' (thus your defending of Feinsteins drivel). If I felt inclined to go through your post history I could find plenty to back this 'assertion' up, you have a pretty clear record on the issue of firearms rights, as do I, but truly productive discussion of the issue is quite impossible with you. You stay too busy trying to dodge in and out of the actual talking points and trying to deflect direct, and simple questions, into the realm of ambiguity and convolusion. 
