Welcome To Hell. Both sides of the gun debate can let it out here.

[Deadric Damodred]

Mods, this topic is meant to get the shit going. If you feel it violates the rules, I will understand if you close it, and I will take my punishment gracefully.

So anti-gunners and pro-gunners (I am pro-gun) let's play a little game. The game is called...."fuck you, we are telling you what we want and if you don't like it....fuck you". No "politically correct language is allowed in this thread. If you have something to say in this thread, whichever side you are on, you are not allowed to mask it in "talking points"....just say your shit.

Let me start:

1) Anti-gunner's, you have a real problem.....right or wrong, ethical or not, we control congress.......we just passed an amendment to carry guns in parks.....this is just to show you our power. You are losing your war on the 2nd Amendment.

2 Let's talk about "assault weapons".....do we need them? No, we don't need them. But "assault weapons" look so damned cool and are so fun to shoot, that we have made them common to purchase. You do realize that the "cool shit" is now common for hunting as well?

3) Does owning guns by law-abiding citizens increase the rate of death among the general population? I don't know for sure, and I don't give a fuck because I care more about my guns than your statistics.

4) Do I have to care about the opinions of the anti-gun side? No, because we are winning the war on the 2nd Amendment; so fuck'em. As long our legislation gets passed and yours fails, I don't care what your opinions are, what your reasons are, or what your ethics are.

Ok, I went. Everyone else's turn.

[billyoc]

1. It's a dead issue. The Dems won't touch it, so who cares what anybody thinks?

[Deadric Damodred]

2. I agree.

The only Democrats left, that believe in the truely restricive stuff, are the Carolyn McCarthy's......and they have no chance in the deepest pits of hell of getting their agenda passed.

[monkglenn]

135. Service Oriented Value Structure (Plain "Shit Talk" version: "U Believe They Come In Peace Dummy!"

I love the movie with the aliens in their big helmets, saying we come in piece holding the ray guns, and they wipe everybody out even the congress and all, until some yokels figure out a country music hit can burst their brains and they die! No shots fired!

Well, around here, in the redneck boondocks one used to know whether it was a brother or a mutha from the bass boom box speakers in the pontiac firebird...but now everyone is all mixed up. Eminem shoots Dre, Daren and Daren shoot each other...gangs and bangs, but really everybody is such a bad shot no one hardly gets hurt.

Oh the kids whose parents have guns not locked and unloaded loose a higher percentage of their limited DNA pool to accidental gun death, but now with the state universities teaching gun safety classes for credit (before you legally can conceal your gun and carry it) there is not excuse for college educated folks to loose kids to gun accidents.

Stolen guns, now there's a problem.

I had a AK-47 I got for $150 bucks. The guy told me it was illegal. I hid it for three or four years and only went out a few times to the forest to destroy oncoming enemy beer cans. Then paranoid one day I drove to a gavel pit filled with red muddy water and threw it away. GUN CONTROL by paranoid idioT. Ten years later that gun would sell for $800 and it WAS LEGAL I found out later. Watch out whose information you get, and if you get information about guns and gun control and get paranoid from the information, it is probably bullshit.

My point is coming.

I believe the GLOCK 9mm I got, each of the two cartridges holding 17 bullets is a good defensive weapon to have here to provide back up to the local legal authorities when there are outbreaks of drug dealers overwhelming our little rural haven. The policy issue is that I HAVE THE CHOICE TO KEEP THIS GUY handy so I can protect self, friends, neighbors, and even strangers who might be UPS men...under assault.

What? People assault one another on the street? Naw! But if a hurricane came and wiped out a city of 800,000 and lots of them were suddenly here, I think the mayor and sheriff who know me would be comfortable in knowing my block, neighborhood watch, is ready for anything.

The notion is not hard to grasp if you think: I keep equipment here to serve the needs of myself and family and community for when shit might happen. I have generators, man a fully functional state of the art radio communications center, ham radio extra class license, and am good at crowd management, crisis control, fire disaster, and the likes of that.

If I were to be told I could not own a gun, I'd probably have to get a government job that allowed me to:
1. Do nothing most of the time.
2. Carry a gun.

I'd get paid a lot of tax money that would be called Police Pay...or something, and I would be playing with my computers, writing poetry, rose gardening, and chasing good lookin' dreams around, all while paid by a bunch of my neighbors. So, instead of working, I prefer to buy my own equipment and weapons and at your service if you ever have to come here to this horrid place in an emergency because we don't flood, nor do we have gangs or street wars.

There are whores, and pimps, and they seem to prefer to do business in other neighborhoods, and I don't know if it is the GLOCK or the radio antennae that signal, WE ARE LISTENING AND WATCHING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

The policy issue is not only 2nd amendment, but RESPONSIBLE DEFENSE OF ONE'S COMMUNITY and SERVICE IN TIMES OF EMERGENCY, OR WAR.

I shot my GLock now three times, in a year. The first shot went in and out of the beer can. The second shot went in the same entry hole and exited thru another new hole, and the third shot entered the can through the pop top and exited out the first entry hole. I figured I could shoot good enough and went home, cleaned the gun, locked it up, and put it where I can get to it if my Alley Oop Club with spikes in it doesn't discourage the disobedient.

Yesterday, the neighbors, poor people in a trailer who have so much trouble, had a yelling match, and sounded like they were gonna kill each other.

I just walked out and put something in the garbage can and waved quietly. The ladies in the house with the bombastic ass who was threatening them relaxed because the first day they were in the neighborhood we'd had a hurricane and I wore my pistol on my belt and chased a mean dog away that was intimidating her little baby girl.

Oh, I keep dog whistles, and give them to people to help them train their dogs. BE PREPARED. If you're afraid of guns and gun owners, you may be doing something you shouldn't be doing.

Oh well, I had my first shotgun at 10. What would I know. In the Air Force I was on a "sniper squad" for two years, and anyone knows a man who owns a gun who is responsible wants to NOT SHOT HIS WEAPON. You gotta clean them afterward if they shoot.

I come in peace!

[jgraz]

3. And this is different from every other gun thread .... how?

:P

ETA: Fuck you.

[Deadric Damodred]

4. hehe...

...well I haven't been here long enough to answer that question. But I do know that often gun debates boil down to "talking points". This thread is meant to boil down to what each side REALLY thinks. For instance......I realize that semi-automatic rifles that look military could never possibly hold off a tyrannical government, but I don't really give a shit....nor do I give a shit if they increase deaths.....all I give a shit about is my personal amusement in taking them to the gun range and having fun. That kind of honesty is what this thread is about. A big "fuck you" to both sides.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

5. *sigh*

Another one of those posts that can easily be debunked-

1) Anti-gunner's, you have a real problem.....right or wrong, ethical or not, we control congress.......we just passed an amendment to carry guns in parks.....this is just to show you our power. You are losing your war on the 2nd Amendment.

Well, it looks like that, but the only problem with that it was a piggyback bill pasted onto an unrelated bill. And yet again, you're misunderstanding the 2nd Amendment. Here's my question for you- if all the gun manufacturers decided to stop producing guns, does that violate your 2nd amendment rights?

2 Let's talk about "assault weapons".....do we need them? No, we don't need them. But "assault weapons" look so damned cool and are so fun to shoot, that we have made them common to purchase. You do realize that the "cool shit" is now common for hunting as well?

The only type of gun that should be allowed for hunting is a 2 gauge shotgun. I've shot these at clay shoots and I was very good at it. If you're too lazy to reload a shotgun then maybe you shouldn't be out hunting?

3) Does owning guns by law-abiding citizens increase the rate of death among the general population? I don't know for sure, and I don't give a fuck because I care more about my guns than your statistics.

The one thing that I notice about this point is the "me, me, me" vibe I get. You don't care about the rest of us, gotcha.

4) Do I have to care about the opinions of the anti-gun side? No, because we are winning the war on the 2nd Amendment; so fuck'em. As long our legislation gets passed and yours fails, I don't care what your opinions are, what your reasons are, or what your ethics are.

Who cares? If there was a bill limiting the number of firearms a gun manufacturer can produce in one year, that would be GREAT! Hey, it doesn't violate what you think is the interpretation of your "2nd Amendment rights"!

Also, this "me, me, me" vibe I get from your post is quite disturbing, can you go to a therapist so you can work out your issues? They're quite helpful!

[Deadric Damodred]

6. What I get from you're answer is "me me me".

And you are right, it is about "me me me".....are you going to stop it? You are right, I'm more intersted in my having fun at the gun range, than an homicides around the country. What are you going to do about it? Pro-gunners own congress. We'll keep our "assault weapons" whether you like it or not.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

7. First things first

It's "your" not "you're".

If you do basic grammar mistakes like that, it makes your post rather irrelevant.

And pro-gunners do not own congress. It's more the insane NRA-lobby bribing politicians into getting bills passed.

Keep up.

[Deadric Damodred]

8. You are wrong...

...grammer mistakes or not, what I say is not irrelevent. You don't believe me? Push for an "assualt weapon" ban and see where it gets you. But that isn't going to be enough.......so many of us have been buying them.......what you need is a confiscation. Go for it.....try it. See if it makes it out of committee.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

10. No, try again

BTW.... you so conveniently ignored my question-

"If gun manufacturers decided to stop all production of guns, does that violate YOUR "2nd amendment rights'"?

I'll be waiting.

[Deadric Damodred]

12. I don't have to answer that...

...because your side can't make it happen. You are trying to deal in hypothetical...I'm dealing in reality.......and reality, you lose.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

15. Oh come on

The gun manufacturers can do it without congressional approval. It can happen, as people try to buy guns in the bulk in the US and sell them to drug cartels in Mexico.

When it does happen, does it violate your 2nd amendment rights?

Or are you too chicken to answer that question?

[rl6214]

86. If GUN MANUFACTURERS decide

to stop production of guns it would NOT violate 2nd amendment rights but if they were FORCED to stop production then that would violate 2nd amend rights.

[spin]

83. You used a "2 gauge" shotgun at a clay shoot? Damn, girl I AM impressed...

I never even seen one of those. I believe they are called "punt guns". How was the recoil?

From a firearm Q and A forum

Hello Doug. I have what I believe to be a 2 gage shotgun I inherited from my Father. If I remember correctly, this gun took 2 LBS of shot and used 50 Grams of blasting powder, and was fired from a stationary mount or attached to a trained steer.The barrel is 28 1/2" long, the bore is 1 1/8" and the barrel thickness is 1/4" at the tip. The weight of the barrel is approx. 12 LBS I believe it was used by commercial Goose hunters. Would you be able to offer any additional information, or correct the information I have? Are there many of these old shotguns around? I have the barrel, nipple and tang only. Thanks, Dennis

Answer
Dennis,

You have a gun that is alternately referred to as a Punt Gun or a "Goose Cannon". Truly these old 2 gauge and 1 gauge guns were more appropriately referred to as 'cannons' than shotguns. A 2 gauge could have used 1/2 pound shot or smaller shot in more quantity, potentially as much as a couple of pounds of shot at a time. The powder load appropriate to move that shot along would be pretty large. I'm not sure about the 50 grams (that is a lot of powder).
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Guns-Firearms-Projectile-1501/2008/7/2-gage-shotgun.htm

[Taitertots]

114. 2 gauges still exist and can be purchased

Albeit for a sizable fortune, but they are available. Generally known as the "2 bore", it has a barrel diameter over an inch. It is designed to shoot a 1/2 pound of lead. They fire modern shells and can be loaded with solids.

[Jeep789]

9. I'll play. My only problem with guns is

that the people who want them are the ones most likely to cause problems with them.

[Deadric Damodred]

11. Do you have proof of that? Or can I...

...just say my own shit....people who don't want them are the ones most-likely to cause shit until they see their victim has a gun? Not that I mean that all people who own a gun can defend against an unarmed person....some people will freeze up.........but you know what? Fuck it.....if it's a defense scenerio......the choice between being gunless and not is pretty easy....one is a sure death, the other is a maybe freeze death.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

13. I'll answer

Here in the UK, there was a teenaged yob with a gun, trying to rob a shop and he encountered a "gunless" man.

The unarmed man then overpowered the armed teenager and pinned him down until the police came.

You don't NEED guns to defend yourself.

[Deadric Damodred]

14. This isn't the UK.

I don't give two shits about what happens in the UK. Try again. Something relevant to here in the US.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

16. All I was doing

Was making a point that you can defend yourself without a gun.

See, point made. And apparently it just went over your head.

[Deadric Damodred]

18. No....the point didn't go over...

...I'm not interested in the ability to defend yourself without a gun. Is it possible? Yes? Do I care? No. Why don't I care? Because I like guns and want everyone who qualifies to have one.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

20. I am a US citizen

Lived in the US for 25 years before moving to the UK, and I never felt the need to own a gun. Maybe it's because of the fact that I'm not afraid, like you are.

[Jeep789]

25. Exactly, Those that want them are usually cowards

that actually need them to feel (unrealistically) secure.

[rl6214]

88. Ok, so now we are going to det into

the "you are afraid" arguement. Calling someone a coward because they want/like guns doesn't work. It's just an attack.

[paulsby]

94. the need canard again

i don't NEED to own a gun
i don't NEED fire insurance (at least not on the house i own outright. )

i CHOOSE to have both.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

121. So you think American's have nothing to fear in regards to violent crime? Really.

[madeline_con]

133. How would he know? He's safe and cozy in the UK. n/t

[Jeep789]

23. Does that include Cheney? nt

[rl6214]

87. In this instance it worked

but I would not bet my life on it too often.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

120. Unarmed people can sometimes can defend themselves against a child with a firearm.

[Jeep789]

21. That was a really, really pathetic answer. nt

[Deadric Damodred]

24. Only a bad answer to you.

This isn't the UK. UK politics don't apply here; neither do UK opinions. Try it and find out. Try and apply UK's gun laws to us...in real life....in a situation that will actually pass our Congress....I double dare you...let's see how far you get.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

28. That "wooshing" sound was the point going over your head

I don't care if it's the US or UK or Australia or whatever country, my point (which you so conveniently ignore) was anyone can defend themselves without a gun.

Geesh. If a situation like Virginia Tech arises again, I can guarantee you that laws will be changed, no hiding behind the misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment.

How about you answer my question in this thread or are you too chicken?

[Deadric Damodred]

30. You are wrong...

...if another Virginia Tech happens, I can promise you that jack shit will happen because the pro-gun side controls congress. The Brady's will scream, Carolyn "that shoulder thing that goes up" McCarthy will scream....and that is it. We win.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

32. Really?

If it was a mentally ill individual who somehow passed a background check to purchase a gun with the intent of committing mass murder, you don't want the laws to change?

That "me, me, me" vibe that I'm getting from you is quite troubling. I personally would like the right to be safe in public, but apparently you don't care about that. You only care about yourself.

[Deadric Damodred]

35. You are right...

...I care more about my hobby than I do about anything else. At least we can get that far.

[Jeep789]

37. I think he\she proved the mentally ill point also. nt

[FunkyLeprechaun]

38. Can you leave your hobby at home

When you leave the house? It's a matter of public safety.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

122. It's not proven to be detrimental to public safety if he has a carry permit.

[votingupstart]

130. is that because the criminals will leave their's at home to?? - uhm........ not buying it. nt

[Jeep789]

34. We win? I'll remember that

the next time a kid gets a hold of his parent's gun and uses it on the parent.

[Deadric Damodred]

39. You do remember that.

Because it will be that kid's parent's fault for not locking up their gun. Shit happens. Some people are responsible, some are not. We aren't disarming the population because some kid blew his/her brains out.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

43. So would you support any legislation

To force an individual to buy a government-approved gun safe?

I think it's pretty irresponsible to keep a gun under your pillow or in a drawer.

[Deadric Damodred]

57. I happen to keep my weapons...

...in a solid steel safes. However, what does "government approved" mean? If you are spending your money on a $200 safe from walmart, you might as well just leave your stuff on the porch. A real safe, one that is actually worth your penny, is going to cost at least six or seven hundred dollars....at least. Anything less and you are buying a big box that can be dropped to be opened.

[spin]

91. A professional can open your six or seven hundred dollar safe...

in a very short period of time.

The object is to deter the average thief. Gun safes have a useful purpose, they keep kids and idiots from you guns.

The biggest advantage of a really expensive safe is that it might protect your weapons and valuables from fire until the fire department can get it out.

[Deadric Damodred]

111. I realize that most safes...

...can be opened provided the person has enough time. Of course I imagine some of safes/vaults that the government has probably make it so it doesn't matter how much time you have, because you'll never get them open. But for us civilians, typically the more money you spend on a safe, the more time a theif is going to need to open it. Which is why a person is throwing their money away if they spend two or three hundred dollars on some walmart safe.

[spin]

113. My info on gun safes came from a locksmith...

he said that the most effective technique for breaking into a gun safe was to attack the side with something like a sawzall or a torch. Of course, the safe could be built into a wall.

I did find some info on a forum:


This is a Liberty safe that shows what less than 5 minutes with an axe can do. The thief was gone before the police responding to the alarm got there.
http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/related-gear-equipment/39943-gun-safe-break-attempts-2.html

[Euromutt]

124. That's a "residential security container"; most gun "safes" are

The RSC rating come from UL, and IIRC, it means the "safe" can resist one guy with common hand tools for five minutes. I don't think they counted an axe as a "common hand tool" for this purpose. It means that more than one guy, or one with power tools, could make much shorter work of it than that.

The problem is that if go shopping for something UL rates as a "safe"--a rating of "TL-15" or "TL-30," good against power tools for 15 and 30 minutes respectively--you're looking at shelling out three grand or more.

If you're going to go with a gun safe without looking to spend more on the safe than on the contents, your best bet is probably to go with a cheap RSC. Costco periodically has some decent ones on sale. The more expensive RSCs, like the Liberty pictured above, aren't any more secure, but they're a lot more expensive because they have nicer features, like prettier paint jobs, nicer upholstery, a built-in dehumidifier, a built-in light, etc. But overall, that's like paying double (seriously!) for a car to get the slightly nicer trim level.

California DoJ approval really doesn't mean much. Your standard cheap sheet metal Stack-On lock box qualifies as a "firearms safety device" by their criteria, though it's difficult to find out what those are. They do have a published standard for "gun safes" which is essentially "any UL-rated RSC is fine."

[Taitertots]

116. I don't have children and don't let children in my house

There is absolutely no chance that a child will ever find my guns and use them. For me to keep a shotgun in my closet is not a problem.


A safe is just like locked doors, it is only for honest people. A determined criminal could bust open most commercial safes in a surprisingly short amount of time. My house's alarm system is a far better measure than a safe to keep my guns secure.

[Jeep789]

44. So, I am supposed to risk my security to the assumption

that you will never lose it yourself, nor make a mistake and forget to lock up your gun. Bwaaahaaahaaa, I think I'd purchase an assault weapon myself rather than count on that. Hope you trust me!

[Taitertots]

115. Should I not trust you?

I trust you just fine to share the road with me.
I trust you to buy alcohol and use it reasonably.
I trust you to own guns granted you pass the existing federal background check.


Do you have some reason why I shouldn't?
Do you have some reason why you don't trust me?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

40. Or uses it on her little brother?

You brought up an interesting point- Kip Kinkel used his gun on his parents before going to his school. Charles Whitman shot dead his wife and mother before going to UT. Etc.

[spin]

89. I wonder when you give advice on fighting an armed opponent...

what your background is.

Many, many years ago I attended a class on practical self defense or street fighting. The instructor held advanced belts in judo, Karate and Jiu Jitsu. in 1980 he was the Black Belt Hall of Fame Judo instructor of the year and in 2007 his school won the Black Belt Hall of Fame 2007 Best Traditional Martial Arts School. In my opinion, he was and still is one of the best marital arts instructors in the States.

Much of the class was devoted to disarming and subduing an armed opponent.

Before he taught us the tactics used for disarming an opponent armed with a firearm, he emphasized doing these maneuvers only if there was no other choice. At very close range, the moves were very effective. At longer range, the distance beyond your reach, he stated that if you did everything perfectly you might have a 50/50 chance of not being shot.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

98. I've taken tae kwon do

But I haven't faced an armed opponent so I don't need a gun because I'm not afraid like some people are.

[spin]

103. Excellent, I commend you

Martial arts are excellent preparation for a violent encounter. The skills you learn give you confidence and might be quite effective. (The exercise is also beneficial.)

Many of the posts recently have stated that gun owners are afraid so they acquire firearms to feel secure. Realize that firearms training and skill is a martial art as is knife or sword fighting. Merely owning a firearm for self defense is far from enough, training and practice are very important.

The martial arts can teach you how to overcome and utilize fear to your advantage. Fear is a very useful emotion as controlled fear releases chemicals in your body that make you stronger, faster and more efficient with your learned tactics. Fear can be turned into controlled anger. Uncontrolled fear can cause you to freeze.

I would assume that your tae kwon do class prepared you on how to handle a "yob" with a knife. Let me ask you how you would handle a very aggressive attacker who was fifteen feet from you with a .45 automatic. Of course, if the individual merely wanted your money, you would give it to him. Money, credit cards and your ID can always be replaced. A very wise victim will turn over a wallet with some cash and some outdated credit cards.

But you look into the guy's eyes and you see evil. As that self defense expert that I mentioned said, "The eyes are the mirror of the soul." You are certain that if you hand over your money, he'll shoot you. You hand over your money and you die or suffer serious injury. You fight and maybe you die or suffer serious injury. Your choice.

I was trained to do a judo roll out to close the distance and come up on my feet the side of his weapon (not directly in the line of fire). If I was able to accomplish this, I would use the close disarming techniques that I had practiced.
The odds of my mot getting shot were 50/50.

Your turn. What did you learn? Do you attempt to close the distance and kick the gun from his hand?

Fortunately for you, you should not encounter an individual with a handgun in the U.K. While you might train for this possibility, the chances of encountering it are slim.

And I don't fear that I will ever find myself in such a situation. But I've prepared just in case. Sure, I could try the techniques I learned years ago, but with a bad hip and a pile of lower back problems my best hope would be be that when I tried the judo roll out, the bad guy would just laugh. I don't run very well with the bad hip so forget that option.

So my "gun-fu" training trains me to draw my 38 special snub nosed revolver from my pocket and seek cover or drop to the ground and engage the target. My chances of not getting shot are possibly 50/50 or slightly higher.

But neither of us has found ourselves in a real life violent encounter. Hopefully this will never happen.

Entirely off the subject, how do you feel about health care in the U.K.?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

110. I'll answer!

I think Health Care in the UK is great. I am deaf but wear Cochlear Implants. In the US, if I had to buy spare parts (attachments) for the CI, they usually charged my parents about $200-300. I also got a brand new model of the CI (that was another $700). I had to buy the batteries at the Clinics store, and hearing aid batteries are expensive. The only time I got free batteries was at my school, if my hearing aids went dead they gave me batteries at no cost.

Meanwhile in the UK, my new CI was hurting my ears and the display screen was kaput (I could tell it was turned on but couldn't see what program I was using). I got a new battery packs (took only two batteries, not three) and a new CI to replace the defective CI. I still have a lot of batteries left over from when I first got the second CI (autumn of 2005), but my clinic said they would send me batteries if I needed them.

What did this all cost me? Nothing because I am covered by the NHS (I've been a British citizen since birth because my parents are British). I couldn't believe it! These attachments and replacement CI are usually very expensive in the US. I said to my Doc, "Are you sure?" She said, "Yes, because you're under the NHS." Then I pressed further, "If I damaged my CI or lost it?" She then responded, "I hope that doesn't happen but we'll replace it at no cost."

I was once violently ill in Northern Ireland (a virus that I caught off the plane) and was vomiting for a week (lost 25 pounds in one week). I went to the AE and they took care of me. No charge.

Although I had excellent insurance (covered under a family plan), my parents had to pay for some things. Then I had to stay a additional 5 months to complete one more course before I graduated university, my parents' employer declared that I was too old to be covered under the family plan (even though I still lived at home), and all of a sudden I became uninsured for a month (my parents had to pay for my insurance). It was a pain in the ass and I hoped nothing would happen to me in that month!

[spin]

112. Thanks for the reply on heath care in the U.K.

We are starting to see a lot of commercials on TV showing people who receive poor care and long waiting periods for care in the U.K. and Canada.

So far everyone that I've asked from countries with universal health care has indicated that they were very satisfied with their health care.

Hopefully we'll get a good system and not some plan concocted to insure that those who currently reap enormous profit from our heath care system continue to do so.

[paulsby]

95. you mean virginia tech

where guns are BANNED?

yea, worked real well there.

fwiw, guns are legal on college campuses in my state.

i have yet to see carnage ensue.

could it happen? sure. but since legal carry on those college campuses has not resulted in bloodshed, it's clearly a baseless worry to blame gun laws.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

99. *sigh*

Virginia Tech happened because a mentally ill person was able to purchase guns without a background check. He then took these onto the campus. Killed 32 of his fellow students.

Here's news for you paulsby- we are at university to LEARN not to carry weapons. I feel much safer reading a book than being in a room with someone with a gun, no matter what type of person that is.

[paulsby]

101. and he was facilitated by the fact

that nobody on campus was allowed to LEGALLY carry.

i went to a university (and grad school) to learn too

but here's ahint. it's not about how you "feel" (NOTE THE EMOTIONAL "LOGIC" you use. it's about how you "feel")

you may "feel" safer reading a book in a room where nobody has a gun (btw, typo in last sentence for you. i think you mean "withOUT someone with a gun"

but facts trump feelings.

feel however you want.

civil rights, and actual danger are both totally removed from your 'feelings'

hth

[X_Digger]

109. Actually..

Cho did pass two background checks. Virginia had failed to report that Cho had been involuntarily committed previously.

[Euromutt]

128. I guess you'd hate being on, say, the police review board.

I did a stint on the Community Police Review Board of my college for a year. It involved a certain amount of meetings at which the chief of campus police services or his deputy would attend, generally in uniform and with his department-issue Glock 22 on his hip. Never bothered me.

The main thing that bothered me, this being the year Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois happened, that we had three positions on the force unfilled, and it was only a ten-man force to begin with, which meant that at the best of times, we'd have three cops on or around campus. Not an encouraging number in the event of an active shooter. Sure, the dispatcher could call on the local sheriff's office and city PD for backup, but the college was on the edge of town, and very likely it would take ten minutes for reinforcements to arrive.

Oh yeah, we had a guy break into one of the dorms and rape a female student at gunpoint, too. He wasn't a student.

No, in the event of an active shooter reported on campus, if I were in class, I'd derive no amount of comfort from several fellow students producing concealed pistols and covering the doors (and, in the event we were on the ground floor, the windows). Though mind you, I was part-time at the time, which meant my classmates tended to be a bit older than your average student.

[madeline_con]

134. "... anyone can defend themselves without a gun. "

That's complete bullshit. Many can be overpowered by bigger, stronger, younger assailants. Your statement is moronic, and you know it.

[jgraz]

27. Aggressive jingoism is another quality that seems to accompany a pro-gun viewpoint

[votingupstart]

131. jingoism and its aggressive?? well then please explain the foreign policy that is causing this?

as jingoism is extreme patriotism in the form of an aggressive foreign policy - what foreign policy are you referring?

[paulsby]

93. it's the need canard

it's not a matter of need, and nobody ever has to justify a civil right by claiming they need it.

[Euromutt]

127. I think that's called anecdotal evidence

You have one instance of a shopkeeper overpowering one robber, and on the basis of that, you conclude that you don't need firearms as a defensive tool, at all?

Was it actually a firearm, incidentally, or was it a "gun" for the English legal purpose of "gun crime," e.g. an air pistol or a non- or blank-firing replica? If it was, and the shopkeeper could tell the difference (blank-firing replicas of semi-automatic pistols have partially blocked barrels so that enough gas pressure can build up to cycle the action), it might not have been quite such an impressive feat.

I mean, if it's supposedly that easy to defend yourself against a gun-wielding assailant, how is it possible for mass shootings to ever occur? Or mass knifings, for that matter? (Some examples of mass knifings:
Cuban refugee kills 2, wounds 9 on NY ferry http://www.nytimes.com/1986/07/08/nyregion/man-with-sword-kills-2-and-wounds-9-on-si-ferry.html
Akihabara massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
Nonhyeon-Dong massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonhyeon-dong_massacre
and then there was Yang Jia, who stabbed nine cops, killing six, in a police station http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Jia)

[Jeep789]

19. Depends on what you mean by shit, I suppose...

If you mean harmless shit, you might have a point. But if you mean deadly shit, I think the evidence is in the court system that a big part of that is caused by gun owners (legally or not).


I'd prefer not to go back to the Dodge City era.

[Deadric Damodred]

26. You can't do it shit about...

...those that have already purchased their "assault weapons". Here in America, confiscation will never pass Congress....which means that even if you got a ban, which you won't, their guns would already be grandfathered in.......which means that all the "cool look shit" that people are buying........................they get to keep. How does that shit sit with you?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

29. What if Congress limits the number of weapons a gun manufacturer makes?

See, I can turn your argument on its head.

[Deadric Damodred]

33. What if Congress aprroves Friday to be Naked Day?

You don't have the votes to do a damn thing anti-gun. So try it.

[Jeep789]

36. What if we pretend your arguments makes any sense?

Does it help?

[Deadric Damodred]

41. No, that doesn't help because...

...we control Congress and what gets passed or not. So you can say "fuck you" to my ideas........which my ideas are extreme.....but the end result is that the pro-gun side wins.

[Jeep789]

46. What makes you think you own Congress?

They could change the law tomorrow.

[Jeep789]

49. And I can almost guarantee you that this will be overturned

after a few of your buds shoot the first grizzly at Yellowstone (or the child taking a leak from the next tent that they mistook for one).

[spin]

96. While you may be right...

take a look at this map which shows how many states allow concealed carry especially "shall issue" concealed carry.

The anti-gun crowd predicted time and time again that allowing concealed weapons would turn a state into the "Old West". Shootouts at every traffic intersection and gun fighters acting out High Noon in the residential streets.

Since none of the states that passed "shall issue" concealed carry have revoked it, the anti-gun contingent's fears about the overwhelming misuse of concealed weapons must be wrong. Why then would anyone listen to you when you cry that grizzlies and kids taking a piss face new danger.

[Statistical]

107. Exactly (here is the map)

Evertime a state changed color on this map we heard the antis talk about shootouts over parking spaces, blood in the streets, people are going to not be able to leave their homes, it is going to be like the OK Corral, shootouts at high noon... etc.

It never happened.

CCW owners shoot more crriminals than Police Officers do
CCW owners shoot less bystanders than Police Officers do

The revoke rate of CCW is incredibly low (indicating a felony rate well below population at large).

Not that I am advocating it but based on the stats if we were to disarm anyone it should be the Police. :)

[FunkyLeprechaun]

48. Now now

I think you're suffering from delusions of grandeur here. You think the pro-gun wins all the arguments?

I don't mind some guns (relating to hunting) but I am disturbed that people actually bring guns to Chuck E Cheese, want them in schools, want them in National Parks etc. Have they become so scared that they HAVE to bring their gun everywhere?

I wish you RKBA people suffered from agoraphobia, never leaving your house. That way we all can be safe.

[Deadric Damodred]

50. LOL.......LOL.........I'll take my delusions of gandeur

[FunkyLeprechaun]

75. Ok then... take it!

I suggest you go to a nearest therapist to cure you of your delusions of grandeur.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

123. That won't happen, next idiotic idea, please.

[paulsby]

92. not supported by evidence

the vast majority of guns are never used illegally nor do they cause any problems

so, unless those guns are owned by people who don't want them, your statement is provably false

hth

[jgraz]

17. Ok, let's try some serious answers

I'll start with the requested "fuck you".

1) Anti-gunner's, you have a real problem.....right or wrong, ethical or not, we control congress.......we just passed an amendment to carry guns in parks.....this is just to show you our power. You are losing your war on the 2nd Amendment.

A couple of things here: I agree the pro-gun crowd passed the parks amendment for no other reason than to show that they could. None of them really believe that this will increase their safety and none of them really care that much if someone (or some animal) dies as a result.

However, you're wrong when you say we're waging war against the Second Amendment. If we're waging anything, it's a war FOR the first half of the Second Amendment (you know, that whole "well-regulated" bit). And, we're waging a war for the rest of the Bill of Rights. You might not be aware of this, but our Bill Of Rights has 9 other amendments! And one even comes BEFORE your favorite! Unfortunately, when these rights seem to threaten the Second Amendment, you pro-gun folks seem more than happy to let them slide.

2 Let's talk about "assault weapons".....do we need them? No, we don't need them. But "assault weapons" look so damned cool and are so fun to shoot, that we have made them common to purchase. You do realize that the "cool shit" is now common for hunting as well?

Personally, I don't give a shit about assault weapons, until they start killing people. If they look like they'll become the weapon-of-choice for mass shooters, then we should probably talk about restrictions on manufacturing and purchase.

One solution might be to allow people to buy them, but require that they be stored at a supervised "gun club". The tradoff for gun owners would be that they could own and shoot weapons that are currently prohibited, provided that they limit their use to the confines of the club.

3) Does owning guns by law-abiding citizens increase the rate of death among the general population? I don't know for sure, and I don't give a fuck because I care more about my guns than your statistics.

Simple answer: yes. The suicide stats alone are pretty chilling. I've posted them twice tonight, so if you don't mind. I'll just link to my last post. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=225439&mesg_id=225500

4) Do I have to care about the opinions of the anti-gun side? No, because we are winning the war on the 2nd Amendment; so fuck'em. As long our legislation gets passed and yours fails, I don't care what your opinions are, what your reasons are, or what your ethics are.

Yeah, you should care. Cuz we're the ones over here with the rest of your alleged progressive/libertarian values. Like the belief that citizens should have access to the courts, even if it means suing gun manufacturers. Or the belief that a shop owner shooting and killing a 16-year-old robber is not a cause for celebration. The shop in the other neighborhood with Head Start and community policing and good afterschool activities -- the shop that DOESN'T get robbed is what we celebrate. And then we start looking for solutions to prevent crime in all the neighborhood shops -- solutions that look beyond arming every shop owner to the teeth.

But mostly, we know how much baggage the pro-gun view brings with it. Being outside of it, we can see how the talking points fit with the rightest of right-wing world views. We see how many who are strongly for the Second Amendment are indifferent at best -- and directly hostile at worst -- to the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th amendments.

You can be pro 2nd Amendment (second half) and still be a liberal. But you can't really be anti-privacy, anti-due process, anti- access to courts or pro-cruel and unusual treatment and still be considered anything but a "tough on crime" conservative.


Oh yeah -- and FUCK YOU.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

22. Amen!

N/t

[Jeep789]

31. Absolutely the best answer. Thanks. nt

[Statistical]

108. Well regulated has NOTHING to do with regulation.

Well regulated as in well trained, well equipped.

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

If the people have free access to firearms and use them their entire lives they will be an asset to the state if the state needs to call up the militia.

If the govt restricts firearms and people have no access and don't use them in everyday life then the militia is essentially useless because a militia of citizens who neither who can't use firearms safely and effectively is worse than no militia.

That is the thinking behind the first half of the statement.

Anytime an anti talks about gun control, aka regulation = well regulated it shows they haven't even done the most basic research on the issue.

A well stocked pantry being necessary for the creation of a good meal the right of chefs to buy and store food shall not be infringed.
Is the right to keep food given to the pantry of the chef?

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.
IS the right of keep arms given to the militia or the people?

[depakid]

42. You know who wins this debate?

People who live in places that are largely free from gun violence

Where people don't live with such pervasive fear that they feel they have to be armed- and put themselves and their own families at a greater risk harm because of the "need" tp "protect themselves."

Where people have universal healthcare- and aren't so frightened of crime and focused on draconian punishment that they run the world's largest and most expensive prison system, even locking their own underaged kids away for long periods of time. Or for life.

Where there are no such thing as so called "zero tolerance" laws.

Where higher education is more affordable- and for people who choose a trade, there's more than a living wage, and fair labor laws to ensure against abuse.

These folks are real the winners here- the lucky ones.

They rest- much as Obama noted, will end up clinging to their guns.

[Deadric Damodred]

45. I don't agree with you...but I like your answer...

...basically you are saying......you have your shit......but other countries are better than you. I like that. But I do have to say.......even if you could produce statistics that said countries with high gun control were better off.......I'd still say "fuck you", because I like the US, I like our politics.....and I like things the way they are. But thank you for your answer....it's a bit better than what I've seen.

[depakid]

58. One of the places referred to actually had such a debate

Your side lost- though it wasn't much of a contest, because people finally got fed up after one too many mass shootings- and hasn't had another one since.

Killer surfing, though.

[Deadric Damodred]

61. Hey Depakid......I have to give you credit...

...you are fighting....you have heart.....but you will lose....."shake down, break down....your busted"....you're going to lose. We control congress, we control what goes on. We are legion.

[depakid]

65. You miss the point

I'm the one surfing.

[Deadric Damodred]

69. Well then........face the pain (n/t).

[rrneck]

79. Now you're cookin' nt

[paulsby]

97. where i live

is remarkably free of gun (or any other kind of) violence.

and guns are very common.

[Euromutt]

126. Make that "largely free of violent crime" and you're in the ballpark

I don't want to live in a country where people are beaten or knifed every day and tell myself "well, at least nobody's being shot."

Hell, even tight gun control laws are no guarantee of anything. I'm from the Netherlands, and I've been closer to being affected by gun violence there than I ever have here in the US. Once when my usual post office got held up by two guys, one with a handgun, another with a sawed-off shotgun, ten minutes before I would have been in there; and the second time when two drug dealers tried to settle a business dispute and a few stray bullets went into the tram that came after the one that I was in. Need I mention that the guns in question were most assuredly illegal?

Of course, I did live in a city of over half a million people then, as opposed to 67,000 now.

[Dogmudgeon]

47. "I don't care ..."

Yep, that says it all.

--d!

[Deadric Damodred]

54. Exactly...

...Dogmudgeon, you get it. It matters exactly shit what the other side thinks when you have control of the political agenda.

[geckosfeet]

51. Can't say you have increased my respect for the stereotypical gun owner.

And as a gun owner, I resent and reject your arguments as juvenile and false. You are not helping responsible gun rights, ownership and regulation make any headway with the anti-gun crowd. You are fanning a fire that has no winners.

[Deadric Damodred]

52. Correct.

I am an asshole and you are completely correct.

[geckosfeet]

56. Well,,, you are correct on one point.

[Deadric Damodred]

53. I think some people here seem to be under a misundersanding.

This isn't about who's right or who's wrong. This isn't about who's the more ethical......this about who can win. The pro-gun side is winning. That's what this is about.

[geckosfeet]

55. And this is a juvenile argument. So take you guns and go home.

[Deadric Damodred]

59. No no no.....I think you misunderstand...

...even if this is a childish arguement...it doesn't change the fact that the anti's are losing. So how about you take your shit and go home?

[geckosfeet]

72. No. It is you who misunderstand. I am staying, and you may be staying, but it does not

change the fundamental lack of substance in your statements.

Out of curiosity - have you been up all night drinking? How old are you?

[depakid]

60. "this about who can win."

I agree.

Though one might want to bear in mind that there are such things as Pyhrric victories.

[Deadric Damodred]

62. Some will be even....some will not. But at least you get it...

...this isn't about ethics...this isn't about who's right, this isn't about who's wrong.....this is about who has the political will....and "fuck you" to the loser. I like you Depakid. You disagree with me, but at least you understand.

[Jeep789]

66. But you have already lost

"You" used to be able to carry guns everywhere (of course, you weren't born yet) and "you" abused it and lost it. This time "you" won't get nearly as far since one of your brethren will most assuredly abuse this one.

Sadly, it will take more needless death before the danger (that you could have easily learned from historical records) is recognized by enough of those that currently support you to overturn it. I wonder if you will feel any remorse over the deaths that occur, but I doubt it.

[Deadric Damodred]

67. Let me answer that...

...I absolutely feel no remorse about any deaths concerning the 2nd Amendment; that is collateral damage. Sometimes shit happens.

[ZombieHorde]

63. Fuck both sides, people who have opinions concerning guns are assholes.

I love to see extreme measures taken by either side, because then I get to watch the other side freak.

Guns on airplanes? Bwahahahaha!

Ban on assault weapons? Bwahahahaha!

[Deadric Damodred]

64. Exactly

....Do you realize that a bullet through an airplane window will NOT bring the plane down? So fuck it........let's do it...conceal and carry on a plane.

[ZombieHorde]

68. This lady would bring down an airplane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsVpklQR2K0

[Deadric Damodred]

70. Very nice.....

....at least you get it...that's the kind of shit you'll net to bring to get the votes needed to pass any anit-gun legislation.....otherwise.....we win.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

74. Are you that stupid?

"Conceal and carry on a plane"?

WTF?

[Deadric Damodred]

71. I like how this is going......face the pain....face the pain.

[Deadric Damodred]

73. Let me add something to this...I know that...

...some anti gunners have a problem with rifles that have "fluff" on them. We like the "fluff". It looks fucking cool. How's this for you......taking a gun that is semi-automatic to the gun range and shooting targets with a weapon that looks fucking cool? I'll take that right over a few people dying any day of the week. That fluff makes all the difference in adding to the "cool factor" of one's gun collection. If you don't like fluff.......well we control congress.....so I'm gonna have to say...."fuck you" if you don't like it.

[benEzra]

77. Are you for real, or are you just playing "devil's advocate"?

What make/model of firearm DO you shoot?

You do know that most target guns (regardless of looks, traditional or not) are semiautomatic, yes? And that the number of people who die annually as a result of those "cool features" as you term them is not "a few a week", as you state, but zero?

[spin]

100. I suspect that he is a "devil's advocate" also, however...

this is an interesting if slightly profane thread.

[jody]

76. IMO the issue is whether inalienable/unalienable or pre-existing rights are recognized. If "yes",

then government is obligated to protect any minority that exercises such rights against the tyranny of a simple majority unless iff there is an overwhelming benefit to society for infringement upon one of those rights.

The gay and lesbian community in California have been told by California's Supreme Court that same-sex marriage is not an inalienable right but is a privilege to be granted or taken away at the whim of a simple majority.

"Inalienable/unalienable rights for all or none at all"

[benEzra]

78. Where are you really coming from on this issue?

Most gun owners I know do NOT have a "fuck you" attitude about criminal misuse of guns; it pisses us off as much as it pisses off the gun control supporters. The fact that we do not take a Carrie Nation approach to the gun issue does not mean we don't care.

What do you shoot, and how often?

[rrneck]

80. The REAL fuck you

happens when someone has to defend themselves and has to use whatever is at hand to do it. Between the moment the assault starts and the moment help arrives there will be an eternity of "fuck yous".

Sure, shooting sports are fun. Sure, the weapons look cool. Tons of cultural baggage gets hung on everything we touch, and firearms collect more than their fair share. But legislative victories are not built on looks, or fun, or fuck you. They happen because of a perceived societal need as a codification of popular consent.

The Unites States is a gun owning country for a host of reasons not least of which is the failure of its citizens to use our government to take care of its people. With proper civil rights, social services, and economic reform legislation the need for people to take personal responsibility for their own self defense will be reduced. And we would get the added benefit of making people's lives better to boot, instead of just turning gun fights into fist or knife fights.

The perceived me, me, me in the OP comes from a real place. Human beings are first concerned with the safety of themselves and those close to them, no matter the source of the threat. That concern diminishes the farther one gets from that personal level. That's why statistics become difficult in a debate regarding firearms. That's also why comparisons with other countries become moot. The United States is a big place full of a lot of people who aren't very good at living in close proximity to each other. Each country's national character is different, and it must be dealt with within the context of its history, its geographical realities, and its type of governance.

Or as they say back home, "Fuck all 'yall, I'm keepin' my gun but I won't shoot at ya' unless you fuck with me."

And here's a few more fucks just for fuckin' fun. Fuck fuck fuck fuck. :)

damn typos

[Butch350]

81. When the so called unrests begin...

I'm just gonna beat the shit out of some smuck who doesn't know how to use his guns; take his ammo and his guns
for my own, then I won't have to spend huge sums of money like some smucks do for guns!

Believe me, I can do it. Go ahead, stock up on the guns, so guys like me can beat your arse and take them when needed.

[Euromutt]

125. That could go either way

If it turns out the schmuck isn't a schmuck after all, I doubt you'll live to tell about it.

Come to think of it, if he is such a schmuck, you may find his stock of ammunition is completely useless for the guns he has.

[Butch350]

82. What! Is this the paranoid bastard thread!

[jody]

84. Must be, at least one post meets that description. n/t

[Deadric Damodred]

129. I like that summation, can I use it?

[AtheistCrusader]

85. Interesting introductory thread you've got here.

[Deadric Damodred]

117. ::Evil Grin::

Thanks. I thought it best to get it out to the antis that I'm not very interested in sob stories, ethics, nor morals when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. Now I don't say that because I somehow feel that our side, the pro-Constitution side, is unethical or immoral because of our cause, but only to make a point. I hate stories about negligent, stupid bastards that leave their loaded guns under their beds for their kids to find and blow their, or some other kid's, brains out.....however, that kind of shit will happen when a society has rights like ours. It's sad, but it's collateral damage for a greater cause. And that greater cause is that the law-abidding are armed.

[spin]

90. So far this has to be one of the most profanity filled threads...

I've seen in the Gungeon.

I have to admit, I've enjoyed reading it.

Still, it lacks the creative profanity that I learned in the military in the Vietnam era. But then, it would probably be censored by the Mods.

[cslinger59]

102. I feel like I need to apologize for the legion of responsible, polite gun owners

I don't post here, as I lean to the right and my intent is never to troll, only to read and learn. I respect a great many ideas and over the years have learned a great deal from a great deal of your membership. Sometimes my opinions have swayed or changed, sometimes not in the least. At any rate, I am not here to troll but felt the need to reply to this thread.

First, I feel I need to apologize for the rest of us so to speak as the grand majority of us most certainly do not have an FU attitude about deaths, political opponents, etc. Most of us feel a great many of your beliefs are flawed and clouded by emotion at times but respect the fact that many feel the same way about us.

Second, The pendulum swings back and forth. We, as responsible gun owners, have been enjoying a pretty good run of political victories, and I am happy to see expansion of any rights. That being said simply thrusting the current victories in somebody's face with a FU attitude is most certainly going to bite one in the arse when it comes back around, not to mention it makes us all come across as angry, ignorant, dare I say bitter, gun clingers.

Third, I am 100% pro 2nd amendment. Actually I am 100% pro bill of rights. I don't feel the arms are the problem but the users and usually the root causes of poverty, ignorance, education and mental health are the big issues IMO.

Forth, Posts like above that make light of the "collateral damage" make me shudder. From a statistical point of view accidents and collateral damage is very small vs. ownership and use in general. That being said not respecting those innocents who have lost lives or been maimed and those effected by it is cold, heartless and wrong. Disagreeing is one thing, showing absolute disdain is another.

We responsible gun owners, as a rule are not cold, heartless murderers waiting to happen. Personally I feel the incident with the pharmacist who shot the suspect while down on the ground and no longer a threat should be tried and convicted for cold blooded murder. I also feel that folks who leave their arms out for children or irresponsible adults should be punished and held responsible for their lack of responsibility. The fact is the great majority of us probably have a greater appreciation for life and an utter disdain for violence then we are given credit for since we are closer to the issue and have a better understanding of what REAL violence is.

Fifth, we actually don't have a problem with real compromise, the problem, as we see it is we have been nickle and dimed / compromised for so long yet had no return on those investments in terms of crime reduction etc. I would much rather take all that money, all those resources an stop attacking legal gun owners and use it for attacking poverty, education, mental health and putting more first responders on the street with better equipment and training.

I was no Bill Clinton fan but I must give credit where credit is due. One of the things he did that had a measurable impact on crime and benefited society was put more patrolmen on the street. Not SWAT teams, Not armored cars, but real "cops" Good guys who patrolled, helped out and made themselves available. They made for an effective deterrent and a faster response to crime and medical emergencies. This is where our time and money should be focused imo.

Finally please understand that although I don't agree with a great deal of what is said on this forum, I respect everybody's opinion and enjoy the discourse immensely. Please do not take anything I say as trolling. As I would guess you would be surprised to find out that even though I am a right leaning, straight, white, male I have no problems with gay marriage or those who want to make choices with their own bodies. I might not agree with their individual choices but it sure as hell isn't my place to stop them from exercising their rights.

Take care everybody, stay safe and please do not think all gun owners are over aggressive, angry, bitter, scared folks as the stereotype is no more accurate then any number of stereotypes levied at the average Democrat/Liberal or Woman or African American or etc. etc. etc.

[spin]

104. Excellent post...Welcome to DU.

Many people merely lurk on DU to read the opinions.

You sum up the opinions of many of the pro-gun posters here. While we support gun owners we also support many of the ideals of the Democratic Party.

Continue to post. Your voice may help many other lurkers to realize that many in the Democratic Party are pro-gun.

[cslinger59]

105. I am not a Democrat and I mean no disrespect by saying that.

The problem is I cannot call myself a member of the democratic party. I cannot call myself a republican either. Both sides so to speak have really put me off in the past years.

Hence i don't want to be perceived as pee'ing in another's pool so to speak.

I believe in the Bill of Rights start to finish. Not the Chinese menu approach that seems so popular today. I don't believe in curtailing another's rights just because I don't believe in the same thing or they scare me.

Like I said I vote/live by a set of ideals not a political party or agenda and can honestly say I have voted republican, democrat and independent based on my views. Heck I hold views that would get me labeled the devil here, I'm sure. Course I hold views that would probably get me labeled the devil an an equally opposite site on the political spectrum. I fall into the we are so caught up with wedge issues we cannot see the forest for the trees camp. I believe there isn't that much difference between political sides as far as the average Joe/Jane is concerned, as a rule I have found we all want pretty much the same thing but just have differing opinions on how to get to the goal. I HATE this RED/BLUE crap. We are not RED and BLUE we are not Dems and Pubs we are not Libs and Conservatives we are AMERICANS and we need to start acting like it on all sides. Sorry for the rant.

However, since I am not a Democrat, it is not my intention to muck rake or troll or raise hell. I do enjoy the discussions though and like I said I believe one can learn something from just about everything they do and everybody they meet so I enjoy reading differing points of views whether I agree with them or not, whether they change my mind or not.

I just felt like I had to post since gun owners need to be ambassadors for each other and the 2nd Amendment and this thread just sort of put me over the top so to speak.

Chris

[spin]

106. Well it's good to see you post rather than lurk...

remember the Democratic Party is a very big tent.

The Republican party is in the process of shrinking to their ultra conservative base. Unfortunately, they embrace and try to monopolize the support of the Second Amendment and the right to own and carry weapons.

Many Democrats also support the right to own firearms and use them for both sporting and self defense. And we also support a woman's right to chose and gay marriage.

I personally believe that enforcing the firearms laws we have could reduce the problem with gun violence in our country. Many of the very liberal portion of our party believe that passing "feel good" laws such as the Assault Weapons Ban will solve the problem.

They believe that words on paper are all that is required. I, like you, believe in more cops on the street and draconian punishment for those who carry weapons illegally. I also believe in improving education and opportunity for all of our citizens so as to address the root causes of violence.

My approach is far more expensive and far more difficult than "feel good" laws. It may also be far more effective.

My advise is to post here and test your views. If your arguments hold merit, they'll withstand the test. The exercise will allow you to consider the strengths and weakness of your position. Question politely and evaluate the responses.

[Deadric Damodred]

118. I respect your views...

...I have just come to a point where I feel "piss on'em". I'd be thrown out of a debate class with my views on the topic, and I accept that. But our side needs people like you that still can carry on a discussion with them....but if you fail....the "fuck'em" people are here to back your ass up.

[Deadric Damodred]

119. A quick shout out to...

...Spin, Fire_Medic_Dave, Slackmaster, Statistical, Virginia Mountainman. You guys seem to be the defenders of the 2nd here in the "gungeon". I can tell that you guys are very good at debate, so I have to apologize to you that I bring a "hardcore" perspective to it. I don't see this as a fight against good and evil. If we are the good ones, then I hope good wins. If we are the evil ones, then I hope evil wins. This is a fight for basic rights. As I said in another post: If we lived in the caveman era, we'd be defending ourselves with clubs & slings. If we lived in the dark ages, we'd be defending ourselves with swords & crossbows. Since we live in the now, the best way to defend one's self is with a gun. The only way the best way to defend one's self with one's hands & feet, are when you have no weapon availible to use. And if in 100 years we invent ray guns, then the best way to defend one's self will be with a ray gun. And if the other side doesn't like that...well, this thread speaks for itself.

Edit: But thank you to you guys for being a bit more "open minded" than myself.

[NewMoonTherian]

132. Here goes!

I'm pissed with people calling me a gun nut and an extremist and a fringe kook because I'm living like my family has lived for generations. I'm not trying to push guns on anyone, I'm trying to defend rights written into the FOUNDATION of this country's government while around me people who call themselves liberal and progressive are hard at work WRECKING my basic liberty(liberal, liberty, same etymology there. Be intellectually honest or shut the hell up) to DEFEND myself!

I want there to be one country on this planet where I'm free to live my life as I see fit and not fear IANSA and the Brady freaks and VPC dictating what means I can use to protect myself and my family. I'm not trying to make guns more available in the UK, Australia, France or Canada. I am trying to KEEP them available and make them MORE available in one of the only remaining free corners of the world, and I don't feel I should need a reason to explain that position.

I have a shocking piece of news as well: America has a comparatively large murder rate. I don't care. I don't believe it's because of guns and I have no statistics from an unbiased source to back that up. Neither do I choose to sift through the internet to find a combination of sources my opponents will accept. In the event it IS a direct result of private gun ownership, I'm not willing to reduce gun ownership to reduce the murder rate. I'm willing to accept the evils that come with freedom rather than the evils that come with oppression. Inkeeping with that, I won't be satisfied until every national gun law is wiped off the books, every backwoods redneck can get a BAR as easily as a 12 gauge and POTUS tells the UN to back the hell off permanently. Any confusion on the subject?

(That was a wandering, unfocused rant, but I hope it's in the spirit of this thread. Thanks so much for the vent!)