Infowars attacking Ed

PureandEasy

Yes Cav, I was speaking to the zealous out there. I'm not anti gun in the sense people don't have a right to protect themselves and their family, property, whatever. Nor am I anti porn, but when ownership or pseudo-reality makes you feel empowered, it's potentially dangerous. And maybe makes you feel "infallible".

And guess what, you're not, nobody is.

CAVSTARR313

PureandEasy wrote:

Yes Cav, I was speaking to the zealous out there. I'm not anti gun in the sense people don't have a right to protect themselves and their family, property, whatever. Nor am I anti porn, but when ownership or pseudo-reality makes you feel empowered, it's potentially dangerous. And maybe "infallible".

And guess what, you're not, nobody is.

I hear ya!

fuck it, I will quote him..

"its a fragile thing"

gettingright

South of Seattle wrote:

curmudgeoness wrote:

klusterfuk wrote:

gun control hurts the law abiding owners. bad guys don't give a shit. they will always get their guns. I'm all for background checks and a waiting period but that won't fix the problem.

I think you have a point -- if someone is determined to break the law, they will, period. At the same time, I think that in this particular case, different laws would have made a difference.

Exactly. Criminals will be criminals. The mentally ill however, might not pursue the theft of a gun if they are unable to buy one at the store. If a background check saves 1 life it's worth it.

i 100% believe that citizens need to defend all their constitutional rights to the bitter end as power will always try to usurp more power, and the people must fight to keep every bit of ground that has been gained from those in power throughout history. however, this logic that if someone wants to use or get a gun illegally then they will, so the laws created only hurt law abiding citizens makes no sense to me. you could say the same thing about almost every other kind of law. for instance, drug laws only hurt those who would use drugs responsibly, therefore there should be no laws against drugs; laws regarding child labor only hurt those business owners that would treat their child workers well; drinking and driving, or texting and driving laws only hurt those who would do so responsibly, and so on.

in a society sometimes laws must be created to protect the community, or make it safer; or, to simply state to the entire community that there is a behavior that is considered unacceptable. having any law enacted will not guarantee that no one will now break the law, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.

as i said the argument doesn't make sense to me, maybe someone could elaborate...

evenflow82

Guns are dumb. Aside from the military there is no need for them. Hunters can buy their meat.

CAVSTARR313

evenflow82 wrote:

Guns are dumb. Aside from the military there is no need for them. Hunters can buy their meat.

why does the military need them?

it is not to protect you, my friend.. it is to protect themselves..

and I enjoy getting my own meat, thank you.. it is the way it has been done in my family for generations.. who are you to say?

brianlux

Two of the same threads started by the same person in two different forum categories (here and AMT). OK, I'll repeat myself as well:

"Just to make it a little harder [to obtain guns]. Not taking away the right."

This kind of sensible statement upsets gun owners? Really? Mind boggling.

Thank you, Ed!

Zod

America has the highest guns per capita death in the world.

So if its not the guns fault, then its the American's fault? Which would mean Americans are batshit crazy? Wouldn't you rather blame it on the guns?

I tend to agree with gun control. I like the way its done here in Canada. It's not illegal to own guns but there is a fair amount of red tape between you and the gun. It helps weed out the crazies and makes the process long enough that someone can't just walk into a store and back out with a gun....

The stats of gun related deaths in countries with tighter guns controls vs ones with looser guns controls is pretty staggering (at least from what I've read).

If guns are harder to get, people turn to weapons like knives (which I think is the #1 cause of murder up here in Canada). At least you stand a chance at outrunning a knife. It's way harder to outrun a bullet.

Conclusion: You don't have to outlaw guns, but you have to be insane to not have a vetting process that at least attempts to keep them out of the hands of crazies.

Newch91

It just so happens I was planning on wearing my Hartford 2013 event shirt to work tomorrow, in which my manager is an avid reader of Infowars. I am expecting some comment from her tomorrow if she sees my shirt and reads the article.

Emm

Hi guys, im new here, not new to PJ or there feelings on the current gun laws in America. This is a topic ive discussed with my hubby so many times and leaves us both scratching our heads as to why the American government chooses to do nothing at all about gun control in your country. Im sure this is going to make me unpopular with many here but I have always had trouble holding my tongue and this is something im pretty passionate about.

Im in Australia and I grew up around guns, my dad has always had them and used them for hunting. It must be nearly 15 years ago now that Australia brought in tighter gun laws outlawing automatic weapons and restricting semi automatic guns among other things. The laws restricted gun owners on what they could and couldn't be in possession of as well as how guns must be housed. (ie; in a gun safe which is locked at all times and ammunition stored in a separate housing). It made people be responsible for their guns and who had access to them.

The restructure of our laws came about after Australia's worst massacres and since the laws have been enforced we have not had another mass killing.
When the laws came into effect my dad had to hand in a couple of semi auto guns ... and many 1000's had to do the same, some of the guns had been in families for a long time ... these people had the option to have the guns disabled and retain ownership of them.
Now my Dad still has guns and he still goes hunting, it hasn't really effected his time as a hunter .... I imagine the US government would also benefit from similar laws.

I don't understand why any one who is not fighting in a war needs a automatic or semi automatic weapon ... take these weapons off the streets and then you stop a large percentage of mass killings

I don't think Ed, PJ (or your government) is talking about taking all guns out of American homes

brianlux

Emm wrote:

Hi guys, im new here, not new to PJ or there feelings on the current gun laws in America. This is a topic ive discussed with my hubby so many times and leaves us both scratching our heads as to why the American government chooses to do nothing at all about gun control in your country. Im sure this is going to make me unpopular with many here but I have always had trouble holding my tongue and this is something im pretty passionate about.

Im in Australia and I grew up around guns, my dad has always had them and used them for hunting. It must be nearly 15 years ago now that Australia brought in tighter gun laws outlawing automatic weapons and restricting semi automatic guns among other things. The laws restricted gun owners on what they could and couldn't be in possession of as well as how guns must be housed. (ie; in a gun safe which is locked at all times and ammunition stored in a separate housing). It made people be responsible for their guns and who had access to them.

The restructure of our laws came about after Australia's worst massacres and since the laws have been enforced we have not had another mass killing.
When the laws came into effect my dad had to hand in a couple of semi auto guns ... and many 1000's had to do the same, some of the guns had been in families for a long time ... these people had the option to have the guns disabled and retain ownership of them.
Now my Dad still has guns and he still goes hunting, it hasn't really effected his time as a hunter .... I imagine the US government would also benefit from similar laws.

I don't understand why any one who is not fighting in a war needs a automatic or semi automatic weapon ... take these weapons off the streets and then you stop a large percentage of mass killings

I don't think Ed, PJ (or your government) is talking about taking all guns out of American homes

Welcome to the PJ forum and thank you for very sensible comments!

Lost In Ohio

Here's how I see it.

If you want a gun for collection or for historical purposes, why not? I mean, say your family ancestor fought in some long-ago war and you have his gun. By all means, hang it on the wall.

If someone lives in a ghetto or slum and they're worried about some guy busting in at 3 am, then yeah, they have a legit concern, but they should probably look at doing what they can to get into better housing.

If someone wants to go to the shooting range, by all means, why not? Better yet, why not make it so they're rented there?

A lot of summer camps have basic rifles (many might not even call a .22 a gun, but whatever). By all means, guns or "guns" at camp? Why not. You could also use them to teach the kid the power of a gun.

If you have a gun, be safe. Lock it up with some sort of locking device AND put it in a safe. Don't tell the combination to anyone. Heck, put the bullets in a different safe with a different combination. Make it so that if you die, no one is getting into that safe because no one else knows the combination.

It is entirely true that a bad guy will always find a way to get a gun. With that said, I'd like to see something where criminals of a certain stature (such as rapists, arsonists, etc) should not be allowed to have a gun. If they get caught with a gun, the penalty should be worse. Why should a rapist need a gun? Maybe if he owned a gun, he would think really hard about "is this rape worth the cost of having my gun taken from me?" Why should a bank robber be allowed to have a gun in the future?

The answer to this? Big interests, big politics, etc. A lot of money is thrown around (and at the politicians) in order to make the laws. Basically, the way I see it, the people who run the country "sell out" to the highest corporate bidder en route to office and once they get there.


The other part of me says that if I have the "right to bear arms", then where the hell is my 40-cal?

PJ_Soul

I support people with a platform speaking out for what they believe in. I wish more people would do it. Fortunately, I pretty much always happen to agree with Eddie Vedder's point of view (not because he says it - just because I run along the same lines of thinking... which does have some amount to do with why I connect with PJ, aside from the awesomeness of the music). Those who don't agree should just appreciate that people, and especially those with good intentions, can say what they want to say and get their message across somehow. Simple!

... but also, the author of that article or whatever the fuck you want to call it is kind of an idiot.

slightofjeff

“…it’s necessary that we continue a discussion to figure out how to unravel the situation where something like that can happen and make sure the odds of it happening again are very slim,” a solemn Vedder told the crowd.

I mean, seriously, what an asshole. Advocating "continuing a discussion." Who does this guy think he is? :roll: :roll:

Kathi

I love it!

so, sandy hook happened not because one batshit crazy individual had easy access to guns, but because schools are gun free zone? obviously, the solution against gun violence is more guns, makes perfect sense! arm the teachers, surely provides for a really healthy, open, free learning environment for all children.

they have a problem with him calling gun rights antiquated, but then they talk about how he would've been tarred and feathered in the 18th century? way to support your point. better be prepared in case the brits come back.

and to talk about the tragic deaths of "these FEW children" is just disgusting.

Pushin Forward Back

Only dimwits & dumbfucks follow infowars.com. Talk about lies and propaganda!

nickburrows14

From the outside looking in, the gun laws in the U.S. seem incredible to us. Look at the rest of the world's laws and look at gun death statistics. Look at Canada. The answer is simple.

What Eddie says makes perfect sense. For me, loving a band means more than loving their music. If I don't agree with the politics of a band then I don't listen to them. Why would I?

CantKeepmedown

The man has earned the platform and a right to speak. If he wants to take 5-10 minutes out of a 3hr show to do that, I have no problem with it. I don't agree with it, but I don't have a problem with it.

Champagne Breakfast

I personally, in my opinion, agree 100% with EV and want stricter gun laws. The thing that I don't love is that PJ and EV solo tours often have gun images in their posters. I know there are hidden anti-gun statements in there. Even the mind your manners art & shirt I find to not be the greatest idea, just my personal preference.

guitar101

Pushin Forward Back wrote:

Only dimwits & dumbfucks follow infowars.com. Talk about lies and propaganda!

exactly. Infowars is a joke.

evenflow82

Conspiracy nuts! They blab on and on about the new world orders, freemasons, etc.