Gun Confiscation Now Beginning in California

[Badger]

Lacrymosa....

Why did that guy stick a shot-gun in your face?

Just curious

-Badger

[EJ]

F*ck all the classifications...

I own a few guns, and I am anti death penalty and abortion.

I am a smart mouthed Mes'kin that LEGALLY and rightfully keeps weapons in his home to protect me and my wife from people that would pull their shit out and stick it in my face. When my young neice comes over, she will find my guns locked up and hidden out of reach. My wife doesn't know the combos, but she is trained (by me) in how to use the hardware.

Training and common sense are the best forms of gun safety. Know how to operate and store your weapons safely.

My homes have been burglarized, as have those of family and neighbors. That is a fact of live in Cali...

I have caught an assholr coming thru my f*cken window screen!!! A nice racking of a 12 gauge will make a crackhead look like Carl F*CKEN Lewis!!!

Firearms are deterents and weapons.

[bobby_steeles]

note to self: remember to not insult rednecks with shotguns...

[Joe Manco]

God damn, that was a gripping story Micky.

Sorry to hear it, but if the people who read this don't soak it in, then there is nothing you can do for them.

EJ's saying "It is better to be caught with a gun than without" pretty much says it all.

[Lacrymosa]

What I said?

Clinton was going to be our next president....and a few choice words about the Nebraska Cornhuskers.

[Yojimbo]

Re: Who says you can't face multiple attackers?

Ronin, Ronin my brother you sure know how to pull me into these threads...


"Have you ever been mugged? I haven't. If I was, I would give them my money."

I would give them the money too even if I were armed. But what would you do if they want to take more than your money? What if they want to take your wife, children or your life?? There are a lot of sick people out there that want things other than money.


"Do you live in a crummy neighborhood? I don't. If I did, and could afford a gun, I would be better off purchasing locks and iron bars for my windows, or better yet, move."

These are all good solutions but they don't replace having a gun in hand when shit hits the fan.


"Would a gun make me feel safe? No. It would make me paranoid, and more likely to blow away Girl Scouts selling cookies than an actual intruder."

Why do I need to be paranoid? I have gun. I at least have good chance to protect myself. What about the poor schmuck without a gun??? It's like car insurance you don't need it until you get into an accident, then you're glad you have it.

Hey, I'm all for keeping guns and Girl Scouts away from you...


"Are guns consistently used to thwart crimes? Not that I've heard. I thought that was the job of the cops."

Do some more research on this even the FBI stats say differently. See the Lott Mustard study. In case you don't know the police have proven in courts that they have no personal duty to protect you. They are charged with protecting the public in general and can not be all places at once. Bascially they're saying they will get to if they can, until then you're on your own.

"Are people safe in societies without guns? Overwhelmingly, yes."


Are people safe in societies with guns? Overwhelmingly, yes
200,000,000 guns, 80 million gunowners and the FBI's own UCR studies show that 99.6%-99.8% will never be used to commit a crime.


"In fact, most people are rarely attacked, including most of the members of the NRA."

So I guess gun control is not a problem then...


"Guns are most often used to INITIATE attacks - duh, they are offensive, not defensive. And if someone decides to kill you, drawing your gun and shooting them is probably not within the skill-level of most gun owners."

See the Lott Mustard Study.


"You guys just like your guns, and don't want to give them up. Kids like the Colombine victims, and many many others, are "acceptable losses" to you selfish extremists. Well, guess what? When kids are involved, there are no "acceptable losses"

You are right kids are not acceptable losses. That's why I need my guns to protect mine.

Several school shootings have been stopped by an armed person. One that come to mind is Paducah, the vice principal had a .45 in his truck and managed to get to it to stop the killer. How many lives did he possibly save? What would have been the accectable loss for the gun control crowd if no one had a gun to stop him??

"Start compromising, before you get ALL your rights taken away. If the gun lobby worked FOR gun control, the situation would improve dramatically."

I'll let Ben Franklin respond to this:

"Those, who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[Mickey Finn]

"As my intellectual superior, I was surprised that you couldn't find anything more clever than "****ing idiot".
____________________________

I had to give you something you might be capable of understanding. Review your responses. What other conclusion could I draw? If you review the thread you will find that I attempted to engage in a discussion of differences. YOU chose to begin name calling. It is ironic that the man quoting Mahatma Gandhi seems incapable of discussing differences in opinion without immediately resorting to personal attacks.
___________________________



"I'm not about to judge and label every gunowner by this fool's actions."
__________________________________

That appears to be exactly what you did with me. I still don’t understand exactly what I did to set you off. Was it the fact that you have now met someone who HAS successfully defended themselves with a firearm? Was that SO disturbing to you?
____________________________________

"Just like minors must pass a driver's exam to get a liscence, I also feel that a gun owner must likewise prove himself capable of handling a weapon."
__________________________________

Please review the material I posted. I said virtually the same thing.

______________________________
"If and when, however unlikely, the Big Bad Government of the United States of America decides to ban ALL weapons. I'll admit that I'll be right there beside you, defending the 2nd Amendment. Until that time, I will always stand behind the idea that less guns in the general population is a good way to start."
_____________________________

Once again, it appears we agree on a number of things. Why are you so offended by me? It appears you were shoved around once by some red neck asshole with a gun and have now chosen to believe anyone who owns a gun is of the same ilk. Can you not see how ridiculous that is? Is that any different from the idiot who says “some (insert ethnic group of your choice here) attacked me once, therefore all (insert again) are out to attack me” ?????? Get off of it man.

Our experiences differ, it stands to reason that our perceived truths may differ, but if you are incapable of discussing those differences without engaging in emotional name-calling, YOU are exactly the type of person who should NEVER be allowed to own a gun.

[Badger]

Lacrymosa,

That guy sounds like a gun-nut/bigot- not a law-abiding citizen who owns a gun.

People like that are why we need some kind of gun liscensing.

I hope you choked him out later!

-Badger

[Eazy-E]

The question isnt whether there should be any gun control, because there is and has been for quite a while. Wake up and smell the coffee!!

Do any of the NRA guys want to allow anyone to own any firearm/weapon that they can afford? Will any of you actually defend this position? If not, then you are implicitly agreeing that there needs to be some regulation of firearms.

And if you want to allow anyone to purchase any weapon that they can afford, remember than this could include a vast array of heavy firearms: machine guns, bazookas, artillery, howitzers & rocket launchers. Heck, then we could even allow citizens to own nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

These all could have some self defense value: if you attack me, I will turn you, me and this entire town into radioactive dust. This hydrogen bomb certainly has impressive stopping power. You could certainly say the same about neurological or biological agents.


This is an extreme example, but I am making the point that almost all of us want some type of restrictions on the type of firearms/weapons that are available to the average citizen. And once that we have decided that there should be 'sensible' restrictions, then we are all arguing what these 'sensible' restrictions should be.

And I think that is where almost everyone on this forum is. So try to keep this in mind - everyone here endorses some type of restrictions. So why keep the excessive knee-jerk rhetoric about pro and anti guns. We are all anti in varying degrees. Even JP, Hawk, etc

E

[EJ]

Some forms of restriction are good, but they invariably lead to more and more forms of restriction.

Just write better bills.

[Mickey Finn]

Originally posted by Eazy-E


machine guns, bazookas, artillery, howitzers & rocket launchers. Heck, then we could even allow citizens to own nuclear, biological and chemical weapons......

.....if you attack me, I will turn you, me and this entire town into radioactive dust. This hydrogen bomb certainly has impressive stopping power. You could certainly say the same about neurological or biological agents.

E

That was beautiful EE! The doctrine of Mutually Assured Self Destruction combined with the cold war was responsible for an era of peace the likes of which has never been seen in world history.

When everyone has their very own Personal Envelopment Nuclear Ignition System ™ (hereto after referred to as P E N I S ) the world will be a safer place.

[Ronin]

Damn!

Newbie, I was all prepared to let this matter drop, and now look what you've done!

Ah, boys. Try to play nice in the sandbox when Uncle Ronin isn't around. LOL!

Mickey, I'm glad you don't want to disembowel me, and I agreed with approximately 90% of everything you said. I think your lock-box and ring sound cool, and should be mandatory and provided FREE OF CHARGE with every legitimate firearm purchase. Something needs to be done to limit the threat of stolen firearms, as well as kids shooting themselves. Bravo, man. You are NOT part of the problem. My associate Lacrymosa unfortunately did not realize this...Duke.

Actually, both you and Hawk make a good point about motor vehicles. There are far too many losers on the roads, who don't deserve a driver's license. I see them every day, and I'm talking about the drunks and hotheads, not just the old ladies who can't make a turn without coming to a complete stop. Also, I think society needs to start phasing out heavy-polluting vehichles (I'm an environmentalist - surprise!), but I drive a Jeep, so I'm a hypocrite on that one.

Let's get one thing straight. As long as there is the U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court, we will always have firearms in this country. Always. I know this, you all know this. The only question is whether we want A LOT of guns, and WHAT TYPE of guns are we prepared to allow. Because they get deadlier all the time. Furthermore, are we going to allow career criminals and psychopaths access to guns, some of whom have killed or attempted to kill OUR PRESIDENTS?!!! (Kennedy, Reagan, others) There needs to be balance, and right now there are just too many guns, and too many lax regulations. Something needs to be done. A total ban on firearms is impossible, and not necessarily desirable (even for me), but SOMETHING needs to be done. Now.

Be good, kids.

[Newbie]

---JCameron

"Conservatives LOVE to say "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Why not say, "Abortion doesn't kill fetuses, the mothers who go to get the abortion kill the fetuses"?"

A killer uses a gun to commit the act of murder.

A doctor uses a scalpel to perform an abortion.

The gun is analogous to the scalpel, not the abortion itself.

So, the following statement would be a more correct analogy "Scalpels don’t kill unborn children, abortion doctors do."

Wait, that must be it. The reason pro-life advocates have been unsuccessful in their attempts to prevent the 1.2 million abortions that are routinely performed in the U. S. every year is because they are neglecting to focus their energy on the real culprit, the SCALPELS. Only when we get the scalpels out of the hands of the medical profession will unborn children in this country be safe.


---Ronin

In one of your posts, you state the following.

"And if someone decides to kill you, drawing your gun and shooting them is probably not within the skill-level of most gun owners."

In one of your earlier posts, you stated

"A gun is lethal up to 100 yards, and requires no skill to operate, just an index finger."

Which is it?







[Edited by Newbie on 10-12-2000 at 05:26 AM]

[bobby_steeles]

...and coat hangers.

[Ronin]

Newbie:

I'm trying to stay polite here, but you are just yipping at my heels. Either you're being disingenuous, or you're just not using your head.

A scalpel does not have 100-yard+ range. Nor can it abort a fetus without the mother's consent, at least not in this country.

A gun takes no skill with which to INITIATE an attack - it is an OFFENSIVE weapon - yet to draw a gun and shoot it accurately in a split second, i.e. defensively, requires great skill. A gun is for attack, not defense. Therein lies the problem.

You seem like a good guy, but your arguments are not very astute. Yes, you can kill without a gun, but it is very difficult. The Colombine killers made lots of bombs, and they were both pretty intelligent. Very few of the bombs went off, including the big propane bomb they were hoping would kill 500 people. Most of their pipe bombs failed to detonate, and the ones that did did minimal damage. Most of the victims at Colombine were killed by Dylan Klebold's illegal 9mm TEC-9 submachine gun, a gun the NRA fought tooth-and-nails to keep legal. Guns like this have no legitimate sporting purpose, and there is no reason for civilians to have access to them. They should be destroyed, like mad dogs.

Poison at football games - doctors with scalpels - what planet are you on? Guns make killing EASY. That is the problem.