Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8946 total)
26 online now:
caffeine, PaulK, Pressie (3 members, 23 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,933 Year: 20,969/19,786 Month: 1,366/2,023 Week: 317/557 Day: 10/47 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Guns
nator
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 136 of 301 (398169)
04-29-2007 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Hyroglyphx
04-29-2007 2:31 PM


quote:
They say that Cho had access to guns, therefore guns are bad.

No.

It should read, "Cho had ridiculously easy access to guns, therefore it is clearly far too easy to get guns."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-29-2007 2:31 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-29-2007 3:45 PM nator has not yet responded
 Message 208 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-30-2007 10:34 AM nator has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 814 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 137 of 301 (398171)
04-29-2007 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Jon
04-29-2007 2:22 PM


Gotcha Jon
you can claim guns are responsible for all the U.S.'s mayhem?

PLease demonstrate that we claim that ALL us mayhem is caused by guns.

you folks are all lazy/ignorant

Please demonstrate that they are ALL lazy/ignorant. You may use alphabetical order for everyone who is anti-gun. Or if you like, you can list them in chronological order from the beginning of time.

I expect you to hold yourself to your own unreasonable expectations.

As for the rest of your racism rant, this issue, once again, and this has to be like the 12th time we've said it, is what KIND of guns are available and why.

Are there oppressed people? Yes. Are there people with criminally sick minds? yes. Are their people who want to have a hand gun because they VERY WRONGLY believe it will make them safer? Yes.

Do these people need a fully automatic assault rifle? No.

You keep trying to frame the debate in completely black and white terms - either you are for guns or you are against anyone having guns. This is a total fallacy and no one on this thread has come close to stating that.

The ball is STILL in your court to explain why you think it's reasonable for a person to have a fully automatic assault rifle and a crate of armor piercing bullets.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Jon, posted 04-29-2007 2:22 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Jon, posted 04-29-2007 3:07 PM Nuggin has responded

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 301 (398172)
04-29-2007 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by nator
04-29-2007 2:32 PM


—CREDIBLE sources anybody?—
Read the article I most recently posted.

Well, no. I will read an article when it has raw data in it, or when it at least cites the sources of its raw data so I can go find it myself. As far as I know, the whole damn article could be just made up. Perhaps more credible sources?

Besides, your error is in assuming that we can only ever work on one societal problem at a time.

It's the oppression that causes the violence, not the guns. Why don't you deal with that instead of trying to run from it with a post that is hardly relevant to anything I said? So, will you tell us all again why an African American is 7× more likely to commit murder than a Euro American? Personally, I don't think it's the guns; and removing the guns won't get the minorities out of the shitty life they live; and getting them out of the shitty life they live will make getting rid of guns unnecessary. Can you address that?

Jon


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by nator, posted 04-29-2007 2:32 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 3:13 PM Jon has not yet responded
 Message 154 by nator, posted 04-29-2007 5:28 PM Jon has responded

Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13247
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 139 of 301 (398173)
04-29-2007 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Hyroglyphx
04-29-2007 2:31 PM


Flagging Potential Felons
Nem writes:

I say that people deemed with serious mental problems should be flagged... Stigma be damned/Political Correctness be damned.

Yes, but easier said than done! Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were weird, but they were no weirder than many High School students with a chip on their shoulder!

What are we to do? Put a Mark on the forehead of all weird people? 10% of my customers at Safeway should be flagged, if that were the case.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-29-2007 2:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5858
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 140 of 301 (398175)
04-29-2007 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Modulous
04-29-2007 12:15 PM


If the UN allowed all nations to develop or buy nuclear weapons, and then Iran blew Israel up. We would obviously blame Iran for being crazy, but we could also say that this situation would have been much less likely to happen if all nations did not have the right to buy or develop nukes.

Again, another strange dichotomy. It is the threat of nuclear proliferation that is the very thing that keeps us all in check. Now, don't misunderstand me to think that I am advocating nuclear weapons or even guns. Life would be much better if no nukes or guns ever existed... But they do. And bad people will use them whether we do too or not. That's just the plain fact about it.

Without nukes, nobody would be nuked. We don't forget that war existed long before.

Right, but we do have nukes. So unless you can invent a time machine we have to deal with reality. They exist. Guns exist. We can't undo that. It is what it is. Since that is the case, we need practical solutions, not the far-fetched dream that we can actually disarm the world.

crazy world leaders will try and secretely develop nukes, succesfully sometimes. Just because some nations are able to break the law, that doesn't mean we should overturn the law!

We are enforcing that law! But really, this all off-topic.

Nobody really blames a lump of metal. People blame its prevalence and ease of access combined with the rich-poor divide, population density, cultural attitudes, social structure in general etc etc.

No citizen in the UK is allowed to legally own a gun, right? Do the bad guys get them anyway through nefarious means? I agree that it should be difficult to purchase a weapon. I believe every one needs to be scrutinized, however, I feel that it is extreme to disarm the average upstanding citizen simply because the bad guys are going to get them either way.

The question is obviously one of drawing a line. If you still do not understand the argument, its time to do some more listening. I have a friend who is very much pro-gun. I understand his reasoning, but disagree with where he thinks the line should be drawn.

Obviously there needs to be clear demarcation, which I'm all for. But lets put it this way. The reason why British law enforcement only recently started arming themselves with more than wooden sticks is because the bad guys are carrying firearms, right? So much for the laws keeping the average citizens unarmed. The bad guys still have them. We aren't talking about handing guns out in a dispensary. It should be difficult to legally purchase a gun. But I think it is a disservice to penalize every one who would use it appropriately simply because some people don't.

Nobody suggests making something illegal will stop crimes. It will reduce some crimes, it might increase other crimes.

Like I said earlier. The problem is within the mind of the culture. Somebody like Nuggin might promote the nonsense on MTV that about violence. And they condone this behavior. But then they are shocked when somebody actually lives it out. Do you see the mindset? The problem is with the culture. The problem starts when we abandon a moral framework that dictates societal behavior. So we have Nuggin who thinks its a really great idea to defend free speech that includes unmitigated violence with guns... He says nothing about that. But ironically when they live out this fantasy, he blames the gun companies. How asinine is that!?

(btw nuggin, I was just using your name generically. I don't really know what you do or don't advocate).

As a side note, I was once shot at in the US by somebody whose name and address were known to me (the police didn't bother to follow it up though since nobody was hurt and they had plenty of serious gun crime to keep them busy). I was later introduced to a home defense revolver which I thought was sensible. In a place like the US, I can understand why someone might want a gun for protection - but some guns are clearly overkill.

Fair enough. That's why we don't allow just anybody to buy mini guns. As far as the police not doing anything about the crime perpetrated against you, its a perfect example of a society gone wrong. I find it terribly ironic that the same people speaking out against violence are the same one's who put it in our living rooms on the tele. But they are shocked when people start living out the fantasy. The cops are becoming just as calloused to the crime as the criminals are. But that isn't a reflection of guns themselves-- that's a reflection of society. And like I said in my first post, until you change somebody's mind you can't change their behavior.

If you really want to stop gun violence, stop protesting the guns and start protesting Hollywood. Makes perfect sense to me? If we didn't idolize this behavior there would be no need to act it out.


"God is like the sun. You can't look at it. But without it you can't look at anything else." -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Modulous, posted 04-29-2007 12:15 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 3:18 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 145 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 3:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 153 by Modulous, posted 04-29-2007 5:07 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 814 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 141 of 301 (398176)
04-29-2007 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Hyroglyphx
04-29-2007 2:31 PM


Criminals will still get guns
Take away guns, criminals will get 'em anyway.

People keep bringing this up as though they were making some sort of valid conclusion, when in fact it's quite simply ridiculous.

Currently hand guns are readily available to just about everyone in the US. Therefore, a criminal intent on getting his hands on a hand gun has a very easy time in doing so.

Currently hand grenades are NOT readily available to just about anyone in the US. As a result, there are very few hand grenade related crimes in the US.

The idea that criminals will still have access to weapons like they do today is simply incorrect. If you make guns harder to get, it will be harder to get guns.

I'm gonna be strapped.... 'cause Joe Gangbanger certainly will be.

And more likely than not, you and Joe Gangbanger will never meet. The chances are far greater than one or both of you will be killed by your own handgun rather than kill one another.

lets place the blame on Cho rather on sweeping indictments against guns

You, like Jon, are clearly finding your position a losing one. As a result, you are trying to assign a different position to us and then defeat that strawman.

No one is saying that "guns caused Cho to kill", what we are saying, and this goes back to the very first post, is that the increased lethality of weapons available means that when someone like Cho decides to enact carnage (sane or insane) the outcome is far bloodier.

If Cho only had a shotgun, he would not have so easily concealed it when travelling from building to building. He would not have been able to fire off so many rounds in rapid succession. he would have been forced to take more time to reload, etc etc etc.

I could just say Cho shouldn't have had access to the outside world

Wow, this isn't just a strawman, it's the goddamn Scarecrow. You are now suggesting that you've "turned it around" on the "anti-gun" crowd by suggesting that Cho should have been institutionalized. Congratulations! You've won an argument that no one is having.

No one here, or anywhere that I can find, is suggesting that Cho was perfectly fine and should have been free to go about his business.

Guns are manufactured for the sole purpose of murdering any one. In fact, they are designed as protection from it.

I have to assume that this is a typo and that you meant that they are "not" manufactured for killing. But, then I fail to understand your next sentence.

Guns are not protection from getting shot. Kevlar is protection from getting shot. Gun are made to shoot. That's precisely what they were designed to do.

But then again, swords have only one function too. Should we outlaw them as well?

In lots of places it is legal to carry firearms and illegal to carry swords. How does that make sense?

Quite frankly I'm not willing to put that much effort into the debate to go searching for stale statistics when the obvious is as plain as could be

Wait are you still talking about guns, or are you talking about Biblical Creationism? Because this sounds like an argument for why Creationists shouldn't have to study science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-29-2007 2:31 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-30-2007 12:09 PM Nuggin has responded

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 301 (398177)
04-29-2007 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Nuggin
04-29-2007 2:49 PM


Re: Gotcha Jon
Please demonstrate that they are ALL lazy/ignorant. You may use alphabetical order for everyone who is anti-gun. Or if you like, you can list them in chronological order from the beginning of time.

Got me? :laugh: Well, you're right. There may very-well be people who are opposed to gun ownership and also want to fix problems for the minorities; I have yet to see them, however. It seems from my perspective that you only want to get rid of guns because attacking the real problem is just too damn much work. Please, though, you are free to correct that opinion; and I retract having directed my comments on ALL anti-gunners ever in existence since the world began to spin.

As for the rest of your racism rant, this issue, once again, and this has to be like the 12th time we've said it, is what KIND of guns are available and why.

Are there oppressed people? Yes. Are there people with criminally sick minds? yes. Are their people who want to have a hand gun because they VERY WRONGLY believe it will make them safer? Yes.

Do these people need a fully automatic assault rifle? No.

You keep trying to frame the debate in completely black and white terms - either you are for guns or you are against anyone having guns. This is a total fallacy and no one on this thread has come close to stating that.

The ball is STILL in your court to explain why you think it's reasonable for a person to have a fully automatic assault rifle and a crate of armor piercing bullets.

Am I the only one who realizes that there are a couple of different anti-gun types in the thread here? There seem to be the ones who don't want people to carry even simple hand guns; and then there seem to be the people who are fine with that, but don't want to let people even collect semi-automatics with armour-piercing rounds.

Now, I can tell you are of the latter form, ;).

Do these people need a fully automatic assault rifle? No.

You're right, they don't. You don't need a computer. You don't need a telephone. You could cook all your food in a fire pit instead of a stove; or bathe in a tub of water—heated over the fire pit—instead of a shower. However, you still want those things, no? I mean, Mr. Silver Dollar needn't buy every damn old coin he sees either, but he still does. Perhaps people want these things. Now, I retracted my horribly over-generalized statement about anti-gunners being lazy, do you think you can retract your horribly over-generalized statement that everyone who buys such a gun does so for the sole purpose of killing someone with it? Instead, do you think you could just admit that there are people who want to own those sort of things just because they like to collect them?

Are their people who want to have a hand gun because they VERY WRONGLY believe it will make them safer? Yes

Well the corrupt U.S. government and police force certainly hasn't come to their aid, has it; letting them live in slums and waste away. Really, you are starting to sound arrogant all of you anti-gunners in this thread. Your slackly attitude to social inequalities is absolutely appalling.

Jon


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 2:49 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 3:29 PM Jon has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 814 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 143 of 301 (398178)
04-29-2007 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Jon
04-29-2007 2:50 PM


Re: —CREDIBLE sources anybody?—
As far as I know, the whole damn article could be just made up

More creationist type argument. "I don't have facts that support me, you have facts that support you, therefore I disbelieve your data without presenting any of my own."

why an African American is 7× more likely to commit murder than a Euro American?

This is an improper question. It has nothing to do with the debate.

A better question would gauge the prevelance of handguns in AA hands vs EA hands. Or better yet, whether the types of guns were single shot, semi-auto, or fully auto.

Further, you could look at crimes in which guns are used versus ones in which there are no guns around and compair murder rates. Are gun murders more likely among AA than non-gun murders? Are gun murders more likely among EA than non-gun murders?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Jon, posted 04-29-2007 2:50 PM Jon has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 814 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 144 of 301 (398179)
04-29-2007 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Hyroglyphx
04-29-2007 3:05 PM


Somebody like Nuggin might promote the nonsense on MTV that about violence.

If you are going to attack me in your posts, please at least do it with sentences that make more sense than this. Otherwise, I will be forced to respond in kind.

"Nemesis_juggernaut believe in Must See TV and the that they support!"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-29-2007 3:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 814 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 145 of 301 (398180)
04-29-2007 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Hyroglyphx
04-29-2007 3:05 PM


Finally N-Jugg is making sense!
If you really want to stop gun violence, stop protesting the guns and start protesting Hollywood.

Finally someone is making sense! You're absolutely right, NJ! I was the ultraviolent movies that Hollywood put out during the 1800's that led to all the gun violence in the wild wild west, not the prevelance of hand guns and lax law enforcement.

Damn those hollywood types for their pre-existance actions!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-29-2007 3:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 814 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 146 of 301 (398181)
04-29-2007 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Jon
04-29-2007 3:07 PM


Re: Gotcha Jon
You don't need a computer. You don't need a telephone. You could cook all your food in a fire pit instead of a stove; or bathe in a tub of water—heated over the fire pit—instead of a shower.

None of those things are designed specifically for killing lots and lots of people.

the corrupt U.S. government and police force certainly hasn't come to their aid

Hasn't come to who's aid? Hand gun owners? that's what we are discussing. Owning a hand gun makes you more likely to die from hand gun violence (particularly your own hand gun) than not owning a hand gun.

Color of skin, socio-economic conditions, ineffectual police force - none of these are factors in that overall statistic.

You could say, and may be right, that the urban poor are even more likely to die from handgun violence than the rural poor or the suburban rich. But that doesn't change the fact that owning the handgun makes you more likely to be a victim of violence across the board.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Jon, posted 04-29-2007 3:07 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Jon, posted 04-29-2007 4:31 PM Nuggin has responded

One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 4477 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 147 of 301 (398182)
04-29-2007 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Nuggin
04-29-2007 2:52 AM


Re: Lies on top of lies
What are you? 12? You have yet to address the fact that your theory is completely founded in your own paranoia, but you are all over my ass because I missed 1 line of 1 of your posts 3 days ago. Grow up.

Hah, you've missed a lot more than that, and I'm left to guess it's because you had no legit arguement against those points. I call you out on this one because I answered your leading question and I'm still in the game. Your upcoming response to this is just weak. Oh, and regarding my alledged paranoid, I'll say it AGAIN:

I'm not suggesting an overnight apocalyspe; I'm suggesting a legitimate rise in break-ins and muggings if we ban firearms as you seem to be suggesting.

Do I believe that the presence of a pistol in a room will cause an otherwise passive Buddist Monk to suddenly grab it up and blow away his fellow monks? No.

Good. Then you acknowledge that the human being holding the gun should be held accountable for their actions, and not the firearm itself. If we agree on that much, then clearly banning aren't the answer--we need to do some people work instead.

Cho didn't have to go through the black market. He simply walked into a store and plopped down some cash.

Thanks for the history lesson; it doesn't acknolwedge the question in any way.

Could Cho, a meek and anti-social kid, have found a gun on the black market? Maybe. Or maybe he would have tried to buy that black market gun from an undercover cop. Or maybe the gun he got off the black market would have been old and a piece of crap. Or maybe he would have got his hands on a rogue nuke. It's all speculation. If you wanna speculate that things would have been worse if Cho DIDN'T have a gun. Feel free.

It's all speculation what would happen if we took firearms away from home owners, isn't it? Unless you've seen proof that it would eliminate violence in this country? OH WAIT, that's not what you said. Tell me then, what WOULD we gain from bans?

Yeah, that's called "war". And while "war" is a subset of "times people use guns" it's not exactly what we are talking about, is it

It's a pretty good example of human evils doing LOTS of damage without guns. I'd say it's a legitimate point regarding people killing lots of people sans firearms. Sure, guns make it easier, but insane people sure didn't have trouble finding ways to get by without them.

This is your "32 accidental shootings" arguement but in reverse. "Surely in the entirety of human history there have been more people killed with rocks than Cortez killed with his musket."

You continue dishonesty in debate by continueing to misquote my use of the number 32 as THE NUMBER OF INNOCENT FATALITIES IN THE VT SHOOTING as the number of accidental shootings. I already covered that here, way back in post 35:

ME writes:

I was saying that, in the course of history in America, the number of innocent people who were killed by somebody breaking in with a gun was higher than 32 [INNOCENT FATALITIES AT VT]. If we take guns away from private citizens who obey the law, this number will probably rise because there would be NO WAY for us to defend ourselves in this scenario whereas if we weild guns of our own, we've got a fighting chance.

You misquoted me, and babbled about accidental shootings.

You have continued still to be dishonest in this debate, what is this, 100 posts later? Leave that poor strawman alone!

Who's being dishonest? I don't claim that you made up that people break into homes. I STATE that you can not substantiate your claims that criminals are detered by the potential presence of a hand gun.

You THINK they are. You WANT them to be. But you don't have any evidence that the presence of a hand gun in a home actually deters crime, because, as you yourself just said - you can't prove a negative.Please explain to me how in the world you can get a stat on how many houses WERENT broken into?

Here is what you said, emphasis added:

nuggin writes:

So, now it's my fault that you can't substantiate your claims. Very nice. How about you stop making stuff up if even you can support the stuff you are saying.

As we agree, I can't prove a negative, per YOUR asking me to. Then you said I was making stuff up. We can't prove a negative, so you can't say if I'm making stuff up, and I'm not, even though you seem to think so here:

Shame on me? Give me a goddamn break.

First of all, I feel absolutely no sympathy for you imaginary friend.

Second of all, exactly how quick is your imaginary old man? Did he have his imaginary pistol in his lap when the big bad criminal came a huffing and a puffing at his door? Or was his imaginary pistol locked up in his imaginary closet.

Third, how did the imaginary big bad criminal know that the imaginary old man didn't own an imaginary gun. Remember, your entire arguement henges on the fact that the criminals have to know the contents of the house prior to their breaking into it.

No, I won't give you a break because apparently anybody who gets hurt in these circumstances that counter your arguement just doesn't exist to you; if that's not living in denial I don't know what is!

My arguement does not hinge in this premise, my fine-spelling friend. Henge refers to a Neolithic monument at the British Isles. Check Dictionary.com if you don't believe me.

We've been over your strawman attack on me before, and here's how it went:

nuggin writes:

You scenario relies on psychic criminals hellbent on mayhem held in check by the specter of gun ownership. It's pure fantasy

ME writes:

Wrong. Except, maybe I shouldn't have said any 'particular' household, unless of course they have a 'beware of owner' sign. But the fact remains that there's a great chance that any given household in most places will have a gun. Let's say there's a 0% chance that the house will have a gun? Well, no worries. [FOR THEM]

This is twice now in one post you repeated a bogus attack on two points that I didn't make. I made points to clarify my statements, and you ignored them both. I can only conclude that you a)have a terrible memory or b)are ignoring my points on purpose because you can't hold your ground in this debate honestly.

I did not say "A hand gun can only be used to kill a human", what I said was "There is no reason to own a hand gun other than to shoot a human with it."

Perhaps I should have said, "There is no reason for a mature rational adult, comfortable in their own sexuality and their personal endowment, to own a hand gun other than to shoot a human with it."

But I just gave a reason, so that statement is false. And you just attacked anyone who might have a reason to keep their handguns other than slaughtering human beings on their rationality and sexuality. That's a blatant ad hominem:attack on the man. I think there's a forum rule against that, isn't there?

Either you are just trying to be funny, or you are seriously mentally ill. You honestly can't imagine a reason why we wouldn't want borderline retarded liquoured up red necks to have access to heavy duty machine guns?

I can't believe this; this is just plain prejudiced and bigoted. You just highlighted a stereotype of a certain type of caucasion and hyperbolized their gun possesion.

Even though what you said is more politically correct for some bogus reason, your statement is no different than saying, and I AM ONLY USING THIS EQUALLY BIGOTED STATEMENT AS AN EXAMPLE, "You really want a bunch of doped up, halfwit niggers to get big guns so they can shoot up the streets?!".

That example is considered less politically correct, but it's an exact mirror to what you just said. I can only conclude that you are a bigot, and have those reasons to deny a certain group of people (that you call 'redneck') access to guns because according to you they are ALL retarded and liquored up.

There's gotta be a rule on here against hate speech like this.

No one is saying they don't. [have a right to defend themselves] What I am saying is that a homeowner doesn't need an UZI to defend his house. He doesn't need a gatling gun to defend his house. He doesn't need a Glock to defend his house. He can have a dog. He can have ADT. He can have a samuari sword. He can have a shotgun. All of these things are fine.

With the exception of 'no handguns', I agree with this completely. WHERE did I say I'm 'pro gattling guns'?! I don't see a need for uzis. If all you want to do is only leave us with weapons practical for home defense, self defense, and hunting, then we've got no arguement left except for the handgun debate. Maybe we both misinterpreted eachother?

That said, I would like an apology for the whole redneck thing, as one side of my family has been branded that before, and all of them have well-paid jobs and legitimate vocational training. Heck, counting me we'll have 5 or 6 with a college education. So please apologize for calling us 'liquored up retards', because for the record, I don't drink.


I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 2:52 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 4477 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 148 of 301 (398183)
04-29-2007 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by nator
04-29-2007 2:35 PM


Okay
So let's work on that, but let's not go banning things. Background checks might be more effective if ATF got the funding they need to do their job.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by nator, posted 04-29-2007 2:35 PM nator has not yet responded

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2249 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 149 of 301 (398184)
04-29-2007 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by nator
04-29-2007 12:31 PM


sure. but that doesn't mean he was incapable of knowing the wrongness of his actions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by nator, posted 04-29-2007 12:31 PM nator has not yet responded

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2249 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 150 of 301 (398185)
04-29-2007 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Nuggin
04-29-2007 12:47 PM


Re: Bren, clear things up
you have intimated all of the above in an effort to demonstrate the alleged insupportability of your opponents' arguments. and now you're further alleging that i'm not clearheaded enough to be involved in this argument. you're not debating honestly, and it sums up to you participating in your own name calling. now stop it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 12:47 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 6:30 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019