9 year old girl shot yesterday...

12357…15

Comments

  • MG79478
    MG79478 Posts: 1,727
    Paul David wrote:
    because back in the Revolutionary period in the late 1700's the people feared tyranny and corruption of the government, so they decided that arming themselves to protect themselves against politicians made sense.

    and people still use this argument for today's justification of bearing arms. it's ludicrous. if you think owning a handgun will protect you against today's US military, good luck to you sir. :lol:

    So you are saying that the government is not corrupt and full of tyrants these days?

    The size of the US military, is just a small fraction of the total population. Oh, and why would you assume that they would stay loyal to the government.
    dunkman wrote:
    MG79478 wrote:
    never ever going to happen... never ever. this is not Call of Duty you live in.

    Funny, they thought the same thing in Germany in the 1930s.
  • MG79478
    MG79478 Posts: 1,727
    Paul David wrote:
    MG79478 wrote:
    Also, a gun is a tool with many safe uses for a common person. A bomb is an tool of destruction that has no safe uses for a common person. (granted explosions could be used by professionals to demolish a building.)

    homer simpson also thought this.he used it to open cans of beer, getting toys off the roof, etc. :lol:

    The_Simpsons_5F01.png

    Well now you've convinced me. The source of your information is the self proclaimed most liberal show on TV. I completely agree with all of your points.
  • Hugh Freaking Dillon
    Hugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    I'm not saying the government is not corrupt. Probably moreso than when the country was born. But to actually use that as your justification for having a gun is laughable. Sorry, dude, but it really is.
    MG79478 wrote:
    Paul David wrote:
    because back in the Revolutionary period in the late 1700's the people feared tyranny and corruption of the government, so they decided that arming themselves to protect themselves against politicians made sense.

    and people still use this argument for today's justification of bearing arms. it's ludicrous. if you think owning a handgun will protect you against today's US military, good luck to you sir. :lol:

    So you are saying that the government is not corrupt and full of tyrants these days?

    The size of the US military, is just a small fraction of the total population. Oh, and why would you assume that they would stay loyal to the government.
    dunkman wrote:
    MG79478 wrote:
    never ever going to happen... never ever. this is not Call of Duty you live in.

    Funny, they thought the same thing in Germany in the 1930s.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • Hugh Freaking Dillon
    Hugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    have you ever laughed before?
    MG79478 wrote:
    Paul David wrote:
    MG79478 wrote:
    Also, a gun is a tool with many safe uses for a common person. A bomb is an tool of destruction that has no safe uses for a common person. (granted explosions could be used by professionals to demolish a building.)

    homer simpson also thought this.he used it to open cans of beer, getting toys off the roof, etc. :lol:

    The_Simpsons_5F01.png

    Well now you've convinced me. The source of your information is the self proclaimed most liberal show on TV. I completely agree with all of your points.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • MG79478
    MG79478 Posts: 1,727
    Paul David wrote:
    have you ever laughed before?

    you probably wouldn't beleive it, but that is one of my favorite all time episodes (speed cocker.... like the sounds of that). But a 9 year old girl is dead, people are trying to use it to push gun control, which would only make the problem worse. This is not the time to laugh.
  • MG79478
    MG79478 Posts: 1,727
    Paul David wrote:
    I'm not saying the government is not corrupt. Probably moreso than when the country was born. But to actually use that as your justification for having a gun is laughable. Sorry, dude, but it really is.

    It's laughable that you think that is the ONLY reason someone would own a gun. It's just one of many. It's more of just a secondary benefit.
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    dunkman wrote:

    it is indeed ludicrous... I'd bet that this 'militia' if it were ever formed would shit themselves inside out if they ever saw an advancing infantry movement coming toward them...

    truly laughable. :lol::lol:
    Whats more laughable is you bending over for your Government.
  • Hugh Freaking Dillon
    Hugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    and I would argue people are trying to use it to push gun ownership.
    MG79478 wrote:
    Paul David wrote:
    have you ever laughed before?

    you probably wouldn't beleive it, but that is one of my favorite all time episodes (speed cocker.... like the sounds of that). But a 9 year old girl is dead, people are trying to use it to push gun control, which would only make the problem worse. This is not the time to laugh.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • Moonpig
    Moonpig Posts: 659
    HeidiJam wrote:
    dunkman wrote:

    it is indeed ludicrous... I'd bet that this 'militia' if it were ever formed would shit themselves inside out if they ever saw an advancing infantry movement coming toward them...

    truly laughable. :lol::lol:
    Whats more laughable is you bending over for your Government.

    Actually that is pretty funny. That you are resorting to this level of "debate" is hilarious. Never let logic get in the way of a good old emotive rant
  • Hugh Freaking Dillon
    Hugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    this is why I suggested we move over the the other thread. :roll:
    MG79478 wrote:
    Paul David wrote:
    have you ever laughed before?

    you probably wouldn't beleive it, but that is one of my favorite all time episodes (speed cocker.... like the sounds of that). But a 9 year old girl is dead, people are trying to use it to push gun control, which would only make the problem worse. This is not the time to laugh.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    MG79478 wrote:
    Funny, they thought the same thing in Germany in the 1930s.


    so you compare your own country to that of 1930s Germany? hmmmmm weird but ok.
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    HeidiJam wrote:
    dunkman wrote:

    it is indeed ludicrous... I'd bet that this 'militia' if it were ever formed would shit themselves inside out if they ever saw an advancing infantry movement coming toward them...

    truly laughable. :lol::lol:
    Whats more laughable is you bending over for your Government.

    infantile retort aside... how am i more opressed than you? without my guns how does my government treat me differently to you?
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • MG79478
    MG79478 Posts: 1,727
    edited January 2011
    dunkman wrote:
    MG79478 wrote:
    Funny, they thought the same thing in Germany in the 1930s.

    so you compare your own country to that of 1930s Germany? hmmmmm weird but ok.

    Oh, because we don't speak German, I get it. Good point. I'll ignore all the similarities.
    Paul David wrote:
    and I would argue people are trying to use it to push gun ownership.
    MG79478 wrote:
    Paul David wrote:
    have you ever laughed before?

    you probably wouldn't believe it, but that is one of my favorite all time episodes (speed cocker.... like the sounds of that). But a 9 year old girl is dead, people are trying to use it to push gun control, which would only make the problem worse. This is not the time to laugh.

    That's a strange concept. I've never heard of pushing gun ownership. I just imagine rallies where people hold signs about "everyone should own a gun". And they just hand guns out to people on the street and stuff. All we are pushing is to keep our inalienable right to bear arms. Stuff wasn't put in to the constitution without lots of thought and debate. It’s not a random mistake of our forefathers. Just as government provided healthcare was not included in the constitution. They did this stuff for a reason; they set out to protect us from our government.
    Post edited by MG79478 on
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    MG79478 wrote:
    dunkman wrote:
    so you compare your own country to that of 1930s Germany? hmmmmm weird but ok.

    Oh, because we don't speak German, I get it. Good point. I'll ignore all the similarities.

    you've missed my point... you were stating that the government of Germany removed guns from its citizens in the 1930s... which is true... but then that was a dictatorship of the worst kind... a kakistocracy... so are you comparing America to that of 1930s Germany? cos there can be no other reason for you making the link back to 30s Germany as you did. you made the comparison, not me.
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • MG79478
    MG79478 Posts: 1,727
    dunkman wrote:
    MG79478 wrote:
    dunkman wrote:
    so you compare your own country to that of 1930s Germany? hmmmmm weird but ok.

    Oh, because we don't speak German, I get it. Good point. I'll ignore all the similarities.

    you've missed my point... you were stating that the government of Germany removed guns from its citizens in the 1930s... which is true... but then that was a dictatorship of the worst kind... a kakistocracy... so are you comparing America to that of 1930s Germany? cos there can be no other reason for you making the link back to 30s Germany as you did. you made the comparison, not me.

    You had a goverment that wanted more power, and people that lived under the government. That's pretty much 100% the same. We pretty much have a kakistocracy. Do you think the government is doing a good job? They are a bunch of underqualified elitists who don't listen to their consitutants (i.e. Obamacare). They need term limits, they need to have all laws they pass apply to them.
  • Hugh Freaking Dillon
    Hugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    yes, they did, but it's a 200 year old, somewhat antiquated notion. IMHO.

    And no, I don't think everyone should own a guy. ;)
    MG79478 wrote:
    That's a strange concept. I've never heard of pushing gun ownership. I just imagine rallies where people hold signs about "everyone should own a guy". And they just hand guns out to people on the street and stuff. All we are pushing is to keep our inalienable right to bear arms. Stuff wasn't put in to the constitution without lots of thought and debate. It’s not a random mistake of our forefathers. Just as government provided healthcare was not included in the constitution. They did this stuff for a reason; they set out to protect us from our government.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • MG79478
    MG79478 Posts: 1,727
    Paul David wrote:
    yes, they did, but it's a 200 year old, somewhat antiquated notion. IMHO.

    And no, I don't think everyone should own a guy. ;)
    MG79478 wrote:
    That's a strange concept. I've never heard of pushing gun ownership. I just imagine rallies where people hold signs about "everyone should own a gun". And they just hand guns out to people on the street and stuff. All we are pushing is to keep our inalienable right to bear arms. Stuff wasn't put in to the constitution without lots of thought and debate. It’s not a random mistake of our forefathers. Just as government provided healthcare was not included in the constitution. They did this stuff for a reason; they set out to protect us from our government.

    I disagree that it's antiquated. They had healthcare 200 years ago, and didn't include that as a right. It was 150 years old in the 1930s when they rounded up the guns in Germany. That's still a long time. The idea that that government needs to fear and respect it's citizens is the same as it ever was. Our founding fathers knew that, and they were a hell of a lot smarter than us.
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    MG79478 wrote:
    dunkman wrote:
    MG79478 wrote:

    Oh, because we don't speak German, I get it. Good point. I'll ignore all the similarities.

    you've missed my point... you were stating that the government of Germany removed guns from its citizens in the 1930s... which is true... but then that was a dictatorship of the worst kind... a kakistocracy... so are you comparing America to that of 1930s Germany? cos there can be no other reason for you making the link back to 30s Germany as you did. you made the comparison, not me.

    You had a goverment that wanted more power, and people that lived under the government. That's pretty much 100% the same. We pretty much have a kakistocracy. Do you think the government is doing a good job? They are a bunch of underqualified elitists who don't listen to their consitutants (i.e. Obamacare). They need term limits, they need to have all laws they pass apply to them.

    your rhetoric about your government is amazingly similar to that of a certain Mr. Jared Loughner :wtf:
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • Moonpig
    Moonpig Posts: 659
    MG79478 wrote:
    Paul David wrote:
    yes, they did, but it's a 200 year old, somewhat antiquated notion. IMHO.

    And no, I don't think everyone should own a guy. ;)
    MG79478 wrote:
    That's a strange concept. I've never heard of pushing gun ownership. I just imagine rallies where people hold signs about "everyone should own a gun". And they just hand guns out to people on the street and stuff. All we are pushing is to keep our inalienable right to bear arms. Stuff wasn't put in to the constitution without lots of thought and debate. It’s not a random mistake of our forefathers. Just as government provided healthcare was not included in the constitution. They did this stuff for a reason; they set out to protect us from our government.

    I disagree that it's antiquated. They had healthcare 200 years ago, and didn't include that as a right. It was 150 years old in the 1930s when they rounded up the guns in Germany. That's still a long time. The idea that that government needs to fear and respect it's citizens is the same as it ever was. Our founding fathers knew that, and they were a hell of a lot smarter than us.

    Ok i've asked this already and no one could really answer it - given that this person bought a Gloch legally, and you are against tougher laws to stop people like this, what do you suggest be done.

    The law said that this guy fit the bill of a "responsible" gun owner, which he clearly was not, so suggestions please? Do we just chalk this down to experience - maybe forget it happened in a week or two?
  • MG79478
    MG79478 Posts: 1,727
    dunkman wrote:
    your rhetoric about your government is amazingly similar to that of a certain Mr. Jared Loughner :wtf:

    It's sad that you had to resort to name calling because you couldn't keep up.

    I'm sorry that you don't understand what our founding fathers intended. I'm sorry that you think that the government is a great thing that should remove all of your personal responsibility. I'm sorry that you think that politicians should be able to take advantage of their constituents. I’m sorry you think that the government should be able to grow unchecked, and slowly erode our freedoms. I guess that makes me a bad person. Maybe you should move to Venezuela or Cuba to be with more people who think like you.

Categories