You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #73: He said he has no interest in protecting the public, just himself. And he said he's for shootouts. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-12-11 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #66
73. He said he has no interest in protecting the public, just himself. And he said he's for shootouts.
He's probably just being honest in his self-centeredness.

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Why do gun lovers claim to be "law-abiding," yet use criminal activity to... ClassWarrior  Feb-12-11 11:23 AM   #0 
  - I'm sorry, but I find your OP nonsensical.  Common Sense Party   Feb-12-11 11:25 AM   #1 
  - So-called "law-abiding" g.o.s want to get rid of the laws - and use criminal activity to justify it.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 11:30 AM   #5 
     - Is there something illegal about wanting to change laws?  ixion   Feb-12-11 11:49 AM   #12 
        - Is there something moral about using criminal activity to justify the change?  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 11:53 AM   #14 
           - uh, well, the impetus for ANY change or addition to the law books is some type of activity, criminal  ixion   Feb-12-11 12:20 PM   #23 
              - So you're saying "law-abiding" g.o.s do empathize with criminals?  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 12:22 PM   #25 
                 - okay, a few points:  ixion   Feb-12-11 12:24 PM   #27 
                    - Apologies. I edited the "movement" comment to clarify my point.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 12:25 PM   #28 
                       - Much appreciated...  ixion   Feb-12-11 01:20 PM   #52 
  - Your argument really doesn't follow.  MineralMan   Feb-12-11 11:27 AM   #2 
  - Yeah, I don't know why I expected anyone here to "understand" it here.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 11:29 AM   #3 
     - The gun forum is best left to the gunnies  liberal N proud   Feb-12-11 11:30 AM   #4 
     - Actually, I'm not a "gungeon" guy. But your argument doesn't  MineralMan   Feb-12-11 11:46 AM   #10 
     - Or, perhaps you need to re-examine your premise  ixion   Feb-12-11 11:51 AM   #13 
        - True. Here's a strawman on a logical path.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 11:56 AM   #17 
           - That's all snarky bad and everything...but  ixion   Feb-12-11 12:21 PM   # 
  - I think they are saying most gun owners are law-abiding, but violent criminals are not law abiding.  ZombieHorde   Feb-12-11 11:35 AM   #6 
  - Well, apparently they're reluctantly "law-abiding" since they don't want laws.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 11:38 AM   #8 
     - Almost all gun owners want gun regulations. The argument is about which regulations are appropriate.  ZombieHorde   Feb-12-11 11:45 AM   #9 
     - Wow, how generous of them.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 11:46 AM   #11 
        - If I wanted to restrict gun rights, I would examine the regulations gun advocates generally agreed  ZombieHorde   Feb-12-11 11:55 AM   #15 
           - That's sensible and responsible. And no justification by criminal activity necessary.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 11:58 AM   #18 
     - You're right, to an extent.  NewMoonTherian   Feb-12-11 06:20 PM   #165 
  - Here! Here! - if you do not abide by the law - you are a law breaker  jpak   Feb-12-11 11:36 AM   #7 
  - Ever brought beer to a college party with under-21s present?  Euromutt   Feb-12-11 05:46 PM   #157 
  - WTF?  here_is_to_hope   Feb-12-11 11:56 AM   #16 
  - I respect that right, especially the "well-regulated" part. Words matter.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 12:10 PM   #20 
     - Deleted message  Name removed   Feb-12-11 12:23 PM   #26 
     - This has been clarified time and time again.  armueller2001   Feb-12-11 01:22 PM   #53 
     - I'm sure it's an intentional effort to confuse the issue as it has been said time  Hoopla Phil   Feb-12-11 01:35 PM   #64 
     - Well regulated - of like and kind as the "regulars". You knew that right?  Hoopla Phil   Feb-12-11 01:32 PM   #61 
     - Yes, words matter. So does understanding what they mean.  beevul   Feb-12-11 02:32 PM   #110 
  - We are doing that to point out that certain laws are ineffect in achieving  GreenStormCloud   Feb-12-11 12:09 PM   #19 
  - Because you say so?  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 12:14 PM   #21 
     - By design, a "gun free zone" fails a logical test.  OneTenthofOnePercent   Feb-12-11 12:33 PM   #32 
  - You're missing most of the argument you are trying to represent.  OneTenthofOnePercent   Feb-12-11 12:16 PM   #22 
  - So you're saying you want to tote your guns where the criminals do so you can have shoot-outs?  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 12:21 PM   #24 
     - Deleted message  Name removed   Feb-12-11 12:27 PM   #29 
     - No, actually I'm guessing this is the core of the entire matter. If "the good people" are...  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 12:39 PM   #33 
        - Of course, once everyone is carrying guns with few restrictions, just who gets to decide...  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 12:42 PM   #35 
        - Your guesses are pretty bad.  OneTenthofOnePercent   Feb-12-11 12:49 PM   #41 
        - That's exactly your point in post #32. I quote... "If a criminal has a gun..."  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 12:51 PM   #43 
        - One modification-- can't protect *themselves*.  X_Digger   Feb-12-11 01:09 PM   #50 
           - Ahhh, so it's a selfish motive?  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 01:33 PM   #63 
              - If he claims his motives are self protection... why is that selfish?  OneTenthofOnePercent   Feb-12-11 01:36 PM   #66 
              - It's called "speak with forked tongue"  shadowrider   Feb-12-11 01:40 PM   #69 
              - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   Feb-12-11 01:45 PM   #71 
              - He said he has no interest in protecting the public, just himself. And he said he's for shootouts.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 01:46 PM   #73 
                 - Did you know a police officer has no duty to protect anyone who is not held in their custody?  OneTenthofOnePercent   Feb-12-11 02:17 PM   #96 
              - It's called self-defense.. not public-defense.  X_Digger   Feb-12-11 01:39 PM   #67 
     - NOTHING in any of my post said anything about carrying firearms or shootouts.  OneTenthofOnePercent   Feb-12-11 12:41 PM   #34 
        - That's exactly your point in post #32. I quote... "If a criminal has a gun..."  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 12:44 PM   #37 
           - Perhaps you should respond to the correct subthreads so that readers know what you are referring to.  OneTenthofOnePercent   Feb-12-11 12:55 PM   #45 
           - Ahhh... my value system doesn't change depending on the subthread.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 12:57 PM   #47 
           - That wasn't my point.  OneTenthofOnePercent   Feb-12-11 01:14 PM   #51 
              - So if the law does no harm, what do you care?  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 01:26 PM   #55 
                 - Useless != 'does no harm' n/t  X_Digger   Feb-12-11 01:29 PM   #56 
                 - Okay, explain.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 01:30 PM   #58 
                    - Oh, nevermind. You already explained. You're for the freedom to shootout.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 01:31 PM   #59 
                    - See response #39. n/t  X_Digger   Feb-12-11 01:32 PM   #60 
                 - So if the law has no benefit, why do you care?  OneTenthofOnePercent   Feb-12-11 01:35 PM   #65 
                    - Answer my question first.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 01:41 PM   #70 
                       - I did... "Waste of taxpayer time & money"  OneTenthofOnePercent   Feb-12-11 01:45 PM   #72 
                          - Wow, is that all you got?  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 01:48 PM   #75 
                             - "I don't care if the law has no benefit." -- saved that one for later.  X_Digger   Feb-12-11 01:50 PM   #76 
                             - In a free society, laws and restrictions should be justified.  OneTenthofOnePercent   Feb-12-11 01:59 PM   #80 
                                - The goal is to end senseless death and injury. Show me that a shootout is more effective at that...  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 02:01 PM   #82 
                                - Deleted message  Name removed   Feb-12-11 02:12 PM   #91 
                                - Exactly.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 02:16 PM   #95 
                                   - Au contraire, mon frre  OneTenthofOnePercent   Feb-12-11 02:28 PM   #104 
                                      - Links please.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 02:31 PM   #108 
                                         - Here.  OneTenthofOnePercent   Feb-12-11 03:12 PM   #122 
                                - Here are some examples:  GreenStormCloud   Feb-12-11 05:27 PM   #150 
                                   - Isolated incidents. Show me some statistics comparing with and without.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 05:28 PM   #152 
                                      - You are moving the goalposts.  GreenStormCloud   Feb-13-11 08:54 AM   #169 
                                - And please don't put words in my mouth. You asked, "If the law has no benefit..."  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 02:04 PM   #85 
                                   - So we are in agreement...  OneTenthofOnePercent   Feb-12-11 02:15 PM   #94 
                                      - I don't necessarily agree that so-called "feel good" laws have no benefits. But I agree that...  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 02:19 PM   #98 
  - You're conflating two groups. Non Sequitur -- it does not follow.  X_Digger   Feb-12-11 12:29 PM   #30 
  - Why are the ones who are "scrupulous in following the law" so zealous in wanting to vaporize it?  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 12:31 PM   #31 
     - Because I, who follows the law  shadowrider   Feb-12-11 12:42 PM   #36 
     - So once there are no laws, how will I know who are the lawbreakers and who aren't? Or am I just...  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 12:48 PM   #40 
     - Because the other group is not likely to follow the law..  X_Digger   Feb-12-11 12:46 PM   #39 
        - So you want the freedom to have shootouts?  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 12:49 PM   #42 
           - I have the freedom to attempt to resist violent attack.  X_Digger   Feb-12-11 12:53 PM   #44 
           - I'll take that as a "yes."  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 12:55 PM   #46 
              - Yes, that was a yes, but not using the perjorative terms you attempted to use to frame it. n/t  X_Digger   Feb-12-11 12:57 PM   #48 
           - So you want me to meekly submit to being murdered by a criminal? N/T  GreenStormCloud   Feb-12-11 05:01 PM   #140 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Feb-12-11 12:45 PM   #38 
  - Your post makes no sense  kudzu22   Feb-12-11 01:09 PM   #49 
  - I've never seen children get slaughtered in an ankle weight shootout.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 01:25 PM   #54 
     - Not the point  kudzu22   Feb-12-11 01:30 PM   #57 
        - But why is it stupid? If it's stupid, you shouldn't have to resort...  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 01:33 PM   #62 
        - It is stupid because  kudzu22   Feb-12-11 01:48 PM   #74 
        - I'm not the one who brings up criminals in these arguments. Re-read my OP.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 01:51 PM   #78 
           - Re-read your post #62 in which you said I make moral common ground with criminals  kudzu22   Feb-12-11 02:03 PM   #84 
              - I didn't say you necessarily do. I said many of your fellow travelers do. Someone brings up...  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 02:11 PM   #89 
                 - Would you care to cite examples of where someone has said that?  shadowrider   Feb-12-11 02:17 PM   #97 
                    - I saw it here this morning. The thread is still on the Guns page, above the fold.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 02:20 PM   #99 
                       - I take that back. It has one rec. Someone had to unrec it, apparently to hide it. Soon...  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 02:25 PM   #102 
                       - Nah. You provide the link. That isn't against the rules. Calling out by name is  shadowrider   Feb-12-11 02:29 PM   #106 
                          - I already know your interpretation of it is different than mine, but that post is where...  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 02:33 PM   #111 
                             - "Accurate REphrasing" - Is that like a movie that's "Based" on real life events  shadowrider   Feb-12-11 02:39 PM   #113 
        - It's stupid because it doesn't work. nt  rrneck   Feb-12-11 02:15 PM   #93 
           - Proof?  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 02:22 PM   #100 
              - Here's one...  rrneck   Feb-12-11 02:31 PM   #109 
                 - Okay, show proof of how that's more lethal than a campus full of gun toters.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 02:36 PM   #112 
                    - C'mon... Tell us how several thousand armed-to-the-teeth teenagers...  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 02:42 PM   #114 
                    - Hell, tell us how several armed-to-the-teeth teenagers...  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 02:45 PM   #117 
                    - I don't know that they would.  rrneck   Feb-12-11 03:03 PM   #121 
                       - Really? That's the subject of my OP?  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 04:24 PM   #134 
                          - Granted, the actual subject of the OP is difficult to determine.  rrneck   Feb-12-11 05:21 PM   #147 
                    - Why do you think there would be several thousand?  rrneck   Feb-12-11 03:00 PM   #120 
                    - Teens can't get CCW permits. You FAIL again. N/T  GreenStormCloud   Feb-12-11 05:08 PM   #142 
                    - How many "gun toters" constitutes a "campus full"? nt  rrneck   Feb-12-11 02:43 PM   #115 
                    - C'mon  rrneck   Feb-12-11 03:13 PM   #123 
                       - Anti's don't dig up statistics. They make an assertion then want others  shadowrider   Feb-12-11 03:16 PM   #124 
                          - Yeah, blind faith is like that. nt  rrneck   Feb-12-11 03:18 PM   #125 
        - By the way, that's exactly the point. There are so many flaws with your analogy...  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 01:40 PM   #68 
           - My analogy has nothing to do with body count  kudzu22   Feb-12-11 01:50 PM   #77 
           - Then why doesn't one? Why don't many?  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 01:52 PM   #79 
           - Actually, the facts prove you are way wrong.  DonP   Feb-12-11 02:02 PM   #83 
           - The problem with your arguments through all of this is  YllwFvr   Feb-12-11 02:11 PM   #90 
           - Proof?  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 02:14 PM   #92 
              - Of charges being dropped?  YllwFvr   Feb-12-11 02:27 PM   #103 
                 - That the laws dont do anything. Why are you avoiding the question?  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 02:30 PM   #107 
                    - Ah I mistook what you were questioning  YllwFvr   Feb-12-11 02:43 PM   #116 
                       - Some links would help. And why take out the "accidents" and suicides?  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 02:48 PM   #118 
                          - 05 there were 10k homicides by handgun  YllwFvr   Feb-12-11 02:59 PM   #119 
                             - Yeah, but isn't a proliferation of unregulated guns responsible for "accidents" like shooting...  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 04:08 PM   #128 
                                - How can something which does not exist...  beevul   Feb-12-11 04:16 PM   #130 
                                   - You know what I'm trying to ask. Quit feigning confusion.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 04:20 PM   #131 
                                      - Hmmm?  beevul   Feb-12-11 04:33 PM   #138 
           - You are wrong. Greatest body counts are from single shooters.  GreenStormCloud   Feb-12-11 05:13 PM   #144 
           - That is demonstrably untrue  kudzu22   Feb-12-11 05:34 PM   #155 
  - What you are saying is that if someone obeys a gun law but wants to go through the  lawodevolution   Feb-12-11 02:00 PM   #81 
  - So once there's no more laws, who gets to judge who's the bad guys and...  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 02:06 PM   #87 
     - Murder will always be illegal  lawodevolution   Feb-12-11 02:22 PM   #101 
     - Really? What about if you're carrying your legally-owned gun and you can...  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 02:28 PM   #105 
        - By "get away with" I assume you mean "judged by a jury of your peers"  OneTenthofOnePercent   Feb-12-11 03:32 PM   #127 
           - Oh yeah, that'll bring the lives back.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 04:21 PM   #133 
              - So courts and trials are now meaningless because the acions of the accused can never be undone?  OneTenthofOnePercent   Feb-12-11 05:28 PM   #151 
                 - No, that's the logic many of your fellow travelers use for eliminating gun laws.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 05:30 PM   #153 
                    - There are plenty of effective gun laws. Do you have any links showing "my side's" logic?  OneTenthofOnePercent   Feb-12-11 05:53 PM   #158 
                       - That's true, I'm sure, and I appreciate it. Take nadinbrzezinski, for instance. She's...  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 06:15 PM   #164 
     - Do you really think...  beevul   Feb-12-11 03:29 PM   #126 
        - I see any reasonable call for responsible, sensible regulation pissed on into oblivion. Every time.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 04:28 PM   #135 
           - And to get back to the OP, it's often justified with criminal activity.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 04:30 PM   #136 
           - Perhaps calling something reasonable does not make something reasonable.  beevul   Feb-12-11 04:49 PM   #139 
           - Pick any thread on this forum. You'll admit that some regulation is sensible and responsible, right?  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 05:26 PM   #149 
              - I have seen few (1) reasonable proposal.  beevul   Feb-13-11 12:25 AM   #168 
                 - Face it. The number of regulations you consider reasonable is so small as to be statistically...  ClassWarrior   Feb-13-11 05:05 PM   #174 
                    - Thank you...  beevul   Feb-13-11 06:02 PM   #175 
           - Please tell us what are"responsible, sensible regulation " I would like to know. n/t  oneshooter   Feb-12-11 08:50 PM   #166 
  - If you don't care that laws can have no benefit... why do you care about the laws at all?  OneTenthofOnePercent   Feb-12-11 02:05 PM   #86 
  - That's quite the opposite of what I said, and you know that because you posed the question.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 02:07 PM   #88 
  - Non-Gonococcal Urethritis? North Greenville University? Naval Station Norfolk?  Euromutt   Feb-12-11 04:09 PM   #129 
  - Haha. Heard 'em all before.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 04:21 PM   #132 
     - Deleted message  Name removed   Feb-12-11 04:31 PM   #137 
     - Given your confrontational attitude in this thread...  Euromutt   Feb-12-11 05:06 PM   #141 
        - I've only responded in kind. In most cases I've been extremely polite.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 05:20 PM   #146 
           - You established the tone of hostility in your OP  Marengo   Feb-13-11 10:53 AM   #171 
              - How?  ClassWarrior   Feb-13-11 05:02 PM   #173 
  - And it's the ludicrously narrow definition of "law-abiding" again  Euromutt   Feb-12-11 05:12 PM   #143 
  - If I understand correctly, its because the state does little or nothing to protect the obedient  aikoaiko   Feb-12-11 05:16 PM   #145 
  - Protect in what way? Do you call the right to shootouts "protection?"  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 05:23 PM   #148 
     - "right to shootouts"??? strange  aikoaiko   Feb-12-11 05:35 PM   #156 
        - I would call it the right to defend yourself with total disregard for others.  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 06:01 PM   #160 
           - I can't speak for others, but I'm fine with average resident (otherwise not prohibited)  aikoaiko   Feb-12-11 06:03 PM   #162 
              - LOL... yeah, thanks Google...  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 06:10 PM   #163 
  - We are happy with the present laws  hack89   Feb-12-11 05:30 PM   #154 
  - The present laws are all perfect?  ClassWarrior   Feb-12-11 05:59 PM   #159 
     - None that have been proposed. nt  hack89   Feb-12-11 06:01 PM   #161 
  - You do understand that pointing out the existence of criminality does not make one either  petronius   Feb-12-11 11:33 PM   #167 
  - How many pot-smokers use criminal activity to...  krispos42   Feb-13-11 09:04 AM   #170 
     - They don't use it "to justify" anything. They engage in it.  ClassWarrior   Feb-13-11 12:25 PM   #172 
        - Because there's never been any serious discussion about drug laws...  krispos42   Feb-13-11 09:58 PM   #176 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC