Profile of a gun prohibitionist


By Vaticanus   Follow   Wed, 9 Jan 2013, 6:20pm   1,463 views   52 comments
Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (2)  

Which Diane do we believe, the one who wants to ban some guns and gun paraphernalia (a list of superficially defined "assault" weapons), or the one who apparently wants to enforce an outright confiscation?

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 13-52 of 52     Last »     See most liked comments

  1. Kevin


    Follow
    Befriend
    41 threads
    2,655 comments

    13   9:38pm Sun 20 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Call it Crazy says

    Yes it does matter, A LOT....

    Welcome to democracy. If you'd rather live in a country where people with different beliefs than you don't have any influence on the law, try living in Saudi Arabia.

    Call it Crazy says

    Go take a look at the FBI data...

    Please point me at the "FBI data" that says that automobiles, hammers, baseball bats, or knives are weapons. Go on, I'll be waiting.

  2. StillLooking


    Follow
    Befriend
    29 threads
    382 comments
    Skokie, IL

    14   9:41pm Sun 20 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Call it Crazy says

    Vaticanus says

    Right, because nobody has ever been assaulted or murdered till guns were invented.

    Exactly!!

    Even today, only 2/3 of murders are by guns, why aren't people screaming out about the other 1/3?? Are those other murders considered O.K.??? Just wondering....

    ......"Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]"

    This assumes that many of the so-called suicides are not actually murders. We have about thirty thousand people killed by guns every year. How can all these be properly investigated?

  3. Robert Sproul


    Follow
    Befriend
    89 threads
    927 comments

    15   7:46am Mon 21 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    Kevin says

    Please point me at the "FBI data" that says that automobiles, hammers, baseball bats, or knives are weapons. Go on, I'll be waiting.

    Here- http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11
    Please educate yourself about the facts of this issue. People manage to murder each other without firearms.

    What is more difficult is protecting your self from violence without them.
    http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime
    From this report:
    "A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. "

  4. Call it Crazy


    Follow
    Befriend
    943 threads
    12,077 comments

    16   8:31am Mon 21 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)  

    Raw says

    It could be because until guns were invented no one has been able to murder 20 kids in 20 seconds. Don't you think our laws should change along with changing technology?

    OK, following that logic.. Until cars were invented, we didn't lose approximately 100 people a day in car crashes...

    So, laws against cars should be changed too....

  5. Moderate Infidel


    Follow
    Befriend
    3 threads
    712 comments

    17   10:20am Mon 21 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    I'm all for stricter car and traffic laws. It should be way harder to get the privilege to drive. All cars should have a breathalyzer deactivation system to prevent drunk driving. Making owning an automobile more difficult would result in more efficient public transportation. There are way too many vehicles on the planet and it is only going to get worse.

  6. Kevin


    Follow
    Befriend
    41 threads
    2,655 comments

    18   11:34am Mon 21 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Its not a "fact" that any o those things are inherently weapons. A weapon is something that is designed primarily yo injure or kill. A sword or a gun are examples.

  7. Call it Crazy


    Follow
    Befriend
    943 threads
    12,077 comments

    19   11:51am Mon 21 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (3)  

    Kevin says

    Its not a "fact" that any o those things are inherently weapons. A weapon is something that is designed primarily yo injure or kill. A sword or a gun are examples.

    Well, you're stretching it again.... anything can be used as a weapon, even a 2x4 piece of wood. Some items work better then others.

    In it's most basic form, a gun was designed to send a hunk of lead from point A to point B.... it's a very simple concept.

    A sword was designed to cut something.

    Now I would agree that if you actually wanted to kill somebody, a gun would be more efficient then using a sling shot. So it makes sense that if you were hell bent on killing, you will use the easiest "tool" available. But as we have seen, if a gun wasn't available, killers have used other tools, including hammers...

    But, going back to a previous question I asked, out of the 300 million firearms in the country, how many "hunks of lead" were fired in training, at a gun range, for sport or competition or hunting in the course of a week versus how many "hunks of lead" were fired to specifically kill someone?

    I'm still waiting on that answer......

  8. Kevin


    Follow
    Befriend
    41 threads
    2,655 comments

    20   6:37pm Mon 21 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    An automobile is designed for transportation. Using it to kill or injure someone is using it in a manner inconsistent with its intended purpose.

    A firearm is designed to kill (or at least injure). Using it to kill or injure someone is using it as intended.

    That's the difference. It's what makes a weapon a weapon in the first place.

    "sporting" uses of firearms were invented after the fact. Nobody was sitting around going "man, we have these targets. Now we just need something to hit them with!"

  9. David Losh


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    9 threads
    1,546 comments
    Seattle, WA
    David Losh's website

    21   6:56pm Mon 21 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Kevin says

    "sporting" uses of firearms were invented after the fact.

    Sorry, but blowing stuff up was the original intended purpose of gun powder, and projectiles. The canon was for attacking walls, and ship hulls, it was a tool.

    Even early pistols were fitted with a bayonet, as were muskets.

    Now where the lethal aspects of guns came in was during the Civil War when wholesale slaughter was commited by weapons, then we had the revolver, and Winchester to wipe out huge swaths of people.

    So really guns are the short timers in the art of war, and now they have been religated behind smart bombs, nukes, and even chemicals.

    The fire arms today really are more for sport than weapons of mass destruction.

    The United States has glamorized guns as a way to settle scores, seek vengence, or for protection. That glamour is really what should be changed.

    I personally don't carry a gun, and haven't for years. I pay attention out on the street, and do have a baseball bat for home protection. If any one is really interested in revenge taking away the guns won't change that.

    There are a lot of ways to kill that are even less personal than a gun.

  10. Kevin


    Follow
    Befriend
    41 threads
    2,655 comments

    22   7:06pm Mon 21 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    David Losh says

    Sorry, but blowing stuff up was the original intended purpose of gun powder, and projectiles. The canon was for attacking walls, and ship hulls, it was a tool.

    Even early pistols were fitted with a bayonet, as were muskets.

    What the hell are you talking about? Those are still uses that squarely qualify as "weapons".

    Early firearms had bayonets because they weren't very good at killing people. They were still designed as weapons to hurt.

    "ATTACKING" walls and hulls isn't a "tool". It's a WEAPON. The idea that the cannon was invented for anything other than a weapon of warfare is ridiculous.

    Gun powder isn't a firearm. Explosives have many practical uses other than killing that are essential to society.

  11. Call it Crazy


    Follow
    Befriend
    943 threads
    12,077 comments

    23   7:15pm Mon 21 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)  

    Kevin says

    Explosives have many practical uses other than killing that are essential to society.

    Is that what Timothy McVeigh told you??

  12. David Losh


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    9 threads
    1,546 comments
    Seattle, WA
    David Losh's website

    24   7:51pm Mon 21 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Kevin says

    Gun powder isn't a firearm.

    You really have a blind spot here in terms of war, as both a business, and an industry. All I'm really saying is that guns have been around for a relatively short amount of time in terms of killing. The time for guns has been surpassed by other bombs, that's the warfare you are seeing today.

    You're saying guns weren't for sport, but yes they were, and are. It's the new nifty thing.

    What I actually mean by your blind spot is that you are glossing over the glamour of guns in our society. The American Revolution, as opposed to the French Revolution, the Civil War, the Wild West, Prohibition, and Viet nam, complete with the radical movement that, yes, included guns, and bombings.

    It's the glamour of the gun that is the problem here. We look at it as sacred. How are you going to fix that? Make it more underground?

    No, you have to address the root problem rather than the tool.

  13. HEY YOU


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    944 threads
    2,386 comments

    25   8:12pm Mon 21 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    They are coming for our guns. Anyone ever shoot down a drone?

  14. Kevin


    Follow
    Befriend
    41 threads
    2,655 comments

    26   10:58pm Mon 21 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    David Losh says

    You really have a blind spot here in terms of war, as both a business, and an industry. All I'm really saying is that guns have been around for a relatively short amount of time in terms of killing. The time for guns has been surpassed by other bombs, that's the warfare you are seeing today.

    That doesn't change the fact that guns are weapons. It's why they exist.

    David Losh says

    It's the glamour of the gun that is the problem here. We look at it as sacred. How are you going to fix that? Make it more underground?

    That is exactly what I've been saying for a hundred posts now, actually...

  15. JodyChunder


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    32 threads
    1,779 comments
    Victorville, CA

    27   12:07am Tue 22 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    Kevin says

    A weapon is something that is designed primarily yo injure or kill. A sword or a gun are examples.

    Alongside bagpipes and women named Bobbi Jo.

  16. David Losh


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    9 threads
    1,546 comments
    Seattle, WA
    David Losh's website

    28   8:37am Tue 22 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Kevin says

    That doesn't change the fact that guns are weapons. It's why they exist.

    Actually guns are like a hundred other weapons. They start out as something useful, and end up being villians in a long plot to kill people. You're debating against bombs made of fertilizer, or Sarin gas, even airplanes directed at the World Trade Centers.

    Kevin says

    David Losh says

    It's the glamour of the gun that is the problem here. We look at it as sacred. How are you going to fix that? Make it more underground?

    That is exactly what I've been saying for a hundred posts now, actually...

    What you have been saying is that the guns are the problem.

    The problem is we have a government heavily invested in manufacturing military weapons. Colt doesn't just come up with an AR 15 because hunters will use it. The AR 15, is a cheaper version of the M 16 which has been replaced with the M 4. So there are thousands of surplus military weapons in the system that we export.

    You're not looking at the business of war, or how the United States government itself justifies an armed society.

    We could maybe make a discussion about how when our police force changed from revolvers to Glocks they escalated the need for criminals to increase the capacity of the weapons they had.

    It's a vicious circle, but if our government really wanted to do something they would address the escalation of violence rather than the weapons.

  17. FortWayne


    Follow
    Befriend (12)
    177 threads
    5,693 comments

    29   8:41am Tue 22 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (4)  

    Here is another one from a different era... resembles Feinstein and Obama.

  18. FortWayne


    Follow
    Befriend (12)
    177 threads
    5,693 comments

    30   8:51am Tue 22 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    HEY YOU says

    They are coming for our guns. Anyone ever shoot down a drone?

    You have to remember your history. Our government had no problem when they could to order executions or imprisonments of those who they found very inconvenient.

    Guns make that task a lot more inconvenient forcing government to act more cautions and more humane in order not to spark violence.

  19. Kevin


    Follow
    Befriend
    41 threads
    2,655 comments

    31   10:19am Tue 22 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    David Losh says

    Actually guns are like a hundred other weapons. They start out as something useful, and end up being villians in a long plot to kill people. You're debating against bombs made of fertilizer, or Sarin gas, even airplanes directed at the World Trade Centers.

    What was the non-weapon use for guns that they "started as"?

    The primary use for guns is to kill things. Soldiers, hunters, home defenders. Target practice is a secondary use (and its practice for killing things!)

    The primary use for fertilizer and airplanes is not to kill things.

    Thats a huge difference.

    David Losh says

    What you have been saying is that the guns are the problem.

    No, I haven't. Check my post history.

  20. FortWayne


    Follow
    Befriend (12)
    177 threads
    5,693 comments

    32   10:25am Tue 22 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    robertoaribas says

    get some education in thinking.

    Having gun rights is not up to a debate, it's a right.

    And education in thinking, that does sound very soviet communist.

  21. FortWayne


    Follow
    Befriend (12)
    177 threads
    5,693 comments

    33   11:50am Tue 22 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    robertoaribas says

    So, whenever you want to quit being an idiot, feel free to actually join the adults

    You mean adults like you and the 121212, both of whom like to indulge in personal insults against disagreement to further their points... Your points are more sophisticated then say 121212, but still childlike sarcastic insults.

    An adult, at least socially in our generation, is someone who can handle responsibility, ability you are not demonstrating.

  22. David Losh


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    9 threads
    1,546 comments
    Seattle, WA
    David Losh's website

    34   12:30pm Tue 22 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Kevin says

    What was the non-weapon use for guns that they "started as"?

    To blow stuff up, and blow holes in stuff.

    You have that blind spot about war.

    Nukes started as some do good salvation, now they are a weapon of very mass destruction.

    The gun was refined from a cannon.

    The projectile isn't relevant.

    I'll also say again that the gun, rifle, or cannon have been around a very short time in the big scheme of things, and is very possibly obsolete.

    Kevin says

    David Losh says

    What you have been saying is that the guns are the problem.

    No, I haven't. Check my post history.

    I have read your comments. If there is a point other than guns bad I'm missing it.

  23. Thedaytoday


    Follow
    Befriend
    46 threads
    530 comments

    35   12:31pm Tue 22 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)  

    FortWayne says

    Here is another one from a different era... resembles Feinstein and Obama.

    Your such a fucking moron! How do you expect to have a conversation!

  24. Thedaytoday


    Follow
    Befriend
    46 threads
    530 comments

    36   12:32pm Tue 22 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (2)  

    FortWayne says

    You mean adults like you and the 121212, both of whom like to indulge in personal insults against disagreement to further their points... Your points are more sophisticated then say 121212, but still childlike sarcastic insults.

    An adult, at least socially in our generation, is someone who can handle responsibility, ability you are not demonstrating.

    Get off you high horse you suck and so do your anti gay, pro gun opinions.

    Another foolish racist bigot.

  25. Thedaytoday


    Follow
    Befriend
    46 threads
    530 comments

    37   12:34pm Tue 22 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (2)  

    robertoaribas says

    are you really that clueless? that incapable of debating even say background checks on gun buying, that you have to go this route? if so, you should quit posting for a while, and get some education in thinking.

    Many racist bigots like FortHood and others on this forum believe they have the moral high ground. It must be a religious zelot thing!

  26. CaptainShuddup


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    1,054 threads
    12,961 comments

    38   12:42pm Tue 22 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (2)  

    FortWayne says

    Your points are more sophisticated then say 121212, but still childlike sarcastic insults.

    They are the same dim witted son of a bitch. He's very angry at me, because I got him fired twice. When he was paid to come here and attack conservatives. He's an internet political schiel but sucks at it. He can't engage anyone on a level any deeper than a bedpan. Which is where his posts always end up, just a big ole shit slinging angry protest stink.
    I would challenge him to post one thought out post that didn't involve him railing against someone. No I'm not talking about coherence here, just anything even if I didn't agree with he has to say.

    Pathetic moron, lunatic. The dim fuck every time he posts in my threads I dislike him then delete. His dislikes goes up while his post count goes down. It gives me great pleasure to delete them.

    If this is contest about who can waste the most amount of time, I would still win, because AT LEAST I HAVE JOB!.

  27. lostand confused


    Follow
    Befriend (9)
    557 threads
    3,231 comments

    39   12:53pm Tue 22 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    FortWayne says

    Here is another one from a different era... resembles Feinstein and Obama.


    That is so odd-you must not have watched that video . He speaks tea party language- watch from 18sec to 48 -typical tea party jargon.

  28. Thedaytoday


    Follow
    Befriend
    46 threads
    530 comments

    40   1:04pm Tue 22 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (2)  

    CaptainShuddup says

    because I got him fired twice

    Delusional fool. I am self employed unlike you.

  29. Thedaytoday


    Follow
    Befriend
    46 threads
    530 comments

    41   1:05pm Tue 22 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (2)  

    CaptainShuddup says

    He's an internet political schiel

    You know nothing, as usual.

  30. Thedaytoday


    Follow
    Befriend
    46 threads
    530 comments

    42   1:05pm Tue 22 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (2)  

    CaptainShuddup says

    He can't engage anyone on a level any deeper than a bedpan

    Have you looked in the mirror, BIGOT!

  31. Thedaytoday


    Follow
    Befriend
    46 threads
    530 comments

    43   1:06pm Tue 22 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (2)  

    CaptainShuddup says

    If this is contest about who can waste the most amount of time, I would still win, because AT LEAST I HAVE JOB!.

    Delusional, Lunatic, Moron, Racist bigot.

    Back to work with you. You employed slave.

  32. Robert Sproul


    Follow
    Befriend
    89 threads
    927 comments

    44   3:01pm Tue 22 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    robertoaribas says

    NOTHING that Obama proposes will interfere with your or my right to own guns. Nothing.

    But is any of it effective? Or does that not matter, we just have to do "something".

  33. Thedaytoday


    Follow
    Befriend
    46 threads
    530 comments

    45   3:05pm Tue 22 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    Robert Sproul says

    But is any of it effective? Or does that not matter, we just have to do "something".

    That's right, we have to do something, immediately and not stop!

  34. thomaswong.1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    27 threads
    6,131 comments

    46   7:39pm Tue 22 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (2)  

    Thedaytoday says

    Many racist bigots like FortHood and others on this forum believe they have the moral high ground. It must be a religious zelot thing!

    have you looked into the mirror lately... you certainly will find a zealot alright.

  35. FortWayne


    Follow
    Befriend (12)
    177 threads
    5,693 comments

    47   8:53am Wed 23 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (2)  

    lostand confused says

    That is so odd-you must not have watched that video . He speaks tea party language- watch from 18sec to 48 -typical tea party jargon.

    Tea party talks about small government, private enterprise. Hitler was talking about socializing everything. And by the way, Hitler did disarm civilian population through an equivalent of executive orders at that time.

  36. David Losh


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    9 threads
    1,546 comments
    Seattle, WA
    David Losh's website

    48   9:29am Wed 23 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)  

    Thedaytoday says

    Your such a fucking moron!

    Thedaytoday says

    Another foolish racist bigot.

    Thedaytoday says

    Many racist bigots like FortHood and others

    Thedaytoday says

    Delusional fool.

    Thedaytoday says

    You know nothing

    Thedaytoday says

    BIGOT!

    Thedaytoday says

    Delusional, Lunatic, Moron, Racist bigot.

    Thedaytoday says

    That's right, we have to do something, immediately and not stop!

    Did you just high jack this thread with insults?

  37. CaptainShuddup


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    1,054 threads
    12,961 comments

    49   9:50am Wed 23 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)  

    He's allowed to do it, it's OK he's a Lawyer for Politicofact.com.
    This is how THEY roll.

  38. Kevin


    Follow
    Befriend
    41 threads
    2,655 comments

    50   9:53am Wed 23 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)  

    FortWayne says

    lostand confused says

    That is so odd-you must not have watched that video . He speaks tea party language- watch from 18sec to 48 -typical tea party jargon.

    Tea party talks about small government, private enterprise. Hitler was talking about socializing everything. And by the way, Hitler did disarm civilian population through an equivalent of executive orders at that time.

    I heard Hitler liked to eat meat and drink water.

  39. Thedaytoday


    Follow
    Befriend
    46 threads
    530 comments

    51   9:59am Wed 23 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    If the shoe fits

    David Losh says

    Did you just high jack this thread with insults?

  40. Thedaytoday


    Follow
    Befriend
    46 threads
    530 comments

    52   10:00am Wed 23 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    thomaswong.1986 says

    Thedaytoday says

    Many racist bigots like FortHood and others on this forum believe they have the moral high ground. It must be a religious zelot thing!

    have you looked into the mirror lately... you certainly will find a zealot alright.

    How are those balloons?

« First     « Previous comments    

Vaticanus is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email
Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 401 milliseconds to create.