The Government is NOT going to TAKE PEOPLES GUNS!

mickeyrat

unsung wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

Think that one of the main reasons why the murder rate is what it is In a place like Chicago? A person can drive 30 -40 minutes away to Gary In, gunshows to make these purchases?

GANGS. Throw them in prison for 30 years and the murders will dwindle immediately. And your facts are not exactly correct, even at gun shows paperwork is kept, and until the Supreme Court overturned the Chicago handgun ban people would not sell to those with a Chicago address.

Or do you really think gang bangers go to legitimate gun shows to purchase their weapons?

I think douchebags looking for a quick buck do.

goingtoverona

i hate to be the one to break this to you, but it appears to me that you are still on the angry stage. i say that because i don't think someone that isn't angry would call people who don't have the same beliefs as you idiots, backwater baffoons, stupid, crap spouters,and narrow minded. to me, you think that everything you believe and say is solid gold and anyone that doesn't believe the same things as you is some retarded zealot. truly laughable is right man. truly laughable.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Bottom line:

Any compromise at all is viewed as a threat and met with resistance.

Is it any wonder though? Fuck, man. Look at the level of paranoia that some idiots refer to when pounding their fists on tables and demanding their right to bear whatever they want in the name of defence. It's so extreme, I truly have a hard time accepting the sincerity of it. I mean... really?

There is a faction of gun supporters that come across as backwater buffoons when they continually deny problems that are as obvious as a massive pimple on the end of Barbara Streisand's nose. Sheer stubborn stupidity: there is no other way to put it.

I've gone through a spectrum of emotions dealing with this issue. Started off angry, became frustrated and then exasperated, became saddened, and now... I have come to appreciate the comedy in the situation. It's truly laughable when some spout their crap... believe their crap... and influence others to believe their crap. Lost in their confused and narrow-minded mentality, the extremists- and even some moderates- have no idea how they present themselves. They are like the anorexic girl who stares in the mirror thinking she's obese, when the rest of the world sees hip bones and ribs. Their mentality is so fixed that they are incapable of seeing reality for what it truly is.

The situation points to the failings of a democracy. How long does the intelligent and reasonable faction of society allow for such idiocy to perpetuate itself? A nice, kind King seems so much better to me than a democracy littered and influenced by- to use the word of the moment- morons who prevent progression.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

goingtoverona wrote:

i hate to be the one to break this to you, but it appears to me that you are still on the angry stage. i say that because i don't think someone that isn't angry would call people who don't have the same beliefs as you idiots, backwater baffoons, stupid, crap spouters,and narrow minded. to me, you think that everything you believe and say is solid gold and anyone that doesn't believe the same things as you is some retarded zealot. truly laughable is right man. truly laughable.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Bottom line:

Any compromise at all is viewed as a threat and met with resistance.

Is it any wonder though? Fuck, man. Look at the level of paranoia that some idiots refer to when pounding their fists on tables and demanding their right to bear whatever they want in the name of defence. It's so extreme, I truly have a hard time accepting the sincerity of it. I mean... really?

There is a faction of gun supporters that come across as backwater buffoons when they continually deny problems that are as obvious as a massive pimple on the end of Barbara Streisand's nose. Sheer stubborn stupidity: there is no other way to put it.

I've gone through a spectrum of emotions dealing with this issue. Started off angry, became frustrated and then exasperated, became saddened, and now... I have come to appreciate the comedy in the situation. It's truly laughable when some spout their crap... believe their crap... and influence others to believe their crap. Lost in their confused and narrow-minded mentality, the extremists- and even some moderates- have no idea how they present themselves. They are like the anorexic girl who stares in the mirror thinking she's obese, when the rest of the world sees hip bones and ribs. Their mentality is so fixed that they are incapable of seeing reality for what it truly is.

The situation points to the failings of a democracy. How long does the intelligent and reasonable faction of society allow for such idiocy to perpetuate itself? A nice, kind King seems so much better to me than a democracy littered and influenced by- to use the word of the moment- morons who prevent progression.

Damn. It had to be you to break it to me, didn't it? Fuks sakes. I thought I was out of the angry stage. Wait a minute... can't a guy call an idiot 'an idiot' when he's being an idiot without being mad?

Let's get something straight... I never said anyone who had an opposing point of view than mine was all those things. I said: some idiots; a faction of gun supporters; and when some spout their crap; extremists; and even some moderates.

But with my character called to question... go look in the Death Penalty thread. I have acknowledged Byrnzie's and Hugh's position respectfully even though they differ from me with our positions. I can respect a well-reasoned and knowledgeable argument even if it opposes mine. I just can't accept a moronic position that defies all logic and borders on the edge of lunacy. Nobody should be expected to do that... should they?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Oh yeah. I never called anyone a baffoon.

I also never called anyone a crap spouter. For the record... I don't even know what one is (but I have a visual... yuck).

goingtoverona

all i was sharing was my personal opinion on how you come off to me. i just don't understand why you can't get your point across without calling the people that don't agree idiots and morons and lunatics trying to get boners. just because you think someone is an idiot, doesn't mean that they actually are. and as far as a reasonable argument is concerned, for you there isn't one, it doesn't exist. you're not looking for a reasonable argument, your goal is to poke holes in any pro gun argument. again this is just how i perceive you based on your posts. as far as THINKING people are morons and idiots, man i know EXACTLY how you feel. i just don't throw it in with every other post. personally if i was in your shoes i would think about trying to get my point across in a pleasant manner. i usually get a sentence or two into your posts before the name calling begins and i just quit reading.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

goingtoverona wrote:

all i was sharing was my personal opinion on how you come off to me. i just don't understand why you can't get your point across without calling the people that don't agree idiots and morons and lunatics trying to get boners. just because you think someone is an idiot, doesn't mean that they actually are. and as far as a reasonable argument is concerned, for you there isn't one, it doesn't exist. you're not looking for a reasonable argument, your goal is to poke holes in any pro gun argument. again this is just how i perceive you based on your posts. as far as THINKING people are morons and idiots, man i know EXACTLY how you feel. i just don't throw it in with every other post. personally if i was in your shoes i would think about trying to get my point across in a pleasant manner. i usually get a sentence or two into your posts before the name calling begins and i just quit reading.

Interesting. I used the term 'boner' in one post back in December maybe? You've now used it in more than three times responding to me in reference to that one time. I'm curious to know why that one resonated so strongly with you? And to be fair, I haven't been the only one that used such a term to illustrate the connection between some gun lovers and the need to own powerful weapons as compensation for their insecurity as a man.

I appreciate you trying to help me, but I'm not even going to speak to the rest of your response. Trust me when I say this takes some restraint. Have a nice day.

brianlux

unsung wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

Think that one of the main reasons why the murder rate is what it is In a place like Chicago? A person can drive 30 -40 minutes away to Gary In, gunshows to make these purchases?

GANGS. Throw them in prison for 30 years and the murders will dwindle immediately. And your facts are not exactly correct, even at gun shows paperwork is kept, and until the Supreme Court overturned the Chicago handgun ban people would not sell to those with a Chicago address.

Or do you really think gang bangers go to legitimate gun shows to purchase their weapons?

I appreciate that you want to find ways to reduce crime, unsung, but "GANGS. Throw them in prison..."? First of all, I don't think you can throw someone in prison for being in a gang. Secondly, If you could, how do you propose to do that?

"Hey you, are you in a gang? Oh yeah? Come with me." Sorry, but you see what I mean?

And then what? Build yet more prisons? I don't know the numbers off hand but the number of prisons per capita in the US is already huge and the ones we have are already stuffed to the gills.

And if we were to build these prisons, where would the money come from and on whose land will you build these city-sized fortresses?

Looked at this way, at least reducing the number of guns out there, banning assault weapons and making it much more difficult to obtain weapons seems much more logical and logistically feasible.

unsung

But then you punish the law-abiding and you still don't fix the real issue. Violence will still exist. Chicago has already shown that bans do not work.


One person, ONE, was killed by an "assault rifle" in 2011 in Chicago out of 500 murders. You are not accepting reality if you think these are the problem. There is irrefutable proof that they are not.


As far as who is in a gang, you don't think that the cops already know who is? RICO could lock them up by the hundreds, and yes I propose putting violent people away to protect the public. You simply remove the non-violent offenders to make room.

brianlux

unsung wrote:

But then you punish the law-abiding and you still don't fix the real issue. Violence will still exist. Chicago has already shown that bans do not work.


One person, ONE, was killed by an "assault rifle" in 2011 in Chicago out of 500 murders. You are not accepting reality if you think these are the problem. There is irrefutable proof that they are not.


As far as who is in a gang, you don't think that the cops already know who is? RICO could lock them up by the hundreds, and yes I propose putting violent people away to protect the public. You simply remove the non-violent offenders to make room.

Well, I don't know why law-abiding citizens need an arsenal in the first place, especially arms that are built solely with the intention of killing large numbers of people. In the second place, if the law stipulated what kind of arms you can have (and lets face it, there will always be such laws- you will never be able to legally own a nuclear bomb, for example), as well as how many of them you may own at one time (there will always be laws of that nature as well) and those laws made the weapons that are legal more difficult to obtain, the law abiding citizens would continue to be law-abiding citizens... unless they broke the law.

But OK, let's move on from that since we're probably dead-locked there.

The facts remain: you cannot lock up people the mayor believes are gang members and if you could, there is no place to put that many people and not enough money to build and maintain more prisons. I'm sorry, but I just don't see the logic in your suggestions and you haven't provided solutions to the impediments inherent in them.

Also, I would point out that there is a reason gangs exist. It has a lot to do with the history of repression, inner city life and the huge obstacles inner city minorities face in order to break free from those environments. It's call "survival". In saying this, I'm not supporting or attacking gangs of this sort and certainly not supporting violent related gang activity but rather just pointing out the realities behind the situation.

It would make more sense to alleviate the problems (also a kind of violence) that causes gang related violence in the first place rather than just lock up large numbers of people in what amounts to institutions that generally lead to more crime and violence.

unsung

So what if I own ten AR's and have a hundred full capacity magazines and they limit ownership to two and ten? Legislation turns the law-abiding into a criminal. That is wrong.

And again most gun control was written by the evil NRA. Fact.

brianlux

unsung wrote:

So what if I own ten AR's and have a hundred full capacity magazines and they limit ownership to two and ten? Legislation turns the law-abiding into a criminal. That is wrong.

And again most gun control was written by the evil NRA. Fact.

So what if you own a bazooka or an a bomb and are limited to two?

Look, we already know we disagree on the gun thing but what about the prison business? I thought we were talking about solutions but I guess I was mistaken. OK.

whgarrett

I repeat.....The government is NOT going to take people's guns. Most likely they will not even pass the assault rifle ban. If they do. Big f'n deal. I will just buy an illegal weapon and so will many like me. FACT.

brianlux

whgarrett wrote:

I repeat.....The government is NOT going to take people's guns. Most likely they will not even pass the assault rifle ban. If they do. Big f'n deal. I will just buy an illegal weapon and so will many like me. FACT.

This sounds like an accurate assessment, whg although I'm still unclear as to why a citizen would have need of a weapon designed solely for killing large numbers of people. Think how many cool vinyl records that money would buy! Or other things that would bring joy to peoples lives instead of carnage!

whgarrett

I have sold most of my vinyl collection. I just was over it. Been collecting for 15 years. Realized it just takes up space. My digital media is so much easier, and despite what some may think, it sounds just as good, if not better.

As to the weapons.....I don't think people need lots of things, but I don't think we should ban them. Why do civilian cars need to go over 80mph? I drive 55-60 and get to where i'm going just fine.

I hate to say this, but i would definitely support a ban on handguns way before "assualt" rifles

Thirty Bills Unpaid

whgarrett wrote:

I have sold most of my vinyl collection. I just was over it. Been collecting for 15 years. Realized it just takes up space. My digital media is so much easier, and despite what some may think, it sounds just as good, if not better.

As to the weapons.....I don't think people need lots of things, but I don't think we should ban them. Why do civilian cars need to go over 80mph? I drive 55-60 and get to where i'm going just fine.

I hate to say this, but i would definitely support a ban on handguns way before "assualt" rifles

WH. Handguns are easily concealed and without a doubt, the weapon of choice for street thugs.

However... my father carried a sidearm when hunting. I handled it. I shot it. I understood the value of it as it pertained to hunting. As such... I would never want to deny a responsible and avid hunter the right to carry a sidearm when he is in the bush. With that said, I feel that to get a permit for a handgun... one would need a thorough background check and meet the highest of 'standards' before being issued a license for one. Not just any scrubbydub! As well... handguns have no place in the city unless it is just passing through to get to the forest.

To me, the assault rifles just aren't practical unless one is going to war or looking to kill lots of people in little time. It's a rare person that hunts with such a weapon and given the destructive potential in the mass setting... in my opinion, the 'fun factor' isn't enough to outweigh the risk. The fact that they are really cool at the range just doesn't justify hanging in the Big 5 Sporting Goods store ready for purchase to anyone who wants one. If 'protection' is the justification... a 12 gauge shotgun certainly fits the bill and is a gun that one might hunt with as well- perfect for the typical citizen! And... people should be permitted to own such a gun if their background checks out!

goingtoverona

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

whgarrett wrote:

I have sold most of my vinyl collection. I just was over it. Been collecting for 15 years. Realized it just takes up space. My digital media is so much easier, and despite what some may think, it sounds just as good, if not better.

As to the weapons.....I don't think people need lots of things, but I don't think we should ban them. Why do civilian cars need to go over 80mph? I drive 55-60 and get to where i'm going just fine.

I hate to say this, but i would definitely support a ban on handguns way before "assualt" rifles

WH. Handguns are easily concealed and without a doubt, the weapon of choice for street thugs.

However... my father carried a sidearm when hunting. I handled it. I shot it. I understood the value of it as it pertained to hunting. As such... I would never want to deny a responsible and avid hunter the right to carry a sidearm when he is in the bush. With that said, I feel that to get a permit for a handgun... one would need a thorough background check and meet the highest of 'standards' before being issued a license for one. Not just any scrubbydub! As well... handguns have no place in the city unless it is just passing through to get to the forest.

To me, the assault rifles just aren't practical unless one is going to war or looking to kill lots of people in little time. It's a rare person that hunts with such a weapon and given the destructive potential in the mass setting... in my opinion, the 'fun factor' isn't enough to outweigh the risk. The fact that they are really cool at the range just doesn't justify hanging in the Big 5 Sporting Goods store ready for purchase to anyone who wants one. If 'protection' is the justification... a 12 gauge shotgun certainly fits the bill and is a gun that one might hunt with as well- perfect for the typical citizen! And... people should be permitted to own such a gun if their background checks out!

Dude, great post man. i knew you had it in you. i agree with you one hundred and ten percent on people needing to pass background checks to buy a gun. i would disagree with you on the not allowing them in the city because, depending on what city you're in, that might be the place you need it the most.
i also completely see your side of the assault rifle debate. i get it and you're right, technically we don't need them. yes indeedy a shotgun will work just fine for home defense. but imo, there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people that own them and don't kill people with them. so as an assault rifle owner, it feels like i'm being "punished" for the actions of a fraction of a fraction of gun owners out there.
again great post, i enjoyed reading it.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

goingtoverona wrote:

Dude, great post man. i knew you had it in you. i agree with you one hundred and ten percent on people needing to pass background checks to buy a gun. i would disagree with you on the not allowing them in the city because, depending on what city you're in, that might be the place you need it the most.
i also completely see your side of the assault rifle debate. i get it and you're right, technically we don't need them. yes indeedy a shotgun will work just fine for home defense. but imo, there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people that own them and don't kill people with them. so as an assault rifle owner, it feels like i'm being "punished" for the actions of a fraction of a fraction of gun owners out there.
again great post, i enjoyed reading it.

It took several proofreads to get all the 'boners' and 'idiots' out of my passage.

I should probably clarify what I meant when I suggested no handguns within city limits. Owners should be able to store their handguns at their homes... but they shouldn't have them on their person while going to 7-11 or shopping. I see too many problems allowing that type of freedom: theft, a poor decision made out of a moment's anger; accidents; etc.

If you go back to several of my original posts... I have suggested the only 'fair' way to move forward is to grandfather in licenses for assault weapons. You, as an owner, wouldn't be punished (as you put it). The idea should be to eventually have the guns removed from your towns and cities by not introducing any more for consumers to purchase.

whgarrett

My view is so different then yours. I think that carrying a side arm into the woods(nature) is ridiculous, unless you are taking it for protection from people.

Why do you want to ban something that has the ability to kill many people but relatively kills only a few, instead of going after the guns that kill 75% or more of the fatalities?

Do you even care about the dying?

You should know my response.....I don't.

aerial

the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Cosmo

aerial wrote:

the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

...
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
...
That would not be a problem... if everyone that owned a gun was 'well regulated' in the 'security of a free state'. Even then, there are issues... mainly, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were self 'well-regulated' in the use of the firearms in their possession... so were the people barricaded in Mt. Carmel and Adam Lanza. They were all proficient in the use of their firearms.