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.
Well, yes, actually, the topic can be "the mechanics or styles of weapons"!
When the anti's rail against "assault weapons", but quite obviously have no idea what an "assault weapon" is...
When the anti's don't know the difference between a "magazine" and a "clip"...
When the anti's don't know the difference between a "bullet" and a "cartridge"...
When the anti's think an "auto-loader" or "semi-automatic" is the same as a "fully automatic machine gun"...
Then it becomes very obvious that we do NOT want "those people" making laws that relate in any way to firearms.
By the way, we have seen all of the above (and more) in the anti-gun rhetoric on these forums, in the newspapers, and on television!
Exactly , the "mechanics or styles of weapons" with out a doubt matters, just not to the anti's
There is another difference between these people. Many people that strongly defend their right to own and carry firearms are willing to use them to defend the people it is their duty as a citizen to protect. They are willing to harm assailants and active criminals.
The people that want to eliminate guns are frightened of both having to defend themselves and possibly harming anyone while doing it. By and large these people have either been protected from any and all harm or damaged so badly they are frightened of everything and everyone. Thus their real goal is to eliminate any and all weapons not just guns. They want to always be safe. Having guns in their ideal world is completely unacceptable.
Some how they forget that humans are a very dangerous and violent animal. We have taken violence beyond survival hunting to the grand horror of a slaughter house and the even greater horror of war. Some of us have used the same techniques on our own species. Most of us are not but just enough are dangerous to keep the rest of us alert. Enough humans are violently dangerous that it is impossible to control all of them or continuously protect the peaceful people that are trying to just be safe. They do not want to admit they might have to be violent to protect themselves from criminally violent assailants. This is unacceptable to them and they will eliminate violence by removing guns from the entire society and, if possible, the entire world.
I do not want these delusions to put me at any more risk than I already am. I will not let them disarm me and try to prevent them from disarming you.
Please. The vast majority of "anti-gun lefties" are only looking for some logical rules and restrictions on firearms. Things like closing various gun-show and private sales loopholes, preventing dangerous people on do-not-fly lists from buying guns, etc. Very few actually want to "get rid of guns." Heck, as I've said before, some states are actually TOO restrictive on firearms ownership, and I also feel gun education should be taught in high school to demystify guns and make people very clear of how to handle them and respect them. In short, remove the "forbidden fruit" aspect to them and reduce irresponsible deaths caused by guns and ignorance.
Nearly all of the "ignorant opinions" are coming from right-wing gun-nuts who honestly believe that everyone should be allowed to own whatever weapons they want, no questions asked. Their viewpoint is dysfunctional and insane. We as a society admit that some people can't be trusted with dangerous things, such as cars, so how can we turn around and then claim, "uh... but everyone should be allowed to have whatever guns they want." That's simply stupid.
Typical right-wing lunacy: we don't need jobs or civil rights, and it is more important for the government to monitor the bedroom than it is for them to regulate weapons of mass murder.
Perhaps they just don`t care to be shot in the back of the head at the movie theater or they might be troubled with seeing 20 second graders leave school in baggies. Gun folks are cool with this stuff but to each their own.
To gun nuts, if you're not able to define exactly what an "assault rifle" is or recite the specs on their favorite weapon, you're not qualified to talk about gun laws. Which makes about as much sense as saying that if you can't explain the details of an internal combustion engine, you shouldn't be making laws to keep drunks off the road, or if you can't define the chemistry of cyanide, you shouldn't be making laws against poisoning people. Their attempts to insult "anti-gun nuts" with their wonderful knowledge of firearms is a simple attempt at deflection from the actual issue.
The reality is that most "anti-gun" people just want reasonable restrictions on firearms, particularly with regard to any remaining loopholes or exploits. They also, as you say, aren't fond of being shot. Unfortunately, while gun-nuts have an staggering amount of knowledge of weapons, they aren't interested in using any of it to help draft accurate laws since, in their warped minds, there shouldn't be any guns restrictions.
In the end, the "anti-gun" person doesn't want to be shot, while too many gun-nuts simply assume that since they are the "good-guy," they should be allowed to shoot whoever they need to. Reality vs. a Hollywood-style fantasy straight out of a forgettable action movie or western.
To gun nuts, if you're not able to define exactly what an "assault rifle" is or recite the specs on their favorite weapon, you're not qualified to talk about gun laws. Which makes about as much sense as saying that if you can't explain the details of an internal combustion engine, you shouldn't be making laws to keep drunks off the road, or if you can't define the chemistry of cyanide, you shouldn't be making laws against poisoning people. Their attempts to insult "anti-gun nuts" with their wonderful knowledge of firearms is a simple attempt at deflection from the actual issue.
The reality is that most "anti-gun" people just want reasonable restrictions on firearms, particularly with regard to any remaining loopholes or exploits. They also, as you say, aren't fond of being shot. Unfortunately, while gun-nuts have an staggering amount of knowledge of weapons, they aren't interested in using any of it to help draft accurate laws since, in their warped minds, there shouldn't be any guns restrictions.
In the end, the "anti-gun" person doesn't want to be shot, while too many gun-nuts simply assume that since they are the "good-guy," they should be allowed to shoot whoever they need to. Reality vs. a Hollywood-style fantasy straight out of a forgettable action movie or western.
Why do people self-educate themselves for really important issues that we vote on but are to intellectually lazy to do so for anything firearm related? And everything they are afraid of is a freakin "loophole". Ridiculous and entertaining all at the same time.
If they spent a fraction of the time pushing for the enforcement of existing laws as they do belly aching about scary guns. 80K attempts by felons to buy weapons a year and we prosecute an average of 4. That's four out of 80,000. And the anti's wonder why we don't take them serious and make fun of them.
Perhaps they just don`t care to be shot in the back of the head at the movie theater or they might be troubled with seeing 20 second graders leave school in baggies. Gun folks are cool with this stuff but to each their own.
you may as well wear a sign that says you know nothing about what gun owners think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kode
What do you mean by "anti-gun"? Do you mean those who would ban guns among the public? Do you mean those who want more regulations like better background checks and magazine limits? Or what?
you guys need to read up on the second amendment and what it truly means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
I am a Liberal and a veteran and a gun owner. My Liberalism is based on the concept of individual Liberty. That Liberalism includes the right to keep and carry firearms wherever I have a right to be. That is somewhat to the right of most conservatives. So what? I have a duty to protect myself, my family and, if necessary, total strangers from violent assault. I can fulfill this duty more efficiently with a gun than without.
Several of my liberal friends share this mindset. They also own and carry firearms. They also support far more stringent regulation and taxation on the financial elite and most of the rest of the Liberal agenda.
I believe the Liberals that are frightened by guns, or more specifically, being shot by some crazy or cop with a gun are just that, too frightened to think. they may realize that the problem is the perpetrators of this random violence and not the weapons they use but they have decided that controlling the perpetrators of the violence is far more difficult than trying to eliminating the guns.
They may well be correct. We base our Justice system on the ideal of Not Guilty until proven guilty in a court of law. What would happen if we decided to restrict gun ownership to people we could consider a reasonable threat to society if they could be armed? We already do that by requiring potential purchasers to have their background checked. IMHO that is just a feel good process because the really dangerous people do not get their firearms from licensed dealerships.
So how does this make us safer? It does not but the concept may have some potential. Unfortunately it conflicts with the basis of our justice. A background check presumes some one represents a threat if they have done some proscribed activity. they are considered guilty without any chance of being proven innocent. My liberalism does not agree with this program.
So what do we do about violent criminals? We could legalize most of the activities that keep them in business. We could put some of them, like the crazy kid the killed all the children in Sandy Hook with guns he stole from a person he murdered, into a cage forever.
Well I do not see where to go with this essay so I will quit with the simple suggestion. If you desire to be safe then Be Aware, Be Alert and Be Armed.
i cant rep you again right now, but BRAVO
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
The founders didnt intend for everyone to have a gun. There are plenty of writing from that time that show that.
you. might want to read this;
Quote:
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
There is another difference between these people. Many people that strongly defend their right to own and carry firearms are willing to use them to defend the people it is their duty as a citizen to protect. They are willing to harm assailants and active criminals.
The people that want to eliminate guns are frightened of both having to defend themselves and possibly harming anyone while doing it. By and large these people have either been protected from any and all harm or damaged so badly they are frightened of everything and everyone. Thus their real goal is to eliminate any and all weapons not just guns. They want to always be safe. Having guns in their ideal world is completely unacceptable.
Some how they forget that humans are a very dangerous and violent animal. We have taken violence beyond survival hunting to the grand horror of a slaughter house and the even greater horror of war. Some of us have used the same techniques on our own species. Most of us are not but just enough are dangerous to keep the rest of us alert. Enough humans are violently dangerous that it is impossible to control all of them or continuously protect the peaceful people that are trying to just be safe. They do not want to admit they might have to be violent to protect themselves from criminally violent assailants. This is unacceptable to them and they will eliminate violence by removing guns from the entire society and, if possible, the entire world.
I do not want these delusions to put me at any more risk than I already am. I will not let them disarm me and try to prevent them from disarming you.
once again i cannot rep you but again BRAVO!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123
Please. The vast majority of "anti-gun lefties" are only looking for some logical rules and restrictions on firearms. Things like closing various gun-show and private sales loopholes, preventing dangerous people on do-not-fly lists from buying guns, etc. Very few actually want to "get rid of guns." Heck, as I've said before, some states are actually TOO restrictive on firearms ownership, and I also feel gun education should be taught in high school to demystify guns and make people very clear of how to handle them and respect them. In short, remove the "forbidden fruit" aspect to them and reduce irresponsible deaths caused by guns and ignorance.
Nearly all of the "ignorant opinions" are coming from right-wing gun-nuts who honestly believe that everyone should be allowed to own whatever weapons they want, no questions asked. Their viewpoint is dysfunctional and insane. We as a society admit that some people can't be trusted with dangerous things, such as cars, so how can we turn around and then claim, "uh... but everyone should be allowed to have whatever guns they want." That's simply stupid.
Typical right-wing lunacy: we don't need jobs or civil rights, and it is more important for the government to monitor the bedroom than it is for them to regulate weapons of mass murder.
to you and all the other gun grabbers out there, you come up with a law THAT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT. and does what it is supposed to do IE keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally defective, and i will support you 100% until that time however, my support for the second amendment is unerring.
and by the way, preventing people who are on a do not fly list, from exercising their constitutional rights even though they have not committed a crime, is in fact UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
I do not know what gun owners think? I have been married to life NRA Member for over 40 years. I have heard it ALL, pro gun people, thousand of times. I have told my husband that he DOES NOT HAVE to PROTECT me with his guns, I can/have protected myself without one. HE never had to himself.
All I can say is lock up your guns in your own home, keep them away from me. I have said that to my husband. I do not want to be around your guns. I do not want to go to the range with you. I do no want you to buy ME my own gun. Heard it all for DECADES. Nothing is going to change my mind, so give it up which he has. His guns are locked up away from me, and I will not go anywhere with him with a gun. Do you understand that?
It is MY constitutional RIGHT to not know about firearms, and to NOT be around them. It works both ways, gunners. At least my husband understands this, why don't YOU?
Cowardly gun nuts drooling for a race war squandered how much of their money? I doubt very much that Obama cares what gun fondlers do with their money but it`s possible that he joins me in having a good laugh.
It's people like you promoting mass hysteria over something you clearly don't understand.
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.
And everything they are afraid of is a freakin "loophole". Ridiculous and entertaining all at the same time.
