Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
9 Black People Gunned Down at Bible Study, Obvious Hate Crime
Comments
-
-
Great. Then you can use knives -- and guns can be regulated as heavily as bazookas and anti aircraft weapons.Blackie said:
The extent to which the constitution and the second amendment speak to this issue isn't about "guns". It's about "arms" (i.e. weapons).OZONE said:
Think about this. The right to self defense has always existed. But the right to have guns, has not. How could the right to guns have existed before guns existed?Blackie said:
The right to bare arms in defense of oneself from all aggressors including but not limited to government forces is a natural right that always existed. The 2nd Amendment documented that the government could not take away that right.OZONE said:
And that is the only group that is guaranteed a "right" to arms. The rest was just revisionist action by the gov't to please the gun manufacturers, their shills the NRA, and those that grew up beating off to John Wayne movies.Blackie said:
The "militia" at the time the constitution was written wasn't what we think of as "militia" today. It was those (in addition to the army and navy) that the US government could call upon to serve at the whim of the government. Damned right the government's forces should be "well regulated" by an armed populace free to defend themselves.OZONE said:
And you don't have a protected right for anything beyond a well regulated militia.Blackie said:
You don't have a natural constitutionally protected right to drive.OZONE said:
If you can't see the guns should be regulated at least as much as cars and driving, then you are a dumbshit. Doesn't matter if you are conservative or liberal.PurpleJ said:Liberals like ozone and honda celebrate mass shootings because they give them an excuse to pander for gun control.
Any right to guns, exists only because the gov't allows it -- just like it does not allow individuals to own bazookas or anti aircraft guns.
The NRA has been brainwashing you. -
You are sitting on the unknowing side of what's called confirmation bias.Swaye said:Dear Ozone,
Blackie is schooling you. Stop while you're ahead.
Sincerely,
The Bored -
I sexually identify as an Attack Helicopter. Ever since I was a boy I dreamed of soaring over the oilfields dropping hot sticky loads on disgusting foreigners. People say to me that a person being a helicopter is impossible and I'm fucking retarded but I don't care, I'm beautiful. I'm having a plastic surgeon install rotary blades, 30 mm cannons and AMG-114 Hellfire missiles on my body. From now on I want you guys to call me "Apache" and respect my right to kill from above and kill needlessly. If you can't accept me you're a heliphobe and need to check your vehicle privilege. Thank you for being so understanding.OZONE said:
Great. Then you can use knives -- and guns can be regulated as heavily as bazookas and anti aircraft weapons.Blackie said:
The extent to which the constitution and the second amendment speak to this issue isn't about "guns". It's about "arms" (i.e. weapons).OZONE said:
Think about this. The right to self defense has always existed. But the right to have guns, has not. How could the right to guns have existed before guns existed?Blackie said:
The right to bare arms in defense of oneself from all aggressors including but not limited to government forces is a natural right that always existed. The 2nd Amendment documented that the government could not take away that right.OZONE said:
And that is the only group that is guaranteed a "right" to arms. The rest was just revisionist action by the gov't to please the gun manufacturers, their shills the NRA, and those that grew up beating off to John Wayne movies.Blackie said:
The "militia" at the time the constitution was written wasn't what we think of as "militia" today. It was those (in addition to the army and navy) that the US government could call upon to serve at the whim of the government. Damned right the government's forces should be "well regulated" by an armed populace free to defend themselves.OZONE said:
And you don't have a protected right for anything beyond a well regulated militia.Blackie said:
You don't have a natural constitutionally protected right to drive.OZONE said:
If you can't see the guns should be regulated at least as much as cars and driving, then you are a dumbshit. Doesn't matter if you are conservative or liberal.PurpleJ said:Liberals like ozone and honda celebrate mass shootings because they give them an excuse to pander for gun control.
Any right to guns, exists only because the gov't allows it -- just like it does not allow individuals to own bazookas or anti aircraft guns.
The NRA has been brainwashing you. -
Exactly and there's shit ton of regulations on vehicles, tests of ability, suspension of license. Now if we only had the same for guns.PurpleJ said:
Cars kill more people than guns in the US. HTH.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
And more would occur if people were required to do very minimal, or zero training to operate a carPurpleJ said:
Yet fatal car accidents still happen everyday...OZONE said:
If you can't see the guns should be regulated at least as much as cars and driving, then you are a dumbshit. Doesn't matter if you are conservative or liberal.PurpleJ said:Liberals like ozone and honda celebrate mass shootings because they give them an excuse to pander for gun control.
C'mon, you're better than the dumbshit knee jerk response. -
I think the larger point here is that we have a transracial troll trying to make white people look bad.
Hitting him with a hate crime charge is really going to sting. If only 9 counts of premeditated murder were enough to get him the death penalty.
Why don't Hondo and Ozone tell us what laws they want and show us how those laws work in places like Chicago?
Thanks in advance -
Logic, reason, basic comprehension of grammar - these aren't strengths of yours it seems. Words have meaning.OZONE said:
Great. Then you can use knives -- and guns can be regulated as heavily as bazookas and anti aircraft weapons.Blackie said:
The extent to which the constitution and the second amendment speak to this issue isn't about "guns". It's about "arms" (i.e. weapons).OZONE said:
Think about this. The right to self defense has always existed. But the right to have guns, has not. How could the right to guns have existed before guns existed?Blackie said:
The right to bare arms in defense of oneself from all aggressors including but not limited to government forces is a natural right that always existed. The 2nd Amendment documented that the government could not take away that right.OZONE said:
And that is the only group that is guaranteed a "right" to arms. The rest was just revisionist action by the gov't to please the gun manufacturers, their shills the NRA, and those that grew up beating off to John Wayne movies.Blackie said:
The "militia" at the time the constitution was written wasn't what we think of as "militia" today. It was those (in addition to the army and navy) that the US government could call upon to serve at the whim of the government. Damned right the government's forces should be "well regulated" by an armed populace free to defend themselves.OZONE said:
And you don't have a protected right for anything beyond a well regulated militia.Blackie said:
You don't have a natural constitutionally protected right to drive.OZONE said:
If you can't see the guns should be regulated at least as much as cars and driving, then you are a dumbshit. Doesn't matter if you are conservative or liberal.PurpleJ said:Liberals like ozone and honda celebrate mass shootings because they give them an excuse to pander for gun control.
Any right to guns, exists only because the gov't allows it -- just like it does not allow individuals to own bazookas or anti aircraft guns.
The NRA has been brainwashing you.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"Arms" - your right to keep and bear them (all of them, not a select list) shall not be infringed. Of course, elected men wanting more and more power over you and me have put people on the supreme court that would agree to change the meaning of those words from what they actually say, so that those men could achieve that goal of imposing their will over you and me. -
This thread delivers. -
Counterpoint:Swaye said:
Isle Gun Death Rate Lowest In U.S.
Not having borders with states that sell guns to whoever helps
-
The people arguing for guns always remind me of religious people. It's funny how all arguments sound the same when you've made up your mind first and come up with the argument second.
Just admit you love guns and that's all that matters. -
I've never owned a gun. If I were going to buy a gun I would follow all laws and regulations and not kill anyone. Maybe you can tell us what laws we need that we don't have or if you're just for all out prohibition.
I'm not against regulation. I want to hear what is going to work, not just opportunism to whine about guns every time a certain race kills members of a different race. -
I've never owned a gun, only fired one a few times, and have no interest in hunting. I definitely don't love guns. I do think the right for people to protect themselves from a rogue government is important though. I'm not sure exactly where the lines should be.
-
I own several guns, only one of which is registered.
Fuck off. -
-
Who?allpurpleallgold said:
-
I like guns just fine. Use them to shoot deer every season since I was a boy with both Dads in a blind. But, this has much less to do with "loving" guns, and much more to do with believing in liberty, and the governments desire to restrict my ability to protect myself from that same government.allpurpleallgold said:The people arguing for guns always remind me of religious people. It's funny how all arguments sound the same when you've made up your mind first and come up with the argument second.
Just admit you love guns and that's all that matters.
It always amuses me that when you tell people (liberals mostly) you want guns to potentially defend yourself from jack booted government thugs, they look at you like you have two heads and are some kind of crazy domestic terrorist. Um, that is precisely what most of the guys on those bills we don't use anymore did. The redcoats were the ATF/FBI/whatever of their day. When what we now call patriots took up arms against them, because of a fundamental belief in liberty and self governance, they were committing domestic terrorism. Thank God they got to that arsenal in Lexington before the redcoats, or the revolution would have been over before it started. The limeys realized, correctly, they better steal the weapons first. The patriots realized, correctly, the only way to defend yourself in any meaningful way was to have them.
Do I think any of this happens in my lifetime? No, at least I certainly hope not. But, I believe in gun rights because I have no idea what might happen in a hundred years, and I want your great grandkids and any of my illegitimate grandkids to at least have to means to defend themselves and liberty from an overzealous government, or a common intruder, or a fucking Skynet activated robot army. Also, venison tastes good and everyone should shoot a deer and figure this out at least once in their life. -
And there's the rub. If we accept the premise that (1) people have a natural right to protect themselves form a rogue government, and that (2) the 2nd amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to establish that the government could not infringe on that right, should there even be a line? Shouldn't each individual be able to defend themselves in whatever manner they deem appropriate, up to and including the use of any degree of arms the executive's forces has at their disposal (that the individual can find a way to obtain that does not infringe on another's rights)? If you accept (1) and (2), why would your answer be anything other than "no" to the question of whether there should be a line?dnc said:I've never owned a gun, only fired one a few times, and have no interest in hunting. I definitely don't love guns. I do think the right for people to protect themselves from a rogue government is important though. I'm not sure exactly where the lines should be.
-
While this sounds nice, the Revolution wasn't won because we got to the guns at Lexington or Ticonderoga (sure it helped). It was won because of the Atlantic Ocean, time, attrition, the sagging economy of a war weary England, and the French.Swaye said:
I like guns just fine. Use them to shoot deer every season since I was a boy with both Dads in a blind. But, this has much less to do with "loving" guns, and much more to do with believing in liberty, and the governments desire to restrict my ability to protect myself from that same government.allpurpleallgold said:The people arguing for guns always remind me of religious people. It's funny how all arguments sound the same when you've made up your mind first and come up with the argument second.
Just admit you love guns and that's all that matters.
It always amuses me that when you tell people (liberals mostly) you want guns to potentially defend yourself from jack booted government thugs, they look at you like you have two heads and are some kind of crazy domestic terrorist. Um, that is precisely what most of the guys on those bills we don't use anymore did. The redcoats were the ATF/FBI/whatever of their day. When what we now call patriots took up arms against them, because of a fundamental belief in liberty and self governance, they were committing domestic terrorism. Thank God they got to that arsenal in Lexington before the redcoats, or the revolution would have been over before it started. The limeys realized, correctly, they better steal the weapons first. The patriots realized, correctly, the only way to defend yourself in any meaningful way was to have them.
Do I think any of this happens in my lifetime? No, at least I certainly hope not. But, I believe in gun rights because I have no idea what might happen in a hundred years, and I want your great grandkids and any of my illegitimate grandkids to at least have to means to defend themselves and liberty from an overzealous government, or a common intruder, or a fucking Skynet activated robot army. Also, venison tastes good and everyone should shoot a deer and figure this out at least once in their life.
But if you want to oversimplify a major historical event into a single issue, that's your right! -
Because I'm not thrilled with the idea ofBlackie said:
And there's the rub. If we accept the premise that (1) people have a natural right to protect themselves form a rogue government, and that (2) the 2nd amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to establish that the government could not infringe on that right, should there even be a line? Shouldn't each individual be able to defend themselves in whatever manner they deem appropriate, up to and including the use of any degree of arms the executive's forces has at their disposal (that the individual can find a way to obtain that does not infringe on another's rights)? If you accept (1) and (2), why would your answer be anything other than "no" to the question of whether there should be a line?dnc said:I've never owned a gun, only fired one a few times, and have no interest in hunting. I definitely don't love guns. I do think the right for people to protect themselves from a rogue government is important though. I'm not sure exactly where the lines should be.
Dylann Roofd2d having a nuclear weapon?
I understand the poont you're making, and it's a good one. I also understand there are plenty of fucked up people in this cuntry and giving them unregulated access to things that can destroy lives in a heartbeat seems unwise. There's a tension here between protection from government and protection from psychos. Hence, I'm not sure exactly where the line should be. -
But still...ThomasFremont said:
While this sounds nice, the Revolution wasn't won because we got to the guns at Lexington or Ticonderoga (sure it helped). It was won because of the Atlantic Ocean, time, attrition, the sagging economy of a war weary England, and the French.Swaye said:
I like guns just fine. Use them to shoot deer every season since I was a boy with both Dads in a blind. But, this has much less to do with "loving" guns, and much more to do with believing in liberty, and the governments desire to restrict my ability to protect myself from that same government.allpurpleallgold said:The people arguing for guns always remind me of religious people. It's funny how all arguments sound the same when you've made up your mind first and come up with the argument second.
Just admit you love guns and that's all that matters.
It always amuses me that when you tell people (liberals mostly) you want guns to potentially defend yourself from jack booted government thugs, they look at you like you have two heads and are some kind of crazy domestic terrorist. Um, that is precisely what most of the guys on those bills we don't use anymore did. The redcoats were the ATF/FBI/whatever of their day. When what we now call patriots took up arms against them, because of a fundamental belief in liberty and self governance, they were committing domestic terrorism. Thank God they got to that arsenal in Lexington before the redcoats, or the revolution would have been over before it started. The limeys realized, correctly, they better steal the weapons first. The patriots realized, correctly, the only way to defend yourself in any meaningful way was to have them.
Do I think any of this happens in my lifetime? No, at least I certainly hope not. But, I believe in gun rights because I have no idea what might happen in a hundred years, and I want your great grandkids and any of my illegitimate grandkids to at least have to means to defend themselves and liberty from an overzealous government, or a common intruder, or a fucking Skynet activated robot army. Also, venison tastes good and everyone should shoot a deer and figure this out at least once in their life.
But if you want to oversimplify a major historical event into a single issue, that's your right! -
There's a lot here I agree with.Swaye said:
I like guns just fine. Use them to shoot deer every season since I was a boy with both Dads in a blind. But, this has much less to do with "loving" guns, and much more to do with believing in liberty, and the governments desire to restrict my ability to protect myself from that same government.allpurpleallgold said:The people arguing for guns always remind me of religious people. It's funny how all arguments sound the same when you've made up your mind first and come up with the argument second.
Just admit you love guns and that's all that matters.
It always amuses me that when you tell people (liberals mostly) you want guns to potentially defend yourself from jack booted government thugs, they look at you like you have two heads and are some kind of crazy domestic terrorist. Um, that is precisely what most of the guys on those bills we don't use anymore did. The redcoats were the ATF/FBI/whatever of their day. When what we now call patriots took up arms against them, because of a fundamental belief in liberty and self governance, they were committing domestic terrorism. Thank God they got to that arsenal in Lexington before the redcoats, or the revolution would have been over before it started. The limeys realized, correctly, they better steal the weapons first. The patriots realized, correctly, the only way to defend yourself in any meaningful way was to have them.
Do I think any of this happens in my lifetime? No, at least I certainly hope not. But, I believe in gun rights because I have no idea what might happen in a hundred years, and I want your great grandkids and any of my illegitimate grandkids to at least have to means to defend themselves and liberty from an overzealous government, or a common intruder, or a fucking Skynet activated robot army. Also, venison tastes good and everyone should shoot a deer and figure this out at least once in their life.
My view is that the onus is on advocates of firearm ownership to demonstrate how they can make it reasonably safe. I don't think it is acceptable for us to have our churches, schools and movie theaters shot up on the regular because 2d Amendment worshippers refuse to countenance any restrictions on their fetish.
At the same time, I also think a lot of pro-gun-control liberals are FS because they want to ban guns that are scary-looking rather than take a more reasonable approach.
I think that some sort of mandatory training and licensing, along with serial number registration could enable the government to better regulate the firearm market without impinging on anyone's 2d Amendment liberties, and that regime could also filter out many, if not most of the yahoos who want to shoot up a movie theater or a kindergarten. Will mass-shootings still happen? Yes, but maybe not every 6 weeks or so. It would be progress. Progress is good.
And I like my gun, so I'd like to keep it. -
AZDuck said:
Sure. But every time one of these things happens, I ask - why the fuck can't we regulate firearms in this country?TierbsHsotBoobs said:There's no controversy on this one.
Dude is a racist asshole who deserves the chair.
I don't like living in a world where you need to pack heat at bible study
If they would've had a sign out front that specifically said "No Firearms Allowed." This never would've happened. Because you know......criminals follow the law
Speaking of...built my AR lower yesterday. Halfway done. -
straw manHuskyJW said:
Firearms are regulated what are you talking about?AZDuck said:
Sure. But every time one of these things happens, I ask - why the fuck can't we regulate firearms in this country?TierbsHsotBoobs said:There's no controversy on this one.
Dude is a racist asshole who deserves the chair.
I don't like living in a world where you need to pack heat at bible study
If they would've had a sign out front that specifically said "No Firearms Allowed." This never would've happened. Because you know......criminals follow the law -
As an actual duck, I think you should be more pro strict gun control.AZDuck said:
There's a lot here I agree with.Swaye said:
I like guns just fine. Use them to shoot deer every season since I was a boy with both Dads in a blind. But, this has much less to do with "loving" guns, and much more to do with believing in liberty, and the governments desire to restrict my ability to protect myself from that same government.allpurpleallgold said:The people arguing for guns always remind me of religious people. It's funny how all arguments sound the same when you've made up your mind first and come up with the argument second.
Just admit you love guns and that's all that matters.
It always amuses me that when you tell people (liberals mostly) you want guns to potentially defend yourself from jack booted government thugs, they look at you like you have two heads and are some kind of crazy domestic terrorist. Um, that is precisely what most of the guys on those bills we don't use anymore did. The redcoats were the ATF/FBI/whatever of their day. When what we now call patriots took up arms against them, because of a fundamental belief in liberty and self governance, they were committing domestic terrorism. Thank God they got to that arsenal in Lexington before the redcoats, or the revolution would have been over before it started. The limeys realized, correctly, they better steal the weapons first. The patriots realized, correctly, the only way to defend yourself in any meaningful way was to have them.
Do I think any of this happens in my lifetime? No, at least I certainly hope not. But, I believe in gun rights because I have no idea what might happen in a hundred years, and I want your great grandkids and any of my illegitimate grandkids to at least have to means to defend themselves and liberty from an overzealous government, or a common intruder, or a fucking Skynet activated robot army. Also, venison tastes good and everyone should shoot a deer and figure this out at least once in their life.
My view is that the onus is on advocates of firearm ownership to demonstrate how they can make it reasonably safe. I don't think it is acceptable for us to have our churches, schools and movie theaters shot up on the regular because 2d Amendment worshippers refuse to countenance any restrictions on their fetish.
At the same time, I also think a lot of pro-gun-control liberals are FS because they want to ban guns that are scary-looking rather than take a more reasonable approach.
I think that some sort of mandatory training and licensing, along with serial number registration could enable the government to better regulate the firearm market without impinging on anyone's 2d Amendment liberties, and that regime could also filter out many, if not most of the yahoos who want to shoot up a movie theater or a kindergarten. Will mass-shootings still happen? Yes, but maybe not every 6 weeks or so. It would be progress. Progress is good.
And I like my gun, so I'd like to keep it.
-
I'm a little disappointed that a fellow VC who spent time with me in the jungles of Cuba before we stormed the casinos would so easily down play even small weapons in the hands of anti government forces.ThomasFremont said:
While this sounds nice, the Revolution wasn't won because we got to the guns at Lexington or Ticonderoga (sure it helped). It was won because of the Atlantic Ocean, time, attrition, the sagging economy of a war weary England, and the French.Swaye said:
I like guns just fine. Use them to shoot deer every season since I was a boy with both Dads in a blind. But, this has much less to do with "loving" guns, and much more to do with believing in liberty, and the governments desire to restrict my ability to protect myself from that same government.allpurpleallgold said:The people arguing for guns always remind me of religious people. It's funny how all arguments sound the same when you've made up your mind first and come up with the argument second.
Just admit you love guns and that's all that matters.
It always amuses me that when you tell people (liberals mostly) you want guns to potentially defend yourself from jack booted government thugs, they look at you like you have two heads and are some kind of crazy domestic terrorist. Um, that is precisely what most of the guys on those bills we don't use anymore did. The redcoats were the ATF/FBI/whatever of their day. When what we now call patriots took up arms against them, because of a fundamental belief in liberty and self governance, they were committing domestic terrorism. Thank God they got to that arsenal in Lexington before the redcoats, or the revolution would have been over before it started. The limeys realized, correctly, they better steal the weapons first. The patriots realized, correctly, the only way to defend yourself in any meaningful way was to have them.
Do I think any of this happens in my lifetime? No, at least I certainly hope not. But, I believe in gun rights because I have no idea what might happen in a hundred years, and I want your great grandkids and any of my illegitimate grandkids to at least have to means to defend themselves and liberty from an overzealous government, or a common intruder, or a fucking Skynet activated robot army. Also, venison tastes good and everyone should shoot a deer and figure this out at least once in their life.
But if you want to oversimplify a major historical event into a single issue, that's your right!
Like the US in VietNam, the paper cuts added up to enough death to make the government back across the ocean say fuck it
We don't win the revolution without guns -
Sure. But every time one of these things happens, I ask - why the fuck can't we regulate firearms in this country?
I don't like living in a world where you need to pack heat at bible study
Firearms are regulated what are you talking about?
If they would've had a sign out front that specifically said "No Firearms Allowed." This never would've happened. Because you know......criminals follow the law
straw manAZDuck said:HuskyJW said:AZDuck said:
Sure. But every time one of these things happens, I ask - why the fuck can't we regulate firearms in this country?TierbsHsotBoobs said:There's no controversy on this one.
Dude is a racist asshole who deserves the chair.
I don't like living in a world where you need to pack heat at bible study
That is already illegal and regulated. I guess we could create another law says that they really really really mean that it's illegal -
So then you're in the camp that believes this guy has a right to a bazooka. Got it. I'm glad you aren't one of the leaders.Blackie said:
Logic, reason, basic comprehension of grammar - these aren't strengths of yours it seems. Words have meaning.OZONE said:
Great. Then you can use knives -- and guns can be regulated as heavily as bazookas and anti aircraft weapons.Blackie said:
The extent to which the constitution and the second amendment speak to this issue isn't about "guns". It's about "arms" (i.e. weapons).OZONE said:
Think about this. The right to self defense has always existed. But the right to have guns, has not. How could the right to guns have existed before guns existed?Blackie said:
The right to bare arms in defense of oneself from all aggressors including but not limited to government forces is a natural right that always existed. The 2nd Amendment documented that the government could not take away that right.OZONE said:
And that is the only group that is guaranteed a "right" to arms. The rest was just revisionist action by the gov't to please the gun manufacturers, their shills the NRA, and those that grew up beating off to John Wayne movies.Blackie said:
The "militia" at the time the constitution was written wasn't what we think of as "militia" today. It was those (in addition to the army and navy) that the US government could call upon to serve at the whim of the government. Damned right the government's forces should be "well regulated" by an armed populace free to defend themselves.OZONE said:
And you don't have a protected right for anything beyond a well regulated militia.Blackie said:
You don't have a natural constitutionally protected right to drive.OZONE said:
If you can't see the guns should be regulated at least as much as cars and driving, then you are a dumbshit. Doesn't matter if you are conservative or liberal.PurpleJ said:Liberals like ozone and honda celebrate mass shootings because they give them an excuse to pander for gun control.
Any right to guns, exists only because the gov't allows it -- just like it does not allow individuals to own bazookas or anti aircraft guns.
The NRA has been brainwashing you.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"Arms" - your right to keep and bear them (all of them, not a select list) shall not be infringed. Of course, elected men wanting more and more power over you and me have put people on the supreme court that would agree to change the meaning of those words from what they actually say, so that those men could achieve that goal of imposing their will over you and me. -
I can sum all this up with "I am for guns, but against control (government)."
In closing, I would like to show boobs and poor trigger discipline. Just because.
-
By that logic, we should have no laws since criminals just ignore them...HuskyJW said:AZDuck said:
Sure. But every time one of these things happens, I ask - why the fuck can't we regulate firearms in this country?TierbsHsotBoobs said:There's no controversy on this one.
Dude is a racist asshole who deserves the chair.
I don't like living in a world where you need to pack heat at bible study
If they would've had a sign out front that specifically said "No Firearms Allowed." This never would've happened. Because you know......criminals follow the law
Speaking of...built my AR lower yesterday. Halfway done. -
dnc said:
As an actual duck, I think you should be more pro strict gun control.AZDuck said:
There's a lot here I agree with.Swaye said:
I like guns just fine. Use them to shoot deer every season since I was a boy with both Dads in a blind. But, this has much less to do with "loving" guns, and much more to do with believing in liberty, and the governments desire to restrict my ability to protect myself from that same government.allpurpleallgold said:The people arguing for guns always remind me of religious people. It's funny how all arguments sound the same when you've made up your mind first and come up with the argument second.
Just admit you love guns and that's all that matters.
It always amuses me that when you tell people (liberals mostly) you want guns to potentially defend yourself from jack booted government thugs, they look at you like you have two heads and are some kind of crazy domestic terrorist. Um, that is precisely what most of the guys on those bills we don't use anymore did. The redcoats were the ATF/FBI/whatever of their day. When what we now call patriots took up arms against them, because of a fundamental belief in liberty and self governance, they were committing domestic terrorism. Thank God they got to that arsenal in Lexington before the redcoats, or the revolution would have been over before it started. The limeys realized, correctly, they better steal the weapons first. The patriots realized, correctly, the only way to defend yourself in any meaningful way was to have them.
Do I think any of this happens in my lifetime? No, at least I certainly hope not. But, I believe in gun rights because I have no idea what might happen in a hundred years, and I want your great grandkids and any of my illegitimate grandkids to at least have to means to defend themselves and liberty from an overzealous government, or a common intruder, or a fucking Skynet activated robot army. Also, venison tastes good and everyone should shoot a deer and figure this out at least once in their life.
My view is that the onus is on advocates of firearm ownership to demonstrate how they can make it reasonably safe. I don't think it is acceptable for us to have our churches, schools and movie theaters shot up on the regular because 2d Amendment worshippers refuse to countenance any restrictions on their fetish.
At the same time, I also think a lot of pro-gun-control liberals are FS because they want to ban guns that are scary-looking rather than take a more reasonable approach.
I think that some sort of mandatory training and licensing, along with serial number registration could enable the government to better regulate the firearm market without impinging on anyone's 2d Amendment liberties, and that regime could also filter out many, if not most of the yahoos who want to shoot up a movie theater or a kindergarten. Will mass-shootings still happen? Yes, but maybe not every 6 weeks or so. It would be progress. Progress is good.
And I like my gun, so I'd like to keep it.
Huh?
