Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Benny B on June 20, 2009, 11:15:58 AM
-
June 20, 2009
A Threat We Can’t Ignore
By BOB HERBERT
Even with the murders that have already occurred, Americans are not paying enough attention to the frightening connection between the right-wing hate-mongers who continue to slither among us and the gun crazies who believe a well-aimed bullet is the ticket to all their dreams.
I hope I’m wrong, but I can’t help feeling as if the murder at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington and the assassination of the abortion doctor in Wichita, Kan., and the slaying of three police officers in Pittsburgh — all of them right-wing, hate-driven attacks — were just the beginning and that worse is to come.
As if the wackos weren’t dangerous enough to begin with, the fuel to further inflame them is available in the over-the-top rhetoric of the National Rifle Association, which has relentlessly pounded the bogus theme that Barack Obama is planning to take away people’s guns. The group’s anti-Obama Web site is called gunbanobama.com.
While the N.R.A. is not advocating violence, it shouldn’t take more than a glance at the newspapers to understand why this is a message that the country could do without. James von Brunn, the man accused of using a rifle to shoot a guard to death at the Holocaust museum last week, was described by relatives, associates and the police as a virulent racist and anti-Semite.
Investigators said they found a note that had been signed by von Brunn in the car that he double-parked outside the museum. The note said, “You want my weapons — this is how you’ll get them.”
Richard Poplawski, who, according to authorities, used a high-powered rifle to kill three Pittsburgh police officers in April, reportedly believed that Zionists were running the world and that, yes, Obama was planning to crack down on gun ownership. A friend said of Poplawski, he “feared the Obama gun ban that’s on the way.”
There is no Obama gun ban on the way. Gun control advocates are, frankly, disappointed in the president’s unwillingness to move ahead on even the mildest of gun control measures.
What’s important to grasp here is that this madness has nothing to do with hunting, which the politicians always claim to be defending, and everything to do with the use of firearms to resist policies and lawful government actions that some gun owners don’t like.
In a speech in February to the Conservative Political Action Conference, the executive vice president of the N.R.A., Wayne LaPierre, said: “Our founding fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules.”
A new book by Dennis Henigan, a vice president at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, goes into detail on this point. In “Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths That Paralyze American Gun Policy,” Mr. Henigan refers to a Harvard Law Journal article written by an N.R.A. lawyer titled, “The Second Amendment Ain’t About Hunting.” In the article, the lawyer makes it clear that for the N.R.A., the right to bear arms is “directed at maintaining an armed citizenry. ... to protect against the tyranny of our own government.”
There was a wave of right-wing craziness along those lines during the Clinton administration. Four federal agents were killed and 16 others wounded in 1993 during an attempt to serve a search warrant at the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Tex., where a stockpile of illegal machine guns had been amassed. The subsequent siege ended disastrously with a raging fire in which scores of people were killed.
In the aftermath of Waco, the N.R.A. did its typically hysterical, fear-mongering thing. In a fund-raising letter in the spring of 1995, LaPierre wrote: “Jack-booted government thugs [have] more power to take away our Constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us. ...”
Whatever the N.R.A. may intend by its rhetoric, there is always the danger that those inclined toward violence will incorporate it into their twisted worldview, and will find in the rhetoric a justification for murder. On the second anniversary of the Branch Davidian fire, less than a week after LaPierre’s inflammatory fund-raising letter went out, Timothy McVeigh blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
You cannot blame the N.R.A. for McVeigh’s actions. But you can sure blame it for ignoring the tragic lessons of history and continuing to spray gasoline into an environment that we have seen explode time and again.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has reported a resurgence of right-wing hate groups in the U.S. since Mr. Obama was elected president. Gun craziness of all kinds, including the passage of local laws making it easier to own and conceal weapons, is on the rise. Hate-filled Web sites are calling attention to the fact that the U.S. has a black president and that his chief of staff is Jewish.
It might be wise to pay closer attention than we’ve been paying. The first step should be to bring additional gun control back into the policy mix.
-
I looked at the website, and those people are scary-crazy. Shouldn't people, at the very least, have to show proof of sanity in order to own a gun? The weapon of choice when the Second Amendment was written was the musket: According to the Continental army training manual, there were 13 steps to firing a musket. A soldier had to get a cartridge, tear it open with his teeth, put a little bit of powder in the firing mechanism, put the rest of the powder and a gun ball down the barrel, ram the ball and powder home, cock the musket and fire. Rifles took even longer to load, and pistols were only good at short range. These were weapons, in other words, that would have given a 16-point buck or a schoolhouse full of Amish children a sporting chance. They were not weapons of mass destruction. James Von Brunn, if he had not been stopped by a heroic museum guard, could have killed dozens of visitors to the Holocaust Museum last week. Shouldn't my right not to be mowed down by a mass murderer supercede the right of an unhinged person to own a gun? What is so wrong with making it a little bit harder for people to obtain and use guns? We don't allow people to drive a car without passing a test, but any homicidal maniac with a Visa card can fill the trunk of his car with deadly firearms.
Maryanne Conheim
Philadelphia
June 20th, 2009
The NRA is a lobbying group disguised as a membership group, and it's only purpose is to advance the interests (sales, profits) of the gun and ammunition makers and marketers. They care nothing about the public interest, their customers, the constitution, or any other high-minded palaver they put out. They belong to that set of businesses best exemplified morally by the asbestos and tobacco companies that knowingly and willingly caused millions of deaths, not all of them suckers like the gun consumers.
Alexander Mac Donald
San Francisco, California
June 20th, 2009
-
Everything written in those articles is backwards its tough to decide where to begin dismembering it.
1. Responsible gun owners shouldn't be punished by the actions of a few crazy people.
2. Criminals are criminals for a reason. They break the law. If we were to make guns illegal, its going to take them out of the hands of the responsible, and give them to criminals.
I could keep going, but there's no point in any further embarassment for the sheep that is benny.
-
Everything written in those articles is backwards its tough to decide where to begin dismembering it.
1. Responsible gun owners shouldn't be punished by the actions of a few crazy people.
2. Criminals are criminals for a reason. They break the law. If we were to make guns illegal, its going to take them out of the hands of the responsible, and give them to criminals.
I could keep going, but there's no point in any further embarassment for the sheep that is benny.
Don't make guns illegal, just make sure there is firm gun control.
And automatic rifles should definitely be illegal.
No hunter needs an AK-47 to shoot down a Grizzly.
Obama is gun liberal.
And that's a shame.
Apparently there are more pressing issues like the world economy to see to.
But he's even made it a point to state that there is no strict regulation coming. That there is no big ban on assault weapons coming.
Fcuk the NRA. "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."
Gee. Wonder why so many died in Rwanda in the 90's?
Maybe because they had access to guns and bombs instead of as previously bows and arrows?
How many people would've died in Columbine if these kids would've only had access to say a knife instead of their guns?
It's bullshit.
Obama is so fcuking wrong.
-
Fcuk the NRA. "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."
ins't this statement true? I'm open to material on this so if it can be proven otherwise I'll listen. But I think if someone wants to kill someone, they'll kill or try to kill them with or without a gun. If someone wants to kill many, they'll make a bomb if they don't have a gun. A killer is going to kill imo...
-
ins't this statement true? I'm open to material on this so if it can be proven otherwise I'll listen. But I think if someone wants to kill someone, they'll kill or try to kill them with or without a gun. If someone wants to kill many, they'll make a bomb if they don't have a gun. A killer is going to kill imo...
You honestly don't believe that putting guns in the hand of people leads to more serious violence?
Eg, you and I are at a party.
We both get drunk.
I make a pass at your wife.
You kick my ass.
End of story, I'm probably gonna be fine.
Same setting, we both carry knifes.
Chances are I may live, but the chances that I will die are probably bigger.
End of story.
If we both carry our concealed guns to the party and both get drunk.
I make a pass at your wife.
Not only will probably either one of us get killed.
Chances are that a bystander will too.
End of story.
What's so hard to get about that? ???
-
Don't make guns illegal, just make sure there is firm gun control.
And automatic rifles should definitely be illegal.
No hunter needs an AK-47 to shoot down a Grizzly.
Obama is gun liberal.
And that's a shame.
Apparently there are more pressing issues like the world economy to see to.
But he's even made it a point to state that there is no strict regulation coming. That there is no big ban on assault weapons coming.
Fcuk the NRA. "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."
Gee. Wonder why so many died in Rwanda in the 90's?
Maybe because they had access to guns and bombs instead of as previously bows and arrows?
How many people would've died in Columbine if these kids would've only had access to say a knife instead of their guns?
It's bullshit.
Obama is so fcuking wrong.
That genocide was actually carried out by machetes and other such objects.
-
NRA is a business, sure.
But they fight for gun rights and work to expose any gungrabbers to the national spotlight, which costs them re-election. The NRA cost clinton a LOT of votes in 96 and 98.
-
One argument I sometime see, one that is supposedly why the second amendment was instated in the first place, is to protect the people from the government.
So that there is no way the government can "run us over" like they did in eg the Eastern bloc.
Someone would perhaps argue that the Iranian people would be real good off had they been armed like the US citizens.
Then they could really stepped up and gotten rid of their government.
But take a look back 20 years at the revolution in the Eastern Bloc.
Aside from Romania, it was more or less void of violence.
And no regular citizens had guns at home.
They went out and simply protested. In the end, the police and the military wouldn't strike against their own people.
And there was a change.
It's probably pretty accurate to say that the void of weapons made the Iron Curtain Revolution almost a total unbloody affair.
Had people been armed, the chances of a massacre would probably been enormous.
-
The holocaust memorial shooter wasn't a right wing nut like you claim.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/11/inconvenient-truth-holocaust-museum-shooter-hated-fox-news-murdoch-weekly-standard-possible-target/
Inconvenient truths: Holocaust Museum shooter hated Fox News, Murdoch; Weekly Standard possible target
Criminals with guns are a problem though.
The biggest issue is that it is too easy to get a gun and that certifiable nut jobs shouldn't have them.
-
ins't this statement true? I'm open to material on this so if it can be proven otherwise I'll listen. But I think if someone wants to kill someone, they'll kill or try to kill them with or without a gun. If someone wants to kill many, they'll make a bomb if they don't have a gun. A killer is going to kill imo...
The concept here is that the gun is just a tool. The real problem is the same as anywhere else. It's not the gun, the drug, the animal, the drink or whatever... The problem is always the person. However, certian people don't want to regulate other people... so they instead try to regulate the tool those people use.
The whole argument against guns is that they are bad because people use them to kill others. However, can't that argument be applied to knives? To cars? How come we don't ban cars, because aren't they are used to hurt some people?
-
The concept here is that the gun is just a tool. The real problem is the same as anywhere else. It's not the gun, the drug, the animal, the drink or whatever... The problem is always the person. However, certian people don't want to regulate other people... so they instead try to regulate the tool those people use.
The whole argument against guns is that they are bad because people use them to kill others. However, can't that argument be applied to knives? To cars? How come we don't ban cars, because aren't they are used to hurt some people?
Slow down with all that logic, we don't want you confusing any other getbiggers.
-
The concept here is that the gun is just a tool. The real problem is the same as anywhere else. It's not the gun, the drug, the animal, the drink or whatever... The problem is always the person. However, certian people don't want to regulate other people... so they instead try to regulate the tool those people use.
The whole argument against guns is that they are bad because people use them to kill others. However, can't that argument be applied to knives? To cars? How come we don't ban cars, because aren't they are used to hurt some people?
We have regulations for cars don't we?
You have to drive at certain speeds, you have to have a driver's license (which, incredibly, the test you have to pass is harder to pass than when you go get a license for a gun).
You also have to drive on the right side of the road, et al.
So car driving is very much regulated.
And finally - cars are not tools designed primarily to kill with.
They are actually - believe it or not - vehicles.
-
We have regulations for cars don't we?
You have to drive at certain speeds, you have to have a driver's license (which, incredibly, the test you have to pass is harder to pass than when you go get a license for a gun).
You also have to drive on the right side of the road, et al.
So car driving is very much regulated.
And finally - cars are not tools designed primarily to kill with.
They are actually - believe it or not - vehicles.
Hedgehog, lets say for example john doe wanted to kill you with a car. He didn't have a license, do you think he would be able to buy a car? Absoutely. So the argument regarding that is invalid on your part. Secondly, even with said regulations on cars, people still die, so clearly regulation isn't the answer. I've said it before and I will say it again, making guns harder to get will only discourage people that want them for home defense/hunting/target practice. Remember, criminals break the law. What makes any of you think they wouldn't break the law to obtain a gun?
-
We have regulations for cars don't we?
You have to drive at certain speeds, you have to have a driver's license (which, incredibly, the test you have to pass is harder to pass than when you go get a license for a gun).
You also have to drive on the right side of the road, et al.
So car driving is very much regulated.
And finally - cars are not tools designed primarily to kill with.
They are actually - believe it or not - vehicles.
Hedge I think you missed my point...
People USE them to cause harm. A car sitting there by itself isn't going to run you over. People USE guns to cause harm... it is the person that is doing it, not the gun.
Yes, guns and cars are both regulated. Why are certian types of guns banned? Banning a gun like an AK47 or other assault-style rifle is like banning BMWs because they go too fast...
-
Hedgehog, lets say for example john doe wanted to kill you with a car. He didn't have a license, do you think he would be able to buy a car? Absoutely. So the argument regarding that is invalid on your part. Secondly, even with said regulations on cars, people still die, so clearly regulation isn't the answer. I've said it before and I will say it again, making guns harder to get will only discourage people that want them for home defense/hunting/target practice. Remember, criminals break the law. What makes any of you think they wouldn't break the law to obtain a gun?
I think it's amazing that some people think regulation and registration of guns accomplishes anything. If i was a criminal and was going to off you... do you really think I am going to go down to the local gun store and buy it legally?
-
Secondly, even with said regulations on cars, people still die, so clearly regulation isn't the answer.
Regulation do actually help.
Yes, people still die when driving. But the deaths per driven car are decreasing - due to regulation. Like it or not.
We've seen that death rates went down significantly when speed limits were introduced.
Another big drop came when seatbelts in the driver's seat were introduced.
And then when the passanger seat have to wear it as well.
Another big drop came with the backseat mandatory seatbelt.
I've said it before and I will say it again, making guns harder to get will only discourage people that want them for home defense/hunting/target practice. Remember, criminals break the law. What makes any of you think they wouldn't break the law to obtain a gun?
If you regulate how people keep their guns (in safes and with the mags at a separate place) and make everyone go through a similar type of class as when getting a driving license, you will not only have better shooters. You will have much more responsible owners. And gun thefts are much less likely to happen, as well as drunk shootings IMO.
Hedgehog, lets say for example john doe wanted to kill you with a car. He didn't have a license, do you think he would be able to buy a car? Absoutely. So the argument regarding that is invalid on your part.
I don't think so. I think gun licensing and some type of class is an issue that NRA should promote. They should definitely be part in holding those classes, since they have know-how and a thorough organisation to get it started in no time.
-
The other day I was in the bedroom getting ready for the day and heard a strange noise. The dog that was in my room perked up and looked weird and started creeping down the hall. I grabbed one of my guns and walked through the house only to find it was just my other dog playing w/her food bowl. But I was very happy to have my gun!
-
This is more liberal homo garbage. They are always silent at the THOUSANDS of gang murders every year.
This is all about pushing a pc political agenda and has nothing to do with crime.
-
The amount of gun crimes committed by licensed owners is negligble compared to the gang bangers and illegal crimialns.
It took me 6 months and background checks etc to get a license. Do you really think that a gang member or street thug is going to go through that???
-
The amount of gun crimes committed by licensed owners is negligble compared to the gang bangers and illegal crimialns.
It took me 6 months and background checks etc to get a license. Do you really think that a gang member or street thug is going to go through that???
That was the point I was trying to make.
-
The point your trying to make is completely erroneous. Criminals will find a way to get guns, so all that regulation just makes people that are going to be responsible either pissed off, or just give up.
-
This is more liberal homo garbage. They are always silent at the THOUSANDS of gang murders every year.
This is all about pushing a pc political agenda and has nothing to do with crime.
I think you're wrong.
I don't consider myself a homo.
I've voiced my opinion about the gang problems on this board numerous times.
At least for me it's not about pushing a pc political agenda.
I happen to believe gun control would be positive for crime fighting.
So I just don't think you're assessment is necessarily true.
I know I am against guns based on cold reasoning.
The other day I was in the bedroom getting ready for the day and heard a strange noise. The dog that was in my room perked up and looked weird and started creeping down the hall. I grabbed one of my guns and walked through the house only to find it was just my other dog playing w/her food bowl. But I was very happy to have my gun!
What if you were a mom. And the dog you sneaked up on were your baby playing hide and seek.
Would you still be happy - very happy - you had your gun?
BTW, what would you have done had it been an intruder? Killed the person?
My point is, you having a gun simply leads to a spiral of violence.
The amount of gun crimes committed by licensed owners is negligble compared to the gang bangers and illegal crimialns.
It took me 6 months and background checks etc to get a license. Do you really think that a gang member or street thug is going to go through that???
No. I don't think a thug will go through that. But if there is a mandatory gun test, like when getting a driving license, you will get more responsible gun owners as a whole.
As for the thugs - you probably got to hit web stores, underground dealers and foreign shops that ship into the USA to stop part of that.
But in the end, what it all boils down to, is to get the manufacturers to co-operate.
They're the ones, who incredibly, manufacturers both guns for the criminals and those trying to defend themselves.
You got to make them cut off the production.
By force, if you have to.
Sure - I see the need to protect yourself as long as there are thousands of weapons out there.
But clean up the fucking ghettos and demolish all the illegal guns first then. Spend a year or two doing that.
Then start bringing on sensible regulation. As in strict rules on how to keep your guns et al.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
(Not a whole lot of guns in Japan)
-
More foul-smelling "widom" from getbig's left-wing lunatics. Jeezus Fucking Christ
There is NO good argument for restricting gun rights to law abiding citizens. NONE
Self-defense requires having ANY weapon/s at your disposal to protect yourself, your family, and your property. The gov't cannot limit or regulate small arms specifically for that purpose.
Or we can just wait for the police which take anywhere from 5 to 35 mins to arrive. A lot can happen to you, your wife, and your kids before they get there.
-
There is NO good argument for restricting gun rights to law abiding citizens. NONE
There is NO good argument for restricting gun rights to law abiding citizens. NONE
There is NO good argument for restricting gun rights to law abiding citizens. NONE
-
More foul-smelling "widom" from getbig's left-wing lunatics. Jeezus Fucking Christ
There is NO good argument for restricting gun rights to law abiding citizens. NONE
Self-defense requires having ANY weapon/s at your disposal to protect yourself, your family, and your property. The gov't cannot limit or regulate small arms specifically for that purpose.
Or we can just wait for the police which take anywhere from 5 to 35 mins to arrive. A lot can happen to you, your wife, and your kids before they get there.
I am trying to see your arguments. All I basically get is insults in return.
I don't get that part actually.
But back to the matter in hand - guns.
I want firm gun regulation and I want to get rid of illegal guns BECAUSE: I think that will decrease the crime rate.
If you argue for guns for guns because you believe there will be less crimes, then use some good argument, don't just use some ad hominem attack.
Try to explain WHY there will be lower crimes.
Someone mentioned Switzerland as a good example.
But Switzerland has one of the highest death by firearms rates in the world.
Look instead at Japan.
The only argument from the pro side that I've seen in the gun debate here that had any sense to it, was 240 (lol) who posted awhile ago that there is so much weapon around that sure it would be nice to go back to having no guns.
But that's just not a reality. Arming up is the only way - we've gone too far.
I'm paraphrasing, but that's how I interpreted him, and it was an answer I could definitely sympathize with. Not agree with, but it definitely made sense.
All this denial shit about how guns don't kill people et al.
That's just bullshit though.
I can't understand how otherwise educated people would buy into that BS.
-
Again, putting more regulations on people like myself is not going to do anything.
Did you know that most violent crimes are committed by recidivist criminals???
Additionally, automatic weapons are already banned here. As far as semi-auto rifles, the amount of crimes committed with them is almost next to n othing in relation to overall gun crimes.
Most are committed by .22 or small caliber cheap handguns.
-
Again, putting more regulations on people like myself is not going to do anything.
Did you know that most violent crimes are committed by recidivist criminals???
Additionally, automatic weapons are already banned here. As far as semi-auto rifles, the amount of crimes committed with them is almost next to n othing in relation to overall gun crimes.
Most are committed by .22 or small caliber cheap handguns.
What's your thoughts on an effort on trying to totally clean America from all illegal guns?
And how would you go about doing it, I mean come as close as possible to it?
-
What's your thoughts on an effort on trying to totally clean America from all illegal guns?
And how would you go about doing it, I mean come as close as possible to it?
No 1, I think that is literally impossible due to the fact that there are hundreds of millions of guns in circulations in the USA.
No 2, I would enact extremely strict sentencing enhancements if a person uses a gun in the commision of a violent crime like a robbery or home invasion. Possession of an illegal weapon should also carry severe penalties.
No 3. Cash for Guns has a place but is not the end all and be all.
No 4. I would enact CCW in all states and mandate NRA training and certification. I have no problem with background checks and NRA training.
I live in NYC and we went from 2,200 murders a year down to only a few hundred. The difference????
No, it was not gun control laws since we have always had tough laws. It was better policing. Guiliani cleaned up the streets from the vermin.
it did not take new gun control laws to take care of the crime problem.
-
"What if you were a mom. And the dog you sneaked up on were your baby playing hide and seek.
Would you still be happy - very happy - you had your gun?
Yes. Hedge, I see what you are saying but you don't run into a room and blindly start shooting. You hold the gun up, pointing at the ceiling and later level it if need be. Also, there is the added safety of the safety.
BTW, what would you have done had it been an intruder? Killed the person?
Depending on how close he was to me or if he froze when I told him to, I may not have to shoot at all... .....but if he were advancing quickly upon me, I would try to shoot him in the legs or the penile area.
My point is, you having a gun simply leads to a spiral of violence."
This is a chance that the intruder takes.
-
"What if you were a mom. And the dog you sneaked up on were your baby playing hide and seek.
Would you still be happy - very happy - you had your gun?
Yes. Hedge, I see what you are saying but you don't run into a room and blindly start shooting. You hold the gun up, pointing at the ceiling and later level it if need be. Also, there is the added safety of the safety.
BTW, what would you have done had it been an intruder? Killed the person?
Depending on how close he was to me or if he froze when I told him to, I may not have to shoot at all... .....but if he were advancing quickly upon me, I would try to shoot him in the legs or the penile area.
My point is, you having a gun simply leads to a spiral of violence."
This is a chance that the intruder takes.
Look, I'm not pretending it's some kind of easy situation where if we all stop having guns and start wearing flowers in our hair it will become a fucking parade.
But when I see police officers using tasers on senior citizens it tells me one thing - they did it because they could.
Had they not been equipped with tasers they would've been forced to use other sources, perhaps contemplated escaping from the old woman in order to avoid getting beat up.
The same goes with you and the gun.
Instead of you going into hiding, you instead chose to go and confront a potential danger.
Confrontation.
Which is more likely than avoidance to lead to violence.
If someone spots from a distance that his car is being jacked by two thugs, and either runs or decides to confront them with his Beretta 92F, what do you think is most likely to get him into a potential dangerous confrontation?
-
What if you were a mom. And the dog you sneaked up on were your baby playing hide and seek.
Would you still be happy - very happy - you had your gun?
BTW, what would you have done had it been an intruder? Killed the person?
My point is, you having a gun simply leads to a spiral of violence.
I respect your opinion on most topics, Hedge. You bring a level headedness to things.
This issue is tough, however. When your front door is kicked in by three armed home invaders intent on pistol whipping you about 15 times before taking your valuables and fleeing into the night... you're not all that concerned about perpetuating a cycle of violence.
You just want to protect yourself.
In south florida, every week there are 1-2 home invasions. 2-3 guys will break a window, beat the shit out of resident, and rob him in middle of night. That's some scary stuff.
What would you do if that threat was present? Call the police? They'll be there in 11 minutes, about 3 minutes after bad guys have driven away and you have a smashed face, if you're lucky.
If you have another solution, I'm all ears. Even if the bad guys had no guns, they still have bats, knives, and element of surprise, more than a match for a groggy person with maybe 5 seconds warning after the smash to prepare for incoming mess. You either have time to grab a cell and mumble something to the 911 operator... or to grab your weapon and level it at the door to drop whatever illegally enters your room.
-
I respect your opinion on most topics, Hedge. You bring a level headedness to things.
This issue is tough, however. When your front door is kicked in by three armed home invaders intent on pistol whipping you about 15 times before taking your valuables and fleeing into the night... you're not all that concerned about perpetuating a cycle of violence.
You just want to protect yourself.
In south florida, every week there are 1-2 home invasions. 2-3 guys will break a window, beat the shit out of resident, and rob him in middle of night. That's some scary stuff.
What would you do if that threat was present? Call the police? They'll be there in 11 minutes, about 3 minutes after bad guys have driven away and you have a smashed face, if you're lucky.
If you have another solution, I'm all ears. Even if the bad guys had no guns, they still have bats, knives, and element of surprise, more than a match for a groggy person with maybe 5 seconds warning after the smash to prepare for incoming mess. You either have time to grab a cell and mumble something to the 911 operator... or to grab your weapon and level it at the door to drop whatever illegally enters your room.
Hey 240 - I finally got my full carry in NYS!
It took forever.
-
If someone spots from a distance that his car is being jacked by two thugs, and either runs or decides to confront them with his Beretta 92F, what do you think is most likely to get him into a potential dangerous confrontation?
That scenario and being a victim of a home invasion are very different.
If someone is trying to steal my car from a distance, I'm not going to confront them w/a gun...that is a situation for the cops. But if someone breaks into my home w/who knows what on their mind, they may end up w/some extra holes in their weiner.
-
I respect your opinion on most topics, Hedge. You bring a level headedness to things.
This issue is tough, however. When your front door is kicked in by three armed home invaders intent on pistol whipping you about 15 times before taking your valuables and fleeing into the night... you're not all that concerned about perpetuating a cycle of violence.
You just want to protect yourself.
In south florida, every week there are 1-2 home invasions. 2-3 guys will break a window, beat the shit out of resident, and rob him in middle of night. That's some scary stuff.
What would you do if that threat was present? Call the police? They'll be there in 11 minutes, about 3 minutes after bad guys have driven away and you have a smashed face, if you're lucky.
If you have another solution, I'm all ears. Even if the bad guys had no guns, they still have bats, knives, and element of surprise, more than a match for a groggy person with maybe 5 seconds warning after the smash to prepare for incoming mess. You either have time to grab a cell and mumble something to the 911 operator... or to grab your weapon and level it at the door to drop whatever illegally enters your room.
As I pointed out earlier in this thread, you (of all people ;D) makes the best arguments for guns.
That's just my opinion though.
I can't really say much against what you tell me, cause I ain't living in your reality.
336 mentioned the cleaning up Giuliani did - that has to be done before any of the other issues are taken care of.
Ie, get rid of the illegal guns, clean up the streets from criminals.
But as far as criminals and Florida...
Now, I'm no expert on the current population there.
But from what I understand, there are way too many people that could be working and contributing instead of just doing time.
That's perhaps something Florida should try to change somehow to get more tax revenue, and to boost economic power.
JMO.
But that's slightly off-topic.
My main point is really this though - I can't tell you that you're fcuking wrong. Because I don't live in your reality everyday.
Of course I've stayed in rough neighborhoods my fair share of time, when I lived in other countries.
But I think what pisses most pro-gun activists off are anti-gun activists that are ignorant to how life in tougher hoods are like.
-
NYC in the late 80's - early 90's was CRAZY!!!!!!!!!!!
2200 murders alone.
Guiliani cleaned it up by allowing the cops to go after smaller crimes called "quality of life crimes."
He went after crime without abandon.
-
That scenario and being a victim of a home invasion are very different.
If someone is trying to steal my car from a distance, I'm not going to confront them w/a gun...that is a situation for the cops. But if someone breaks into my home w/who knows what on their mind, they may end up w/some extra holes in their weiner.
Since you're Christian:
instead of trying to hurt the intruder, why not offer the intruder whatever to take what he wants?
Your reward for that will be great - according to Jesus.
“But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. 28Bless those who curse you, and pray for those who insult you. 29If someone strikes you on the cheek, offer him the other one as well, and if someone takes your coat, don't keep back your shirt, either. 30Keep on giving to everyone who asks you for something, and if anyone takes what is yours, do not insist on getting it back. 31Whatever you want people to do for you, do the same for them.
32“If you love those who love you, what thanks do you deserve? Why, even sinners love those who love them. 33If you do good to those who do good to you, what thanks do you deserve? Even sinners do that. 34If you lend to those from whom you expect to get something back, what thanks do you deserve? Even sinners lend to sinners to get back what they lend. 35Rather, love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them, expecting nothing in return. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind even to ungrateful and evil people. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”
-
Since you're Christian:
instead of trying to hurt the intruder, why not offer the intruder whatever to take what he wants?
Your reward for that will be great - according to Jesus.
“But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. 28Bless those who curse you, and pray for those who insult you. 29If someone strikes you on the cheek, offer him the other one as well, and if someone takes your coat, don't keep back your shirt, either. 30Keep on giving to everyone who asks you for something, and if anyone takes what is yours, do not insist on getting it back. 31Whatever you want people to do for you, do the same for them.
32“If you love those who love you, what thanks do you deserve? Why, even sinners love those who love them. 33If you do good to those who do good to you, what thanks do you deserve? Even sinners do that. 34If you lend to those from whom you expect to get something back, what thanks do you deserve? Even sinners lend to sinners to get back what they lend. 35Rather, love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them, expecting nothing in return. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind even to ungrateful and evil people. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”
I knew this would be coming ;D
Hedge, that would be no problem w/me. Stuff is just stuff. He can have some and get out...
The problem is if he advances to attack or rape.
-
hedge, the problem with your thats more ppl who could be contributing rather then sitting in jail is slightly skewed. This is assuming these ppl would be straight law abiding citizens...they arent thats what makes them criminals them possesing a gun didnt create a criminal they were criminals before the guns and they would still be criminals without the guns.
The US will never and i mean never get rid of guns in there entirety its simply impossible at this time, creating regulations which we have will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I agree that gun control to a certain extent is a good thing however we have tons of gun control in this country. The problem is the control is over law abiding citizens the ppl commiting violent acts generally are not law abiding citizens and did not obtain their guns legally. So how exactly would more regulation or gun control stop that?
STELLA, WHAT IS THE DEAL WITH THE CROTCH REGION ??? :o ;D
-
Everything written in those articles is backwards its tough to decide where to begin dismembering it.
1. Responsible gun owners shouldn't be punished by the actions of a few crazy people.
....
I remember when the gov. tried to keep domestic abusers from being gun owners and the NRA thought that these pieces of shit wife and child beaters should have the right to be armed.
That was just another indication to me how fucking insane the NRA is and how dangerous gun nuts are.
-
The concept here is that the gun is just a tool. The real problem is the same as anywhere else. It's not the gun, the drug, the animal, the drink or whatever... The problem is always the person. However, certian people don't want to regulate other people... so they instead try to regulate the tool those people use.
The whole argument against guns is that they are bad because people use them to kill others. However, can't that argument be applied to knives? To cars? How come we don't ban cars, because aren't they are used to hurt some people?
This argument that a gun's just a tool is deceptive.
A gun is the most efficient killing/destroying tool we have. Otherwise we'd arm our US soldiers with rocks and butter knives.
Why guns? B/c guns make killing easier to do.
-
I remember when the gov. tried to keep domestic abusers from being gun owners and the NRA thought that these pieces of shit wife and child beaters should have the right to be armed.
That was just another indication to me how fucking insane the NRA is and how dangerous gun nuts are.
Ah there is the standard liberal bullshit line, gun nut, christian nut, <insert here> nut. A weak attempt to marginalize anyone who disagree's with you, I mean they would have to be crazy to do that.
It's obviouse you have no clue what a law abiding citizen who owns a gun is like, they respect the weapon.
I bet you have no problem with ACLU going to bat for organizations like NAMBLA.
-
I remember when the gov. tried to keep domestic abusers from being gun owners and the NRA thought that these pieces of shit wife and child beaters should have the right to be armed.
That was just another indication to me how fucking insane the NRA is and how dangerous gun nuts are.
Come to my home with illegal intentions and you will see how right you are.
-
Ah there is the standard liberal bullshit line, gun nut, christian nut, <insert here> nut. A weak attempt to marginalize anyone who disagree's with you, I mean they would have to be crazy to do that.
It's obviouse you have no clue what a law abiding citizen who owns a gun is like, they respect the weapon.
I bet you have no problem with ACLU going to bat for organizations like NAMBLA.
Now that we've heard from the batshit insane gun nut crowd, let's continue the debate.
-
Come to my home with illegal intentions and you will see how right you are.
Are you a domestic abuser?
I didn't think you read what I'd written. You're just typing knee-jerk reactionary stuff.
-
Are you a domestic abuser?
I didn't think you read what I'd written. You're just typing knee-jerk reactionary stuff.
The NRA protects the 2nd amendment the same way the ACLU protects the 1st.
Sure the ACLU does things I dont like sometimes, but overall I am more comfortable with them fighting for the 1st amendement as you should be for the NRA.
-
Now that we've heard from the batshit insane gun nut crowd, let's continue the debate.
You are a bafoon, I don't own a gun and have no desire to own a gun. It is a constitutional right to own a gun, you assclowns think we should give constitutional rights to terrorist but wish to deny them from US citizens. You unwashed culture-war-waging horsemen of the apocalypse
-
Now that we've heard from the batshit insane gun nut crowd, let's continue the debate.
No NRA member I've ever known is anywhere near as much of a fringe lunatic as you are. To you everyone supporting gun rights is "batshit insane."
No understanding whatsoever.
-
The NRA protects the 2nd amendment the same way the ACLU protects the 1st.
Sure the ACLU does things I dont like sometimes, but overall I am more comfortable with them fighting for the 1st amendement as you should be for the NRA.
I'm not opposed to gun ownership. I supprt sensible measures like banning wife beaters and children beaters from ever carrying a gun.
These gun nuts are so blinded by their slippery slope arguments that gun ownership becomes an absolute right.
Those don't exist.
Ask prisoners on death row about absolute rights.
-
The NRA protects the 2nd amendment the same way the ACLU protects the 1st.
Sure the ACLU does things I dont like sometimes, but overall I am more comfortable with them fighting for the 1st amendement as you should be for the NRA.
Good post
-
Good post
Sometimes the ACLU takes positions that I find disgusting, but you know what, at tyhe end of the day I am glad they are fighting these battles against the Govt because not too many others are.
Of course I dont want CONVICTED wife beaters or any criminals carrying guns, but overall the NRA deserves everyones' support for what they do in protecting the 2nd amendment.
-
You are a bafoon, I don't own a gun and have no desire to own a gun. It is a constitutional right to own a gun, you assclowns think we should give constitutional rights to terrorist but wish to deny them from US citizens. You unwashed culture-war-waging horsemen of the apocalypse
buffoon
One entry found.
Main Entry: buf·foon
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)bə-ˈfün\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French bouffon, from Old Italian buffone
Date: 1585
1 : a ludicrous figure : clown See Kazan
-
No NRA member I've ever known is anywhere near as much of a fringe lunatic as you are. To you everyone supporting gun rights is "batshit insane."
No understanding whatsoever.
buffoon
One entry found.
Main Entry: buf·foon
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)bə-ˈfün\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French bouffon, from Old Italian buffone
Date: 1585
1 : a ludicrous figure : clown See Kazan & Brixtonbulldog
-
buffoon
One entry found.
Main Entry: buf·foon
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)bə-ˈfün\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French bouffon, from Old Italian buffone
Date: 1585
1 : a ludicrous figure : clown See Kazan
Blah blah blah
(http://www.sneeko.net/images/macros/Spelling-DictionaryNazi.gif)
-
I hope I’m wrong, but I can’t help feeling as if the murder at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington and the assassination of the abortion doctor in Wichita, Kan., and the slaying of three police officers in Pittsburgh — all of them right-wing, hate-driven attacks — were just the beginning and that worse is to come.
What about that Muslim man who shot the military recruiters? Why do I here so little about this guy? Is he not as guilty as the man who shot the abortion doctor?
-
Blah blah blah
(http://www.sneeko.net/images/macros/Spelling-DictionaryNazi.gif)
Jesus christ.
The barest 2nd grade spelling competence is too much to expect from you?
Sweet Lord you're the walking epitome of the decline of modern education.
-
What about that Muslim man who shot the military recruiters? Why do I here so little about this guy? Is he not as guilty as the man who shot the abortion doctor?
What about Malvo and Muhammaed the DC Snipers??? Remember how fast that got kicked off the news???
-
Jesus christ.
The barest 2nd grade spelling competence is too much to expect from you?
Sweet Lord you're the walking epitome of the decline of modern education.
Why don't you answer the question you fuck head, instead of worrying about mis-spelled words. Typical left wing asshatery, can't answer a question/argue a point you go after the spelling. How about 5 more posts avoiding the subject, maybe next you can go after my sentence structure or use of punctuation.
(http://onni.jkl.fi/~lauri/kuvia/your_a_fag.jpg)
-
The chance of being a victim of gun violence is extremely low.
-
Why don't you answer the question you fuck head, instead of worrying about mis-spelled words. Typical left wing asshatery, can't answer a question/argue a point you go after the spelling. How about 5 more posts avoiding the subject, maybe next you can go after my sentence structure or use of punctuation.
(http://onni.jkl.fi/~lauri/kuvia/your_a_fag.jpg)
hahaha.. spot on
buffoon
One entry found.
Main Entry: buf·foon
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)bə-ˈfün\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French bouffon, from Old Italian buffone
Date: 1585
1 : a ludicrous figure : clown See Kazan & Brixtonbulldog
here he comes with the "bleeding anus/whine about spelling/why cant i get laid/and bush is evil" argument YET AGAIN, lol.
(http://right-thoughts.us/images/uploads/not_this_shit_again.jpg)
I don't care if you won every spelling be in North America.. you're still a miserable socialist lunatic.
-
Decker is not a bad person, he just like Obama, has ideas that always seem to collide with facts and common sense.
-
What about Malvo and Muhammaed the DC Snipers??? Remember how fast that got kicked off the news???
Actually, down here in MD, it was still playing out, even now, you'll hear from time to time about them.
-
Let's run with the wife beater argument here for a second. Everyone on here by definition is a criminal, every single person. Every one of us has broken a law, stop sign run, red light run, speeding, watered our yards. If we start taking the constitutional right away from one man, where does it stop? Of course the argument can be made, well these were violent criminals, blah blah. Well just look at our government, everything is a slippery slope, everything. Once one thing gets the ball rolling, its only a matter of time before that snowball is an avalanche.
That is all.
-
Why don't you answer the question you fuck head, instead of worrying about mis-spelled words. Typical left wing asshatery, can't answer a question/argue a point you go after the spelling. How about 5 more posts avoiding the subject, maybe next you can go after my sentence structure or use of punctuation.
(http://onni.jkl.fi/~lauri/kuvia/your_a_fag.jpg)
I'm not avoiding the subject Brainiac, I'm avoiding you. I don't debate the muttering unwashed homeless dude on the EL Train platform and I don't debate you either.
-
hahaha.. spot on
here he comes with the "bleeding anus/whine about spelling/why cant i get laid/and bush is evil" argument YET AGAIN, lol.
(http://right-thoughts.us/images/uploads/not_this_shit_again.jpg)
I don't care if you won every spelling be in North America.. you're still a miserable socialist lunatic.
Listen to her. You sure are funny little lady!
-
Decker is not a bad person, he just like Obama, has ideas that always seem to collide with facts and common sense.
The sentiment is mutual.
-
Let's run with the wife beater argument here for a second. Everyone on here by definition is a criminal, every single person. Every one of us has broken a law, stop sign run, red light run, speeding, watered our yards. If we start taking the constitutional right away from one man, where does it stop? Of course the argument can be made, well these were violent criminals, blah blah. Well just look at our government, everything is a slippery slope, everything. Once one thing gets the ball rolling, its only a matter of time before that snowball is an avalanche.
That is all.
There's the expected blurring of facts, law and common sense that I anticipated. Actually I don't understand what you are trying to say. You go from 'running' with the wife beater example to moving violations in an automobile.
Is an unlawful act of violence the same thing as a moving violation?
Anyways, it is a convenient fiction of gun absolutists to forget the entire second amendment. With that selective amnesia the particular property right of gun ownership becomes a sacred personal right.
Aside from that, I think I've changed my mind.
Let's arm with guns the wife beaters, the child abusers, hell, while were at it, let's arm the murderers too. After all, isn't gun ownership a fundamental right?
-
The sentiment is mutual.
How am I like Obama?
:o :o :o :o :o :o
-
I'm not avoiding the subject Brainiac, I'm avoiding you. I don't debate the muttering unwashed homeless dude on the EL Train platform and I don't debate you either.
Nice cop out ::)
But what should I expect from pompous ass like yourself. I really like the way you try to imply that you far to intelligent to debate the point.
Now go get your shine box bitch.
-
I knew this would be coming ;D
Hedge, that would be no problem w/me. Stuff is just stuff. He can have some and get out...
The problem is if he advances to attack or rape.
Why would that be a problem?
If someone strikes you on the cheek, offer him the other one as well
Ie, if the attacker harms you physically, just offer him your other cheek.
You will be the children of the most high if you endure.
-
You honestly don't believe that putting guns in the hand of people leads to more serious violence?
Eg, you and I are at a party.
We both get drunk.
I make a pass at your wife.
You kick my ass.
End of story, I'm probably gonna be fine.
Same setting, we both carry knifes.
Chances are I may live, but the chances that I will die are probably bigger.
End of story.
If we both carry our concealed guns to the party and both get drunk.
I make a pass at your wife.
Not only will probably either one of us get killed.
Chances are that a bystander will too.
End of story.
What's so hard to get about that? ???
America was founded and sculpted using guns.
You don't live in America so fuck off and worry about Sweedish shit like meatballs and living room chairs.
-
America was founded and sculpted using guns.
You don't live in America so fuck off and worry about Sweedish shit like meatballs and living room chairs.
I about spit out my sandwich, I was at ikea today...Did you ever go by teradata? I meant to take you out when you were down here.
-
America was founded and sculpted using guns.
You don't live in America so fuck off and worry about Sweedish shit like meatballs and living room chairs.
(http://static.open.salon.com/files/applause1234363884.gif)
-
Why would that be a problem?
If someone strikes you on the cheek, offer him the other one as well
Ie, if the attacker harms you physically, just offer him your other cheek.
You will be the children of the most high if you endure.
Thats utter garbage.
So if a rapist wants to take your wife, you give him your daughter too????
Why not just bust a few caps in that animal????
-
Why would that be a problem?
If someone strikes you on the cheek, offer him the other one as well
Ie, if the attacker harms you physically, just offer him your other cheek.
You will be the children of the most high if you endure.
I think we've talked the turn the other cheek thing to death and we just don't agree on what it means.
-
Thats utter garbage.
So if a rapist wants to take your wife, you give him your daughter too????
Why not just bust a few caps in that animal????
I'm not a Christian.
I am an Atheist.
-
There's the expected blurring of facts, law and common sense that I anticipated. Actually I don't understand what you are trying to say. You go from 'running' with the wife beater example to moving violations in an automobile.
Is an unlawful act of violence the same thing as a moving violation?
Anyways, it is a convenient fiction of gun absolutists to forget the entire second amendment. With that selective amnesia the particular property right of gun ownership becomes a sacred personal right.
Aside from that, I think I've changed my mind.
Let's arm with guns the wife beaters, the child abusers, hell, while were at it, let's arm the murderers too. After all, isn't gun ownership a fundamental right?
Convicted violent offenders? Sure...guess what? There are already laws in place that prevent that when you go buy a firearm from a gun store or even a gun show as there is no such thing as the "gun show loophole". There are currently almost 22,000 gun control and gun related laws on the books. I believe that is more than enough laws to control anything. My idea is to simply enforce the ones currently in practice because our gun control laws are reaching into tax law; it is just insane what some people have to do to own and carry a firearm.
Making it even harder for more people to own firearms will not solve anything. Some of you may not want to own a firearm, but I don't think you realize that even in more "gun friendly" states you have to undergo a background check every time you purchase a firearm. You fill out the app. and the employee calls it in right there, then the gun's serial number is recorded and sent to the ATF. When you walk out of the store you have just had a background check done on you AND your firearm is registered with a Federal agency. The same can be said for CCW...for someone to have their license to carry, whether you like that person or not in the eyes of the law they are an outstanding member of society. After a much more thorough background check, training, classroom instruction, and a 90-115 day waiting period(most states) is when a person is issued their license to carry a concealed firearm. There are already plenty of safeguards in place for guns and the ability to bear them.
More gun control is not the answer.
-
I think we've talked the turn the other cheek thing to death and we just don't agree on what it means.
True.
I guess that I believe that perhaps being a Christian don't mean that you can somehow stop at a certain point and say "hey, I am prepared to follow the Christian Code this far but not any further" - as you mentioned you were prepared to give away stuff but not actually endanger yourself.
Then you would opt for potentially killing the intruder - a shot to the groin could hit the intestines and lead to a fairly quick death if unlucky. At the very least you would opt for potentially mutilating the intruder.
Look, I apologize if this come across as judgemental. My point is just that maybe being a Christian isn't easy. Going for the gun might be your instinct. But is it really the Christian "solution"?
Aren't people bending Christianity to fit their lifestyles a whole lot these days, be it homosexuality or a case like this?
I'm just saying.
Sorry for the OT. ;D
-
I about spit out my sandwich, I was at ikea today...Did you ever go by teradata? I meant to take you out when you were down here.
Yea I did another day trip recently; I might be going back in July but the wife might come with her sister (she wants to visit the Coca cola plant or something ;D), let's make sure we go out for a brew this time :)
-
True.
I guess that I believe that perhaps being a Christian don't mean that you can somehow stop at a certain point and say "hey, I am prepared to follow the Christian Code this far but not any further" - as you mentioned you were prepared to give away stuff but not actually endanger yourself.
Then you would opt for potentially killing the intruder - a shot to the groin could hit the intestines and lead to a fairly quick death if unlucky. At the very least you would opt for potentially mutilating the intruder.
Look, I apologize if this come across as judgemental. My point is just that maybe being a Christian isn't easy. Going for the gun might be your instinct. But is it really the Christian "solution"?
Aren't people bending Christianity to fit their lifestyles a whole lot these days, be it homosexuality or a case like this?
I'm just saying.
Sorry for the OT. ;D
Oh, I agree w/you... being a "good" Christian in other people's eyes that would follow, act and react in each way that the bible teaches is actually pretty much impossible...but I see your point..it is something for which we should strive.
And yes, I believe a lot of us bend it to fit our lifestyles but what makes someone a Christian is their belief in Christ as Savior. Yes, we would hope that we can live better lives but I don't think this negates us from being justified in defending ourselves or others (even w/deadly force if need be). He doesn't want us to be reckless about this type of thing but I think He wouldn't mind if we were prepared to deal w/the situation.
Luke 22:35-36
Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered.
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
Sorry for the OT. ;D
No problem! ... what is OT?
-
The other day I was in the bedroom getting ready for the day and heard a strange noise. The dog that was in my room perked up and looked weird and started creeping down the hall. I grabbed one of my guns and walked through the house only to find it was just my other dog playing w/her food bowl. But I was very happy to have my gun!
lol. Stella packing the heat! :D
(http://www.imageseek.com/hakan/albums/wallpaper/CIMG3374.sized.jpg)