HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » An example of why we don'...

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 11:06 AM

 

An example of why we don't to leave the second amendment up to the states.

Brought to you by a Republican, no less.

http://www.therightscoop.com/2004-romney-signs-off-on-permanent-assault-weapons-ban/

"The new law ensures these deadly weapons, including AK-47s, UZIs and Mac-10 rifles, are permanently prohibited in Massachusetts no matter what happens on the federal level."

269 replies, 62302 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 269 replies Author Time Post
Reply An example of why we don't to leave the second amendment up to the states. (Original post)
Atypical Liberal Feb 2012 OP
southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #1
PavePusher Feb 2012 #3
gejohnston Feb 2012 #5
southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #9
pipoman Feb 2012 #11
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #26
PavePusher Feb 2012 #28
southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #35
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #37
southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #48
PavePusher Feb 2012 #40
southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #43
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #49
jeepnstein Feb 2012 #90
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #92
oldhippie Jan 2013 #267
gejohnston Feb 2012 #4
southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #6
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #42
southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #46
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #50
Straw Man Feb 2012 #15
Hoyt Feb 2012 #17
krispos42 Feb 2012 #19
Hoyt Feb 2012 #24
krispos42 Feb 2012 #80
Hoyt Feb 2012 #81
krispos42 Feb 2012 #82
Straw Man Feb 2012 #20
Hoyt Feb 2012 #29
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #31
Hoyt Feb 2012 #34
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #39
Hoyt Feb 2012 #44
Post removed Feb 2012 #51
Hoyt Feb 2012 #60
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #62
Hoyt Feb 2012 #73
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #88
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #107
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #27
Hoyt Feb 2012 #30
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #33
Hoyt Feb 2012 #53
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #55
Hoyt Feb 2012 #58
oneshooter Feb 2012 #76
Hoyt Feb 2012 #79
oneshooter Feb 2012 #97
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #98
Hoyt Feb 2012 #104
hack89 Feb 2012 #102
aikoaiko Feb 2012 #216
Hoyt Feb 2012 #217
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #243
Common Sense Party Feb 2012 #47
Hoyt Feb 2012 #56
Common Sense Party Feb 2012 #67
Hoyt Feb 2012 #72
Hoyt Feb 2012 #105
Common Sense Party Feb 2012 #112
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #268
southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #22
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #25
Hoyt Feb 2012 #36
ellisonz Feb 2012 #83
DragonBorn Feb 2012 #172
ellisonz Feb 2012 #177
cbrer Feb 2012 #175
southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #41
Common Sense Party Feb 2012 #52
southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #57
Common Sense Party Feb 2012 #68
southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #71
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #59
southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #63
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #65
Starboard Tack Feb 2012 #109
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #111
Starboard Tack Feb 2012 #134
beevul Feb 2012 #149
Starboard Tack Feb 2012 #156
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #157
Starboard Tack Feb 2012 #158
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #160
Starboard Tack Feb 2012 #161
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #162
Union Scribe Feb 2012 #205
Starboard Tack Feb 2012 #223
ellisonz Feb 2012 #226
Starboard Tack Feb 2012 #231
beevul Feb 2012 #163
Starboard Tack Feb 2012 #244
beevul Feb 2012 #257
Starboard Tack Feb 2012 #258
beevul Feb 2012 #259
Starboard Tack Feb 2012 #260
ellisonz Feb 2012 #261
beevul Feb 2012 #262
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #154
ellisonz Feb 2012 #123
Marengo Feb 2012 #153
DragonBorn Feb 2012 #167
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #171
PavePusher Feb 2012 #108
YllwFvr Feb 2012 #147
cbrer Feb 2012 #176
bowens43 Feb 2012 #2
Clames Feb 2012 #7
SteveW Feb 2012 #13
Atypical Liberal Feb 2012 #16
Hoyt Feb 2012 #38
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #155
oneshooter Feb 2012 #78
JohnnyRingo Feb 2012 #8
gejohnston Feb 2012 #10
ileus Feb 2012 #12
Atypical Liberal Feb 2012 #14
JohnnyRingo Feb 2012 #21
Atypical Liberal Feb 2012 #23
Hoyt Feb 2012 #32
Atypical Liberal Feb 2012 #45
ellisonz Feb 2012 #84
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2012 #93
ellisonz Feb 2012 #116
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #117
ellisonz Feb 2012 #120
Straw Man Feb 2012 #125
ellisonz Feb 2012 #126
Straw Man Feb 2012 #148
ellisonz Feb 2012 #151
Marengo Feb 2012 #152
ellisonz Feb 2012 #159
Marengo Feb 2012 #164
ellisonz Feb 2012 #165
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #166
ellisonz Feb 2012 #206
DragonBorn Feb 2012 #168
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply ?
Glassunion Feb 2012 #178
ellisonz Feb 2012 #179
Glassunion Feb 2012 #180
ellisonz Feb 2012 #181
gejohnston Feb 2012 #182
ellisonz Feb 2012 #183
gejohnston Feb 2012 #185
ellisonz Feb 2012 #189
Glassunion Feb 2012 #184
ellisonz Feb 2012 #187
Glassunion Feb 2012 #188
ellisonz Feb 2012 #191
Glassunion Feb 2012 #194
ellisonz Feb 2012 #195
DragonBorn Feb 2012 #215
ellisonz Feb 2012 #219
DragonBorn Feb 2012 #224
ellisonz Feb 2012 #225
Marengo Feb 2012 #197
ellisonz Feb 2012 #199
Marengo Feb 2012 #202
ellisonz Feb 2012 #204
Marengo Feb 2012 #208
Marengo Feb 2012 #209
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #129
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2012 #122
ellisonz Feb 2012 #124
Glassunion Feb 2012 #94
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #95
ellisonz Feb 2012 #140
Straw Man Feb 2012 #174
Marengo Feb 2012 #212
ellisonz Feb 2012 #218
Marengo Feb 2012 #220
Straw Man Feb 2012 #221
ellisonz Feb 2012 #222
Marengo Feb 2012 #227
ellisonz Feb 2012 #228
Marengo Feb 2012 #229
ellisonz Feb 2012 #230
Straw Man Feb 2012 #233
ellisonz Feb 2012 #234
Straw Man Feb 2012 #235
ellisonz Feb 2012 #236
Straw Man Feb 2012 #239
Marengo Feb 2012 #237
ellisonz Feb 2012 #241
Post removed Feb 2012 #242
Marengo Feb 2012 #245
ellisonz Feb 2012 #246
Marengo Feb 2012 #251
ellisonz Feb 2012 #253
Marengo Feb 2012 #254
Straw Man Feb 2012 #232
Atypical Liberal Feb 2012 #96
Marengo Feb 2012 #200
ellisonz Feb 2012 #201
Marengo Feb 2012 #203
oneshooter Feb 2012 #210
Marengo Feb 2012 #211
oneshooter Feb 2012 #213
Simo 1939_1940 Feb 2012 #214
discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2012 #75
Starboard Tack Feb 2012 #110
Marengo Feb 2012 #238
Starboard Tack Feb 2012 #240
Marengo Feb 2012 #247
Starboard Tack Feb 2012 #248
Hoyt Feb 2012 #18
ellisonz Feb 2012 #85
DragonBorn Feb 2012 #173
southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #54
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #61
southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #64
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #66
ellisonz Feb 2012 #86
Atypical Liberal Feb 2012 #74
PavePusher Feb 2012 #99
southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #101
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #103
PavePusher Feb 2012 #106
Simo 1939_1940 Feb 2012 #136
Starboard Tack Feb 2012 #249
gejohnston Feb 2012 #255
Starboard Tack Feb 2012 #256
DragonBorn Feb 2012 #169
Dissonance Feb 2012 #69
ellisonz Feb 2012 #87
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #89
ellisonz Feb 2012 #113
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #118
beevul Feb 2012 #91
ellisonz Feb 2012 #114
beevul Feb 2012 #150
PavePusher Feb 2012 #100
ellisonz Feb 2012 #115
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #119
ellisonz Feb 2012 #121
Dissonance Feb 2012 #127
ellisonz Feb 2012 #128
oneshooter Feb 2012 #130
ellisonz Feb 2012 #131
oneshooter Feb 2012 #135
ellisonz Feb 2012 #137
gejohnston Feb 2012 #138
ellisonz Feb 2012 #139
gejohnston Feb 2012 #143
ellisonz Feb 2012 #144
gejohnston Feb 2012 #145
PavePusher Feb 2012 #146
oneshooter Feb 2012 #141
ellisonz Feb 2012 #142
DragonBorn Feb 2012 #170
ellisonz Feb 2012 #250
gejohnston Feb 2012 #132
Simo 1939_1940 Feb 2012 #133
Dissonance Feb 2012 #186
ellisonz Feb 2012 #190
Dissonance Feb 2012 #192
ellisonz Feb 2012 #193
Dissonance Feb 2012 #196
ellisonz Feb 2012 #198
Dissonance Feb 2012 #207
ellisonz Feb 2012 #252
Glassunion Feb 2012 #70
discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2012 #77
matthew04401 Jan 2013 #263
gejohnston Jan 2013 #264
matthew04401 Jan 2013 #269
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #265
ellisonz Jan 2013 #266

Response to Atypical Liberal (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 11:20 AM

1. Good for them. I don't see what UZIs do for hunting animals. I hate guns. I would never

 

have one in my house.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 11:46 AM

3. What do you think an "UZI" is....

 

what is their status of availability, where are they legal for hunting and who promotes such a use?

In other words, your Strawmen are on fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 11:55 AM

5. I honestly don't think

he or she has the slightest idea (user name indicates she with the word "belle"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 12:17 PM

9. It could be a water pistol. I just don't like guns. You can have them I just don't want them.

 

I don't have problems with people having rifles for hunting game and if they eat it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 12:37 PM

11. The 2nd Amendment has not a single thing to do with hunting..

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 03:48 PM

26. What about those of us who do not hunt?

 

None of my guns are designed for hunting. They are all intended for use as personal or home defense tools. Do you have a problem with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:05 PM

28. So you admit to ignorance?

 

Why should we take your opinion seriously?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #28)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:12 PM

35. All posters here have an opinion. I am just one poster with MY OWN opinion.

 

I am not asking for you or anyone to take my opinion and I don't like guns doesn't take away from anyoneelse's opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #35)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:15 PM

37. Fair enough.

 

I can absolutely respect that.

Hey - you're free to dislike them and I more than support your right to that view.

If i came off a bit harsh - my apologies. Usually "I hate guns" kinds of comments are followed with "And because I hate them, i don't want you owning any"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_biker (Reply #37)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:35 PM

48. I stress I personally do not like guns. In a perfect world I wish no one had them. I know that

 

isn't possible. You are the king in your castle and know one has a right to tell you can't have a gun in your home. I think one gun should do it but some want a bunch and some don't want any. Just if you have them please be careful where you store them. I worry about children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #35)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:20 PM

40. I apologize as well, same reason.

 

Your initial posts appeared to be promoting heavier restrictions on others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #40)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:23 PM

43. No I don't care if you carry guns. I am scared to death of guns. I don't understand why

 

people have to carry them around in the public. But it is your right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #43)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:36 PM

49. People carry them in public....

 

...for the same reason some of us keep fire extinguishers and first aid kits in our cars ...it is a tool for dealing with specific situations which you hope you'll never need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #43)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 09:32 AM

90. There will come a day...

when we won't need them at all. I firmly believe that. But that is a topic for a different group.

To me a gun is just a tool, no different than any of my saws, drills, knives, or ladders. They can all be exceedingly dangerous even on the best day but some times you just have to have the right tool for the job at hand. And quite often the operator of said tool is the greatest danger of them all. That's why I firmly believe in teaching safety, in promoting a culture of gun owners taking one another to task for unsafe practices, and in making training available to all. There's nothing more dangerous than a tool in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to properly use it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeepnstein (Reply #90)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 10:11 AM

92. It would be nice if that day had any chance of coming

 

but based on the thousands of years of human history indicating we haven't changed all that much since we first walked on 2 legs, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeepnstein (Reply #90)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:00 AM

267. That is true ......

 

"There will come a day when we won't need them at all."

Yep, when we die.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 11:51 AM

4. the Uzi in question

is simply a pistol that looks like the sub-machine gun (which is controlled under the National Firearms Act of 1934, regardless of what states do). Once you make it semi auto, you have a bulky pistol that is no more/no less lethal (other than being harder to shoot accurately) than a regular pistol in the same caliber.

That is your choice and I respect it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 12:02 PM

6. Thank you. I just am scared to death of guns. I had a brother-in-law who was an expert user of

 

rifles and guns. One year his wife and 2 daughters brought him a brand new shotgun for christmas. He was good at hunting all kinds of animals. It was about 2 days later he and his best friend went hunting. He was placing his shotgun back in to the truck cabin. Some how it got caught on the blanket and it rifle must of had a hair trigger and it went off shot him instantly dead. His best friend just freaked out and rush him to a hospital. It was investigated. His best friend has never been the same. He was only 44 yrs old. In a instant his life was gone. I just don't want any guns around the house.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:22 PM

42. Not to put too fine a point on it....

 

...and with all due sympathy, if he didn't unload the shotgun before sticking it in the truck, he obviously was NOT an expert.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_biker (Reply #42)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:30 PM

46. He was. It was a new rifle and the first time he used it. He had stuffed small cougar, a stuffed

 

armadillo, deers. He really was into hunting. He was a local race driver and totally outdoor kind of person. He did have one eye but it never interferred with what he was doing. Just a freak accident.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #46)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:37 PM

50. I'm really not trying to be rude....

 

...but you need to understand, an "expert" does not put a loaded firearm into a vehicle for transport. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 01:38 PM

15. So many misconceptions, so little time.

I don't see what UZIs do for hunting animals.

You do know that we're not talking about machine guns here, right? We're talking about banning firearms based on appearance and ergonomics rather than actual function. Semi-auto rifles have been used for hunting for over 100 years.

In any case, hunting is not the only legitimate use for firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #15)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 01:53 PM

17. But a lot of folks have those misconceptions -- maybe you are the one misconceiving.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #17)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 02:09 PM

19. And yet, because these folks have these misconceptions...

...this is used to show that increase gun control laws are popular, and thus reasonable and democratic and such.


I noticed you didn't jump in there correcting anybody. Why not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 03:22 PM

24. Correcting anyone about what? You need to understand that some people don't give a darn about


whether you are carrying a revolver, semi-auto, illegal automatic handgun, a bazooka, or whatever. The nomenclature is just something you guys use to obfuscate things.

All they know is that a person is walking around with a gun on city streets, in parks, churches, schools, restaurants, etc. -- and they, like me, wonder why the heck someone would even do that in a modern society. The self-defense argument is just more bull. It's like smoking a big cigar and saying, "screw you -- it's my right." Well, it might be your right -- but you don't have to do it.

If you live in a rural area and need to carry to fit in with the locals -- do it. Maybe, you can try to show some reason in the number of weapons you buy, who you sell to, where you carry the things, etc. I won't hold my breath with most of those addicted to guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #24)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 09:27 PM

80. See? Revolver equals bazooka for all intents and purposes

And you want us to take your opinion seriously?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #80)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 09:55 PM

81. You expect me to think a serious post would mean anything to those

Who need a gun to walk outside?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #81)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 10:30 PM

82. Well, it might work better than your current approach n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #17)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 02:27 PM

20. So let me get this straight ...

But a lot of folks have those misconceptions -- maybe you are the one misconceiving.

Are you claiming that the firearms in question are machine guns? Because you would be wrong about that. And you're claiming that semi-auto rifles have not been in civilian hands for over 100 years? Because you'd be wrong again. And you're claiming that hunting is the only legitimate use for firearms? I guess I'm out of luck then, because I compete in three different shooting sports but have never fired a gun at a living creature. I guess I'm going to have to take up bowling.

So little time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #20)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:05 PM

29. No I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming most people don't want folks carrying guns in public --


whether the gun is a spear gun, flintlock, derringer, revolver, semi-auto, fully automatic (illegal), pellet gun, etc. Seems very simple to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #29)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:07 PM

31. Who gives a shit?

 

A lot of white people didn't want black people walking around in their neighborhoods.

A lot of men didn't want women to vote.

A lot of people don't want homosexuals walking around holding hands in public.

A lot of people don't want Muslims wearing traditional garb in public.


Bigotry and ignorance are poor excuses for public policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_biker (Reply #31)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:12 PM

34. Now, that's the attitude I'm familiar with. Guns are not the same as the Civil Rights or Gay Right


Movement. Your attempts at belittling those by comparing them to your poor, pitiful gun plight, is low. But, a common ploy by the NRA, T-Baggers and the few Democrats who think more guns in public are good for society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #34)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:17 PM

39. No you're right - they arent.

 

The right to keep and bear arms is in fact enumerated specifically as a protected right whereas the others are not. Additionally, the right to be armed is a basic HUMAN right, which places it a bit further up the scale than a mere CIVIL right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_biker (Reply #39)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:23 PM

44. Not true. Try reading the 2nd Amendment a little closer. Not sure where you come up with that


"human" rights stuff, but it's wrong too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #44)


Response to Post removed (Reply #51)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:53 PM

60. No it's not, read Justice Stevens' decent in Heller. You might actually learn something.


Here's a little bit for you:

". . . . . . The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. . . . . . ."


Hopefully, we'll see at least one less right wing member of the court during the next four years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #60)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:54 PM

62. Hm.....

 

One cherry-picked justices opinion seems to mean more to you than reams of legal opinion and history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_biker (Reply #62)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 07:13 PM

73. Actually four agreed. And, you don't see DC or Chicago changing anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #73)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 09:19 AM

88. All 9 agreed....

 

...it protects an individual right.

As far as DC and Chicago changing, as a matter of fact, they are. Chicago is spending millions of tax dollars and losing every case. DC? Same deal.

Just because the current rulers, I mean, elected officials, don't seem to understand the law applies to them to does not mean they are in the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #73)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 02:13 PM

107. As an aside to your claim....

 

It would appear Chicago at least just coughed up a check to the SAF over McDonald. Apparently they are starting to realize they lost....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117213608

Read that thread my friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #17)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 03:49 PM

27. Just because a lot of people have those misconceptions...

 

...doesn't magically make them right.

I don't care how many people think 2+2=5, its still wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_biker (Reply #27)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:06 PM

30. You are still misconceiving.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #30)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:09 PM

33. Well you're right about one thing....

 

yes, all those people are still misconceiving.


My rights do not hinge upon the comfort of the ignorant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_biker (Reply #33)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:41 PM

53. Believe it or not, there are lots of legal things that people just should not do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #53)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:42 PM

55. Whether you think they SHOULD do it or not....

 

....is irrelevant. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. The fact is, it is their right and when you advocate for the suppression of those rights, you are nothing but a bigot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_biker (Reply #55)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:47 PM

58. Yea, I'm "bigoted" against those who strap a gun or two on to venture out into public.


Now, if you are in a "well regulated militia" . . . . . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #58)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 08:08 PM

76. Describe to us what a "well regulated militia" is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #76)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 09:22 PM

79. Read Stevens' dissent. Here's link. He explains it so that even the "Gun Culture" can understand it.

Last edited Tue Feb 7, 2012, 07:52 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

I got a member to read it, and I swear he started clutching his gun about half way through. He was squirming by the end.

Thanks to a poster here for pointing that one out to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #79)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:43 PM

97. Since you rairly read anything that opposes your view, I would like it in your words.

Unless you are incapable of putting it into your simple format.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #79)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:46 PM

98. You may not realize this, but...

 

...the dissent means NOTHING from a legal perspective. Stevens can say whatever he wants, but what matters is the finding in the case. His reasons for disagreeing with the majority decision do not make case law. All that matters is the holding in the case.

Do you never tire of being wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_biker (Reply #98)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 02:03 PM

104. Sure it does - it might be cited in next case, and maybe there will be one less right winger

to decide in favor of more gun pollution in society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #79)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:28 PM

102. So you have a losers opinion - so what?

he is on the losing side for a reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #79)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 12:38 PM

216. I read it and it was because of the weak line of logic that Heller won the day.


They were resting on Miller and erroneous interpretations of Miller since Miller. This happens. The court has to recognize its mistakes -- otherwise we'd still be living under "separate but equal".

Look at what Miller asked said about the shotgun:
Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, “n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178.

If Miller hadn't up and died, showed up at SCOTUS, explained that short-barreled shotguns were used in the trenches of WWI, then he would have been a free man. That was the test SCOTUS wanted to apply. They say nothing about the shotgun actually being used in a militia action. Miller could have gone home with his shotgun to keep and bear lawfully.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #216)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 12:43 PM

217. More likely right wing Justices went along with NRA and similar groups' faulty reasoning.

That can change. Right wingers tend to stick together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #79)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 05:01 PM

243. Maybe the prevailing opinion would be more instructive

Unless you think dissenting opinions also matter in Roe v. Wade etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #30)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:33 PM

47. Incontheivable!

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Common Sense Party (Reply #47)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:43 PM

56. Don't think I've used that word. Maybe you can point it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #56)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 05:42 PM

67. "That" word is "misconceivng".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Common Sense Party (Reply #67)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 07:02 PM

72. Look it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Common Sense Party (Reply #67)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 02:05 PM

105. I guess you finally checked a dictionary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #105)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:53 PM

112. I do not think it means what YOU think it means, Vizzini.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Common Sense Party (Reply #112)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:06 PM

268. Sounds like a maternity ward.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #15)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 03:01 PM

22. I don't know the difference in guns. I don't really care if people want to own them. I hate guns

 

and will never want one in my house. Thats all I'm saying. You have a right to have one if you want it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 03:47 PM

25. Good for you.

 

Don't have one.

I have a bunch and plan to buy more. I also don't hunt so none of my guns are of any value for hunting.

As long as you confine your dislike of guns to your life and yours alone, we don't have a problem. The moment you try to tell me what I have to do to satisfy your fears, well, that's when the difficulty will start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_biker (Reply #25)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:14 PM

36. The only "fear" I see here is among those who have to surround themselves with guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #36)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:34 AM

83. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #83)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 05:14 PM

172. Hypocritical?

Do you not see it as paranoid to sleep with a knife under your pillow? How about never going to restaurants because you fear someone may shoot up the place. Is that not paranoid? Do you want to call out your fellow anti-gun poster on this or is it only gun owners who are scared and paranoid? Bias much?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DragonBorn (Reply #172)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 06:20 PM

177. lol

Just lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #36)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 06:02 PM

175. The same way one fears

 

Fires by buying an extinguisher, or wounds by having a first aid kit at hand.

Words that suggest that gun owners have an irrational fear, or crouch in paranoia, are self serving propaganda.

Some gun owners DO enjoy collecting. Some like hunting. Others like competition shooting, or the technical challenge.

Some like extra insurance...

To attempt to encapsulate gun ownership in such a simplistic venue as a 1-3 line retort in a public forum, is disingenuous at best.

Base fearful hatemongering at worst.

YOUR words are the ones exhibiting fear. Statements of blindness or unwillingness to admit the protective nature of most guns is just that.

Jurors note- not attacking poster, criticizing their words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_biker (Reply #25)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:21 PM

41. What is in your house that is so valuable that you have a need to have so many guns? I'm just

 

wondering. You can still kill a person who comes in your house without permission with one gun. Don't you think it is overkill?

I for one don't understand why people have this need to carry guns into church, bar, or public places. Why the hell do we have law enforcement? I don't go to restuarants anymore because some idiot doesn't like something after a few drinks then brings the gun out and starts shooting. Crazy. I know alot of posters disagree and it is your right. I would like to know when someone is carrying a gun for my own protection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #41)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:40 PM

52. Law enforcement often isn't able to prevent or stop crimes that are being committed. Their function

is more often to figure out who committed a crime--after the fact.

Those who carry hope they never have to use that tool, but they have it just in case they absolutely have to use it to defend themselves or their family members.

I have a concealed carry permit, but I rarely carry. I don't feel the need to most of the time--I live in an incredibly safe, low-crime rural area. I used to travel frequently for work and went into some nasty areas and I wished at the time that I had a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Common Sense Party (Reply #52)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:43 PM

57. Now that I can respect. Even though you have it you are wise enough to know you always don't need

 

it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #57)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 05:44 PM

68. But I'm also wise enough to bring it when I do think I might need it.

Again, that's rare in my case. My it's my right to choose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Common Sense Party (Reply #68)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 06:55 PM

71. Your the kind of person who should carry a gun. You sound level headed.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #41)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:48 PM

59. What is in my house that is so valuable?

 

My wife and my daughter.

I have multiple guns for multiple purposes. While a small pocket pistol is fine for concealed carry when I'm on the bike, a 12ga shotgun is much more effective for home defense - for example.

I only use one at a time of course, but they all have different purposes. I also have multiple TVs, multiple computers and a big honking pile of books. Is that overkill?

I carry guns into public places because criminals exist in public places.

We have law enforcement agencies to investigate crimes, arrest criminals and harass people who didn't dot all the i's and cross all the t's on paperwork. It is not now nor has it ever been the job of law enforcement to stop crime or protect anyone.

Sorry you're afraid to go into a restaurant because of an irrational fear. Can't help you with that.

Its none of your business WHAT I carry on my person. You can like to know all you want, but frankly you have no right or reason to. You have no problem being ignorant of what guns are used for, perhaps you can get used to being ignorant about who is carrying?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_biker (Reply #59)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 05:02 PM

63. Yep, you are exactly the kind of person I would fear in a establishment. You sound like a hot head.

 

I'll give you protecting your family. Anyone would feel that way. But things you have around your house can be replaced if you have the right type of insurance. Don't get me wrong. Every night I sleep with a big knife under my pillow and I have 3 dogs that bark like hell if someone tried to break in my house. I live in the rural area in nursery country. There is no one around my house. But I can tell you if the bastard wants something in my house that bad he can have it. I'll replace it with my insurance coverage. I have had tillers stold in my yard and even lawnmowers. Nothing is worth losing my life over things you can replace with the right insurance. I don't want anybody's blood on my hands. However, he or she comes in to my room all bets are off. I can defend myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #63)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 05:17 PM

65. You must be afraid of a lot...

 

I'm not a hot head - furthest thing from it. However, I have no tolerance for those who intentionally remain ignorant and have the audacity to question my judgement on an issue on which I've taken the time to educate myself.

Hold whatever feelings you wish. Do not make any assumptions about me or anyone else - especially when it comes to something you admittedly fear and know next to nothing about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_biker (Reply #65)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 02:29 PM

109. She didn't say you were a hot head. You just sound like one.

You seem very afraid of what others think about your behavior. You think that it takes audacity to question the judgement of someone who has a gun for every occasion. Meanwhile, you tell others to "not make assumptions about you". What do you think these assumptions are based on?
You have stated that you own many guns, that you are intolerant and nobody should question your judgement. Seems pretty clear to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #109)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:05 PM

111. Well that last sentence is a pretty clear bastardization of what I actually said...

 

Conjecture is so much easier than facts, isn't it?

Now, go back and read what I actually did say, recognize where you are wrong, and offer an apology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_biker (Reply #111)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 07:21 PM

134. You must be kidding

"I have no tolerance for those who intentionally remain ignorant and have the audacity to question my judgement on an issue on which I've taken the time to educate myself. "
Your intolerance is only surpassed by your arrogance. How dare anyone question your judgement? Guess what. Many people question the judgement of someone who hordes guns so he can have one for every occasion. That's the king of guy we do want to know about, especially if he's brought his special restaurant gun with him to dinner.

You accuse those who question your lack of judgement of being irrationally afraid. No, there is nothing irrational about fear of guns and those who like to carry them. Those who have one for every occasion are the ones with irrational fears, along with a grandiose sense of their own abilities.

Now why don't you apologize to Southernyankeebelle for insulting her integrity and accusing her of willful ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #134)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 02:11 AM

149. I guess you need this spelled out for you.

 

Or at the very least, it needs to be explained for everyone else, so they don't buy into your mischaracterization (accidental or deliberate, people can and will make up their own minds) of what that poster actually said.

I'll simplify for you, so follow along:

""I have no tolerance for those who intentionally remain ignorant and have the audacity to question my judgement on an issue on which I've taken the time to educate myself. "


And you paint that sentence as "How dare anyone question your judgement?".


Now, you can admit that it was wrong, and you were wrong.

Try it. It doesn't hurt, really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #149)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 11:38 AM

156. You really think it needed explaining?

Actually I think we all got perfectly the first time.
Your biker buddy inferred that people like Southernyankeebelle, who are afraid to be around hotheads with guns, "intentionally remain ignorant". How arrogant and condescending is that? Then he goes on to to say how intolerant he is of anyone who might question his judgement on an issue he has taken time to "educate" himself on.
Hey, you got new friend, Beevul. Just the kind of guy you want to have sitting in the restaurant with you. Mr. Friendly with a gun for "every occasion".

BTW, I'm not always right, but this time I have no doubt about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #156)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 12:29 PM

157. So let me get this straight....

 

I have taken the time to educate myself quite thoroughly on an issue which is quite complex and technical. Others, refuse to learn a damn thing about it and prefer to stick to uninformed emotional responses as a substitute for intelligent discussion.

I make it very clear that I have no tolerance for those who intentionally (that is a very important word by the way) choose to remain uninformed and then question my informed judgement.

Tell us all please, what EXACTLY is wrong with this?

Do you truly believe uninformed emotions have some moral or ethical high ground over a reasoned and educated decision?

Oooh - lets try this mindset on a different topic, shall we?

A physician, after a decade or more of study, mountains of research to support his position, and empirical facts to prove the existence of a certain disease is told by a completely uninformed religious fundie that what is really causing the sickness is a demon and that the doctor is simply just a hothead for telling the fundie he has no tolerance for people who refuse to learn facts and then have the audacity to question his medical judgement.

Now, with that scenario in mind, exactly where is the doctor in the wrong?

What I said, to put it a different way, is I have no tolerance for people who don't know what they are talking about telling me I am wrong on something about which I am extremely well educated.

This isnt arrogance by any means. Ignorance is not something of which to be proud, and intentional ignorance is something of which one should be ashamed.

I'm truly sorry you are apparently of the belief that uninformed emotions are equal or superior to actual facts, but that is your problem. Since you feel so strongly about that, then perhaps you could recommend a good faith healer? After all, their opinions are just as valid as those of the doctors at the Mayo clinic...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_biker (Reply #157)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 12:43 PM

158. And what exactly do you claim to be educated about?

Using the right gun for each occasion? To suggest that your opinion of yourself is somewhat overblown would be the understatement of the year.

"I have no tolerance for people who don't know what they are talking about telling me I am wrong on something about which I am extremely well educated. "
That's a heck of an attitude to strut around with. Enjoy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #158)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 01:34 PM

160. I have no problem with it.

 

Perhaps when you sit back and recognize the meaning of what is said, you'll realize I am not really any different than most - just a lot less concerned about hurting someone's feelings when I tell them they are wrong.

The funny part is, you look like a complete fool for totally distorting my statement and failing to understand it - and you don't even realize why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_biker (Reply #160)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 02:12 PM

161. "Funny part?" Really?

Now I look like a "complete fool"? Keep handing out those compliments, don't you?
Your statements don't need distorting. You are quite up front with your judgmentalism.
You may be a hot head, but at least, you are honest.
You say you are not really any different than most. Really? Do you honestly think that most people have a gun for every occasion? Do you think that most people consider knowing which gun to use in any situation demonstrates some depth of education? Apparently you equate that knowledge with that of a doctor at the Mayo clinic. A depth of pomposity, perhaps?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #161)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 02:40 PM

162. Yeah - really.

 

Yes, you do rather look foolish. Yes, I am quite judgmental of people who believe their ignorant, emotionally driven comments hold the same weight as the reasoned explanations of those who know what their talking about.

I never said I have a gun for every occasion. I simply said I have a variety of them for different purposes. Nothing wrong with that. Right tool for the right job and all that. After all, a hammer is pretty useless when you need to crimp some wires.

I would think that yes, people would believe that knowing which type of gun is best suited to a particular use does demonstrate knowledge of the topic. Only someone who knows nothing about firearms would believe a .22lr bolt action rifle is a good idea for concealed carry in the summer.

No, I never said anything which equated that knowledge with that of a doctor at the Mayo clinic. Far from it. If you read what I said and actually understood it, rather than drawing false equivalencies, you would likely have recognized the true parallel was in the uninformed fundie questioning a physician's advice - not the equation of firearms knowledge to medical knowledge.

There is no pomposity, at least on my end. Your side, however, is showing an incredible degree of poutrage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #161)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 02:10 AM

205. Yeah, you do.

You hopped into a subthread to mischaracterize a poster and insult them, so yeah. That's exactly what you look like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #205)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 04:34 PM

223. Nah! I think I've got him pegged.

Not much there to mischaracterize. He's pretty up front about his attitude towards those who don't share his passion for guns.

"I have a bunch and plan to buy more. I also don't hunt so none of my guns are of any value for hunting.

As long as you confine your dislike of guns to your life and yours alone, we don't have a problem. The moment you try to tell me what I have to do to satisfy your fears, well, that's when the difficulty will start."


Gotta love that last sentence. Real classy. So comforting and reassuring to know we have guys like that exercising their constitutional rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #223)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 07:32 PM

226. Fortunately...

...this poster is no longer with us, again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #226)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 10:00 PM

231. Quelle surprise!

Dirty Harry on a Harley is no longer here? How sad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #156)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 02:57 PM

163. its YOU that need correcting here, not him.

 

"Your biker buddy inferred that people like Southernyankeebelle, who are afraid to be around hotheads with guns, "intentionally remain ignorant"."

Good grief, he did not. He made the statement, and implied that one single entity hereabouts might fit it.

He said this:

""I have no tolerance for those who intentionally remain ignorant and have the audacity to question my judgement on an issue on which I've taken the time to educate myself. "

Gee, lets look upthread, and see how that might apply, shall we?


" I don't know the difference in guns. I don't really care if people want to own them. I hate guns"

Just so theres no doubt there, thats an admission of ignorance. And hatred. It can be reasonable concuded from those statements, that the original poster of that statement is both ignorant about guns - since that much was admitted - and that that poster will most likely remain so, due to the hatred also admitted.

And heres a statement demonstrating said ignorance:

" I don't see what UZIs do for hunting animals."


"Then he goes on to to say how intolerant he is of anyone who might question his judgement on an issue he has taken time to "educate" himself on."

Uh, no. Thats false, and I very much doubt you're unaware of it. He gave multiple qualifications to his statement, which you seem to be deliberately ignoring, in an effort to make like he said something which he in fact did not. That or you never mastered reading beyond the third grade level. Giving you the benefit of the doubt for the moment, and assuming no ill intent on your part:

He did not make a statement which described two different groups of people, "those who intentionally remain ignorant" being one, and those "have the audacity to question my judgement on an issue on which I've taken the time to educate myself" being the other.

Not by ANY reasonable use of the english language did he do so.


He described ONE singular type of individual with the following qualifications - those who:

intentionally remain ignorant and have the audacity to question my judgement on an issue on which I've taken the time to educate myself.


"BTW, I'm not always right, but this time I have no doubt about it."

Uh huh. In what reality does doubling down on being wrong equate to being right?

And speaking of ignorance...

You know, I can understand how and why Southernyankeebelle might be ignorant of guns. That poster had a bad experience with them, hates them, yadda yadda yadda. Thats fine, I have no issue with it.

Its not like guns are something taught in schools...like reading comprehension and usage of the english language.

On that note, first, whats your excuse? Deliberate mischaracterization of 'bikers words due to ideological bent on the gun issue, or simple ignorance of the english language?

If you really ARE forthright, honest, and interested in good faith in any way shape size or form, you'll clear that up.

Second, in either case, you really should appologize, because you ARE wrong, you DID say that another poster said something, which that poster did not at all say.


Like I said, Try it. It doesn't hurt, really. Its what grown ups and people who expect to be treated as such, do when they're wrong and have made a mistake, deliberately, or through ignorance.


I would hope such things rate higher than your personal ideology on the gun issue, or your pride.

If not, well, hey, its your credibility...






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #163)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 08:00 PM

244. I guess I was right. Oops!

You've been here a long time Beevul. I thought you might be more discerning by now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #244)

Sat Feb 11, 2012, 10:19 AM

257. Discerning about what?

 

"I thought you might be more discerning by now."

Discerning about what?

Whether the guy was a troll or not?

Not in my job description.


Whether he was a troll or not, someone put words in his mouth, and claimed he said things that he in fact did not say.

Someone from your side of the issue no less.


Got anything to say about what part of doing so qualifies as "good faith", or if doing so is in any way proper?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #257)

Sat Feb 11, 2012, 02:24 PM

258. Nobody put words in his mouth and you know it.

But feel free to keep defending wingnuts if that is part of your "job description".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #258)

Sat Feb 11, 2012, 08:20 PM

259. All you have to do is scroll up and look...

 

All you have to do is scroll up and look, with an objective eye, of course.

Objective in this case, being defined as setting ones own idology on the gun issue aside, and actually reading the words, and understanding the meaning they were meant to convey, rather than ascribing to them, something that - at face value - they do not mean, through ignorance, or deliberateness.

"But feel free to keep defending wingnuts if that is part of your "job description"."

First, I don't know that the guy was a wingnut.

Second, pointing it out when someone does something, such as misrepresenting the clearly written words of another, twisting those words into meaning something other than what they most clearly and obviously meant, is NOT defending anyone.

It does serve as a handy reference when certain posters make a habit of it.

Or support it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #259)

Sat Feb 11, 2012, 09:58 PM

260. I have read all his posts several times.

If you don't see him as a wingnut I can't help you. Sorry. Maybe you share his views. I don't want to discuss him further. He's gone and good riddance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #260)

Sun Feb 12, 2012, 02:48 AM

261. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #260)

Sun Feb 12, 2012, 12:23 PM

262. My intention was never to discuss him, in the first place.

 

Its not about him.

Its about the predeliction of certain posters hereabouts, to misrepresent things that others say, regardless of whether those others are honest to goodness Dems, wing nuts, independents, or anywhere in the spectrum.

I assume thats what you'd rather not discuss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #134)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 09:32 AM

154. Beevul was kind enough to explain the grammar to you

 

Now, I await your apology.

Not to sound like an ass or anything, but things like this are why accurate grammar is very critical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #109)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 04:56 PM

123. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #63)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 08:29 AM

153. Blood spilled by a knife is of the same composition as blood spilled by a bullet.

 

Do you believe a gun owner by nature desires to harm someone stealing his/her possessions, that defense of property is the primary interest rather than the defense of person? If used for self defense, whether knife or gun the end result is similar. In other words, you have blood on your hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #63)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 04:31 PM

167. Gun owners are paranoid?

I hope this doesn't constitute a personal attack but I've constantly seen pro-gun posters and CCW advocates called paranoid and scared, yet here we have a poster who doesn't go into restaurants anymore because she thinks someone is going to shoot up the place and she sleeps with a big knife under her pillow every night.

Anyone of the pro gun control crowd who so often calls firearm advocates scared and paranoid want to call her paranoid or scared? I don't think of my firearms 90% of the time but this poster seems to think they need to sleep with a knife every night. I'd call that paranoid or is this different in some way that I'm missing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DragonBorn (Reply #167)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 04:57 PM

171. No, no, you don't understand....

 

It is the paranoia of gun owners that causes her to avoid restaurants and sleep with a knife under her pillow every night.

If we would only give up our firearms and stop violating people's right not to be scared....


Gun owners are the new second class citizen. It is perfectly OK to insult us, discriminate against us, question our parentage, etc... No different than smokers in the 90s or ethnic groups throughout history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #41)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 02:17 PM

108. A few points:

 

"What is in your house that is so valuable that you have a need to have so many guns? <snip> You can still kill a person who comes in your house without permission with one gun. Don't you think it is overkill?"

My guns are not for "killing". Some are for defense. (Some guns are better for some scenarios than others. You don't generally use only one knife for all knife applications, do you?) Some are for sporting purposes, same reason, different applications require different configurations/styles of firearm.


"Why the hell do we have law enforcement?"

To clean up and investigate after a crime, and try to track down the criminal(s). They really aren't in a position to offer pre-emptive security. They almost never are on-scene when a crime begins, and usually not until after it ends. Note that this isn't a criticism of police, it's an acknowedgement of reality, statistics and physics.


"I don't go to restuarants anymore because some idiot doesn't like something after a few drinks then brings the gun out and starts shooting."

And this happens how often? Statistically, you're in far greater danger of a car wreck going to/from said restaurant. "Crazy", eh?


"I would like to know when someone is carrying a gun for my own protection."

Why? Those carrying with lawful intent aren't a danger to you, and those carrying with criminal intent aren't going to tell you. Logic fail....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #41)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 12:48 AM

147. What is in your house that is so valuable that you have a need to have so many guns?

The lives of my family.
I carry to church because crazy people have shot up churches before. I don't go to the bars unless I'm buying food or pick up a six pack.
I own multiple guns for multiple purposes. One pistol I carry on duty, another my fiance keeps around in the house, a shotgun for clay pigeons, and the rifles just because they are so much fun to shoot paper with.

Law enforcement has no legal obligation to protect you. The courts have held that ruling many times. You are the only person you can rely on for your protection. The police generally get there to take a statement on what happened to you. Or draw the chalk line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #41)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 06:11 PM

176. I can't ascribe my opinions

 

To anyone else.

The reason I believe it's important is because the overwhelming majority of murders are commited by thugs with no regard to life other than their own.

And, for me, we are the bosses of this nation. Law enforcement officers do a fine job. But the difference between a 3-8 minute police response time, and a .03 second bullet response time may mean the difference between life and death for me, my friends, or the people I love.

I'm not trying to convince you. I respect your opinions. If someone is carrying a gun, the long odds are that it would be used to protect you rather than commit a crime against you. If it's used at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 11:22 AM

2. why would this be a bad thing?

 

the bastardization of the 2nd amendment by the activist conservative members of the supreme court has made it necessary to take extreme actions to protect our citizens from the death merchants and their supporters.

There is not now nor has there ever been a Constitutionally protected right of gun ownership outside of the construct of a well regulated militia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 12:06 PM

7. Oh reality...

 

seems to think differently. What you call a bastardization, I would call getting back to a common sense interpretation. Funny to watch the anti-gun folks slip down the slippery slope called freedom .


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 01:35 PM

13. Problems with your post...

The "bastardization of the 2nd amendment" is routinely committed by gun-controller/prohibitionists. Your proscriptive expressions about the "militia clause" have been refuted so many times it is like wack-a-mole: routinely rebutted. Even Laurence Tribe, once the great poo-bah of the militia clause, has since recanted his previous stands, and now sees the Second as an individual right to keep and bear arms. In other words, the leading flag-bearer of controller/prohibitionists has "gone over."

I'll let your words stand: "...has made it necessary to take extreme actions to protect our citizens from the death merchants and their supporters." Your's is the quintessential expression of an EXTREMIST. We now have your admission to that.

Other problems: The RKBA is also protected from state restrictions by the 14th Amendment. Please review. Further, you have given us no reason why our citizens need protection beyond current law enforcement measures and law; in other words, restriction of firearms (apparently you don't really care what kind) has not been linked to violent crime.

I don't know what you mean by "death merchants and their supporters" except as a thinly-veiled way to smear your fellow progressives on DU. Correct me if I am wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 01:39 PM

16. All 9 justices thought differently.

 

the bastardization of the 2nd amendment by the activist conservative members of the supreme court has made it necessary to take extreme actions to protect our citizens from the death merchants and their supporters.

All nine justices agreed that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right irrespective of membership in a militia. Even President Obama agrees on this point.

There is not now nor has there ever been a Constitutionally protected right of gun ownership outside of the construct of a well regulated militia.

So you're saying that a citizen could keep a firearm and ammunition in his home for military service but would not be allowed to use it to defend himself, his home, or his family?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:16 PM

38. +10000. Maybe when the makeup of the Supreme Court changes, those 5/4 rulings will turn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #38)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 09:52 AM

155. Keep telling yourself that....

 

While you're waiting, do yourself a favor and see how many 5/4 decisions the court has overturned. Additionally, take the time to figure out what possible case could be brought. I am utterly unable to conceive of a situation in which case law which expands individual rights could be overturned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 08:21 PM

78. Please discribe to us what a "well regulated militia" consists of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 12:15 PM

8. I'm a gun owner, but I keep an open mind on some gun control issues.

I often consider that an AR-15 has a much different purpose on a Montana ranch where an owner may have to ride miles of desolate fence on any given workday, compared to someone cruising the streets of Brooklyn.

I don't even think it's debatable, beyond collector value, that in many heavily populated urban and residential states some weapons go well beyond self protection and fall into criminal intent status. The MAC-10 for instance, would be a very odd choice for an early morning jog through suburbia, and an AK-47 seems laughably unnecessary for a trip to the store in Youngstown, regardless of the high crime rate. This is what Glocks and Colt Combat Commanders were designed for.

Again, I don't like being told I can't own certain guns because I'm a law abiding citizen most of the time, but many assault weapons were never built for self protection and are already conditionally banned with common sense. Tripod mounted .30cal machine guns in the bed of a pickup truck and shoulder fired rocket launchers come to mind immediately, but while I have friends who would tell me they really do need such weapons, the argument for personal self defense is weak.

I say all one needs within reason is enough firepower to protect themselves, as no one has a right or duty to patrol the streets watching out for others without a badge. People who claim they need rapid fire high power assault rifles to keep the govt at bay or protect their home are deluding themselves as to what they're up against.

I have one friend in this small town who owns such weapons and stockpiles ammo by the thousands. I often remind him that he's only allowed to kill one person before the police come and ask questions. When someone shoots an intruder on their property, other would-be trespassers will normally flee the scene and stay away. He seems to think bodies will stack up like so much cordwood in his front yard as wave after wave continue the attack.

When I ask him why he expects such a prolonged and concentrated attack at his front door in particular, he points out that he's afraid criminals will learn he has an arsenal of expensive guns and come to steal them. He needs his guns to protect his guns from criminals.

I don't mind difference of opinion and am not too thin skinned for debate, but keep in mind I'm not one of those here who are so naive they expect all guns to be melted into T-Fal cookware and doorstops. I own several beautiful handguns that I never expect to give up. My 1908 .380 Hammerless Pocket Model Colt auto is my absolute favorite, and beyond collector value serves me well as a self defense weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnnyRingo (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 12:35 PM

10. If I were riding fence in Wyoming or Montana

I would still take a good lever action or M-1 carbine over an AR. Sure the AR is easy to field strip, but.......
Most likely I would have a Bearcat or PMR-30.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnnyRingo (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 01:25 PM

12. All thay ammo is like money in the bank.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnnyRingo (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 01:37 PM

14. The purpose of such firearms.

 

The purpose of the second amendment was to keep military-grade small arms in the hands of the citizens. One of the primary reasons for this was to eliminate or at least be able to counter a federal standing army.

We don't own civilian variants of the M16 o AK47 necessarily for personal self-defense. They are kept in case of the need to counter federal military power.

A more likely need for them, however, is in the event of a breakdown of society, such as happened during the aftermath of Katrina, or during past riots we have seen, or in the aftermath of a terrorist attack.

You won't want to be defending your home and neighborhood with a handgun in that eventuality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #14)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 02:43 PM

21. Depends on how one defines "self defense".

I consider a radius of about 30 yards as a zone of personal defense. Beyond that range one is more likely to be on the offense. People forget the option to retreat to safe haven and assume they'll take up a position for advancement, laying down cover fire and requiring long range effectiveness and unlimited firepower.

As I pointed out earlier, if one believes a semi-auto high power rifle will keep a renegade government at bay, they should look around at their neighbors as they munch popcorn and watch as military forces surround their home position with armored personel carriers and gas launchers. Even in a wild Hollywood scenario where bands of well armed citizens hope to take over or repulse the federal government with personal firearms, it's a fantasy that can live only in the mind of an armchair commando.

If society comes down to our young soldiers moving in to kill civilians, one has to wonder why they're following such radical martial orders. I could tell those in the Tea Party for instance, that perhaps the government isn't really the problem, and maybe they should wonder if they themselves aren't indeed criminals trying to impose their will on the rest of us in the name of "freedom".

As for playing the part of vigilante justice in the event of disaster or terror attack, no one is asking or expecting private citizens to protect me or my neighborhood from anyone. Take care of yourself. Maybe it's the libertarian in me, but the last thing I'd want is some self appointed guardian of justice telling me he's the new enforcer of martial law in my town. Don't come armed to my house or you may find out why I have handguns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnnyRingo (Reply #21)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 03:21 PM

23. On high powered rifles.

 

As I pointed out earlier, if one believes a semi-auto high power rifle will keep a renegade government at bay, they should look around at their neighbors as they munch popcorn and watch as military forces surround their home position with armored personel carriers and gas launchers. Even in a wild Hollywood scenario where bands of well armed citizens hope to take over or repulse the federal government with personal firearms, it's a fantasy that can live only in the mind of an armchair commando.

If you are talking about one single person or a small group of people, you are correct. I'm talking about a general insurrection. We've seen how well primitive insurgencies can hold out against the United States in places like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In the first two, we were fought until we gave up, as will likely be the case in Afghanistan also. And this was on a place that did not directly wreak havoc on our own soil, with all the economic disasters that would entail.

As for playing the part of vigilante justice in the event of disaster or terror attack, no one is asking or expecting private citizens to protect me or my neighborhood from anyone. Take care of yourself. Maybe it's the libertarian in me, but the last thing I'd want is some self appointed guardian of justice telling me he's the new enforcer of martial law in my town. Don't come armed to my house or you may find out why I have handguns.

I was remembering the Korean storekeepers who defended their stores during the LA riots:



In my own situation, I live in a subdivision where I am friends with other firearm enthusiasts who live here. While in a disaster it would undoubtedly be every man for himself, I like to think that a group of neighbors could band together to protect their neighborhood collectively. If not, I'll make do with trying to protect my home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #23)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:08 PM

32. "Renegade government?" Man if they ever require a psychological evualtion before one can own a gun,


you guys are in trouble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #32)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:23 PM

45. His words, not mine.

 

Uh, I was quoting JohnnyRingo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #23)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:41 AM

84. No Korean store owner I've ever seen...

...in LA or Honolulu has ever needed an AR-15 to defend their person or their property. Easy to push the pro-gun argument from the comfort of a "subdivision" - it gets a bit harder when you live in the big city. God Bless the Suburbanites of America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #84)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 10:41 AM

93. Congratulations- You've completed the Fallacy of Kael trifecta:

The erroneous belief that ones' experiences and observations are universal. Named after film critic Pauline Kael's dismayed reaction to Richard Nixon's reelection victory in 1972: "But everyone I know voted for McGovern!"

Or was that a "No true Korean shop owner..."?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #93)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 04:12 PM

116. Thank you for discounting...

...the validity of the argument of personal experience, a philosophical notion that's been concluded to be useful by over 3000 years of Western philosophers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #116)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 04:45 PM

117. The fact that you don't personally know anyone...

 

...who does something does not mean nobody does. Do you really not understand that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_biker (Reply #117)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 04:50 PM

120. And you have no idea how many Korean owned liquor stores...

...I've been into. Do you really not understand that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #120)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 05:08 PM

125. Have you been into ALL of them?

And in the middle of a riot?

You have no idea what they've got behind the counter. In the footage I saw from the LA riots, it wasn't AR-15s; it was Mini-14s. Same basic functionality, different appearance and ergonomics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #125)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 05:13 PM

126. Have you been into ALL of them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #126)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 02:05 AM

148. No, but I'm not the one making claims.

Did you miss that pertinent fact?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #148)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 02:25 AM

151. I only claimed my personal experience.

Are you telling me I missed the AK underneath the counter of all those Korean marts I've been in? That my perceptive senses are deceitful?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #151)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 08:17 AM

152. Do you personally search Korean mart you enter...

 

for a firearm? If not, how do you know there was NOT an AK varient stored somewhere?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #152)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 01:29 PM

159. Damn right.

I have X-ray vision. Hope that helped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #159)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 03:54 PM

164. Quite a bit, the answer is no then. Now, did you ask...

 

every Korean shop owner you have encountered if he/she needed, or felt as thought he/she needed, and AR15 for defense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #164)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 04:19 PM

165. No. Did you?

What I do know is that in most of the one's I've been in there isn't enough space behind the counter to hide such a large weapon.

How many AK-toting Korean liquor mart store owners have you seen? I'm betting not a single one. Therefore, based on both our experiences most Korean liquor mart store owners likely don't feel they need an AK to defend their life and property.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #165)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 04:26 PM

166. So based upon...

 

...your admittedly poor actual knowlege of firearms, you have concluded that in every shop you've entered, there is not enough space behind the counter, and apparently the entire store, to place (remember, it need not actually be hidden - just hidden from view of the customer) an item which is under 3' long, 1' deep and 3" wide? Really?

Do you want to rethink just how stupid that sounds?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_biker (Reply #166)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 02:26 AM

206. This poster is no longer with us. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #165)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 04:36 PM

168. Pistols?

It doesn't take much space to hide a pistol. Did you ask them about that or do handguns not bother you as much as rifles? And some Ak's with folding stocks take up very little room. Unless you checked behind the counter or asked them you would never know they had a firearm. Even if you did ask them, they might lie to you. I wouldn't tell a random person about my stores security measures unless they were a friend of mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #165)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 06:38 PM

178. ?



I wonder where they hid such large weapons?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #178)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 06:54 PM

179. At home...

...how many store owners have you seen sporting an assault rifle under every day conditions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #179)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 07:17 PM

180. What are you talking about "at home"?

That photograph is from a Los Angeles Times article about Korean store merchants defending their stores and lives during the 1992 riots; after the Los Angeles police department abandoned their neighborhood for four days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #180)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 07:24 PM

181. One photo is not a trend.

Do you see Korean dudes standing on roofs with guns everyday? No. And honestly IMHO those guys are a little bit

Would you like me to start posting iconic photos of gun violence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #181)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 08:07 PM

182. since the cops retreated and left them to fend for themselves

no I would not call that crazy at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #182)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 08:11 PM

183. Think it through.

So they're going to shoot down half a dozen looters in the street? And make it out of the hood alive?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #183)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 08:15 PM

185. IIRC

although I was not in the country at the time, I remember reading that there was a lot of anti Korean racism going on. Their chances of making it out of the place unarmed was about the same or worse. Chances are, they lived there too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #185)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 08:49 PM

189. There was...

...but I've never found a single account of guys like this actually needing to shoot anyone. Risking your life over property in a situation like that really just isn't all that smart. Also, the racism cut both ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #181)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 08:14 PM

184. To quote you...

"No Korean store owner I've ever seen in LA or Honolulu has ever needed an AR-15 to defend their person or their property"

Then when you are presented with information you call those men crazy for defending themselves against large groups of rioters who were specifically targeting them to harm them and destroy their stores.

Nothing bad was happening in Koreatown... Just media hype?

What the hell were they supposed to do when the police, fire department and ambulance services completely abandoned them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #184)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 08:17 PM

187. Okay. Maybe I should have just cautioned unless in a riot situation.

This is a silly argument. Show me your average Korean store owner going to work *on the average day* I'll stop thinking you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. I've never read any report of any of those guys actually needing to pull the trigger in 1992. Risking your life over a store is stupid.

Also, L.A. has made a lot of progress since 1992

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #187)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 08:33 PM

188. Keep in mind

These people were average Koreans going to work on an average day. By night time that same day they had to set up defensive perimeters.

They did indeed need to pull their triggers... Unlike the rioters however, they were mostly shooting at the ground or in the air to ward off the groups of rioters.

By the end of the riot more than 30 people were killed. You should read more about the riots. It was a very scary ordeal for everyone involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #188)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 08:58 PM

191. I've read about the riots...

http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/soc220/Lectures220/AfricanAmericans/LA%20Riot%201992%20Deaths.htm

And no one needed an AK to protect themselves...

In response to this post, the Korean predicts that there will be a lot of outraged gun advocates on the comment board -- over the years, the Korean found that the only rivals of gun advocates in terms of zealotry are anti-dog meat people and fan death deniers. The Korean welcomes them, as he welcomes all comers as long as they keep up with the Comments Policy. (For the record: The Korean respects the Second Amendment. But just like the freedoms guaranteed in other parts of the Bill of Rights are not unlimited, he believes that there should be sensible regulations on firearms, such as license and registration, and steep penalties for illegal sales.) But the Korean will conclude by addressing one of the common rejoinders, because he is yet to see it forcefully rejected in the public discourse about this issue.

Gun advocates frequently argue: "Who cares if the looters get killed? They are looters! They deserve it, and we have a right to defend ourselves!"

The lack of civilized mindset in this statement is astounding. The looters deserve prison time and payment of restitution. But they plainly do not deserve to die. It is one of the most fundamental principles of justice that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime. We don't cut off the hands of the thieves, and we don't break every part of the body of a murderer on a breaking wheel, because such punishments are deemed wildly disproportionate to the crimes in a civilized society. Our nation's constitution, in the Bill of Rights, guarantees that punishment will be proportionate to the crime. Our nation's law clearly states that people who commit certain types of crime under certain circumstances deserve to die, and looting is not one of those crimes. The law is also clear that self-defense should be proportional to the perceived threat. Deadly force can only be used against a deadly threat -- unless the looter also looks like he is trying to kill you, you cannot try to kill the looter either. Not even the police is allowed to brutalize a suspect, even though the suspect might be clearly in the middle of committing a crime. That is the law, and that is also justice.

The idea that we should be allowed to kill whoever remotely threatens us is repugnant to law and order. When people say they want to be able to shoot down the looters, what they really want is not law and order. What they truly want is anarchy, a war of all against all, and the biggest guns with which to survive that war.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2011/08/guns-and-riots.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #191)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 09:28 PM

194. Ok... So the model of "assault weapon" makes a difference?

Personally I'd prefer an AR 15 or Mini 14 which were used. Mainly for the availability of the ammunition.

Over 30 dead, over 2000 injured (223 critical), 7,001 fires set and 1,400 structures destroyed. I guess these peaceful rioters were just misunderstood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #194)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 09:41 PM

195. Really...

I never said "peaceful rioters" - I said it is stupid to risk your life over a store. I also said I don't see any convenient store owners sporting assault rifles behind the counter. Done with this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #195)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 12:13 PM

215. You really dont understand

These aren't just stores, their those persons livelihood, they own and run the stores it's not some large corporation that can absorb such a loss . That may be their entire families income. What are they to do when their entire stores inventory and the building is burned down? Simply rebuild at great cost to them or just starve. Are you willing to support an entire family who has no source of income? Are the rights of looters more important that lawful citizens defending their property?

I also said I don't see any convenient store owners sporting assault rifles behind the counter.

Just because you don't see them doesn't mean their not there. Your experiences are not the end all be all example for everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DragonBorn (Reply #215)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 01:09 PM

219. "Just because you don't see them doesn't mean their not there."

So you've seen them?

Is a store worth your life?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #219)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 05:02 PM

224. Try responding to the question

Here I'll copy and paste it for you.

These aren't just stores, their those persons livelihood, they own and run the stores it's not some large corporation that can absorb such a loss . That may be their entire families income. What are they to do when their entire stores inventory and the building is burned down? Simply rebuild at great cost to them or just starve. Are you willing to support an entire family who has no source of income?

Why don't you try responding to that and then I'll respond to your questions.

So you've seen them?
Well I don't live in L.A. so I can't say first hand that I've seen the Korean shop owners your referring to but if you look above there's a picture posted for you of that exact situation. I have seen cab drivers who carried pistols, and shot with store owners who carried their own pistols, but no I can't say I've seen in their stores because I don't ask to, I always figured that would be a bit to intrusive of a question. Sort of like someone asking me where I keep the safe in my house. Its none of that persons business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DragonBorn (Reply #224)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 06:36 PM

225. How many of those people kept assault rifles in their store?

I think you have to ask yourself if having the chance to rebuild is more important than possibly having no chance at all. That's all I'm saying. Why do you think there are so many refugees from conflicts in the world? Many people don't think property is worth their lives.

I should point out that in most stores you can get some look at the counter area.

Where are you from? I'm from L.A. Don't tell me about where I live. I don't see small store owners using assault rifles to defend their businesses on your average day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #165)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 10:25 PM

197. What then is your claim in post #84 based on?

 

"No Korean store owner I've ever seen...in LA or Honolulu has ever needed an AR-15 to defend their person or their property"

If you haven't asked, how do you know this?

"How many AK-toting Korean liquor mart store owners have you seen? I'm betting not a single one. Therefore, based on both our experiences most Korean liquor mart store owners likely don't feel they need an AK to defend their life and property.

As I haven't commented on my experience, why would you presume to know it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #197)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 10:28 PM

199. My personal experience and reasoning ability. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #199)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 10:45 PM

202. Let's try again, shall we?

 

"No Korean store owner I've ever seen...in LA or Honolulu has ever needed an AR-15 to defend their person or their property"

Have you sampled Korean store owners? What data have you collected which leads to this conclusion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #202)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 11:57 PM

204. How about you try again...

Can you prove that my personal observation is incorrect, that my eyes are somehow deceiving me when I compute that there isn't space behind the counter for an assault rifle?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #204)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 07:48 AM

208. Once again did you ASK every Korean store owner...

 

you have encountered in Honolulu or LA whether or he/she has needed, or feels the need, for an AR-15?

"No Korean store owner I've ever seen...in LA or Honolulu has ever needed an AR-15 to defend their person or their property"

What data did you collect from them to lead to this conclusion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #204)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 08:17 AM

209. In other words, you have no data from the persons in question to back you original statement

 

Okay, I think we can now dismiss this statement as hyperbole:

"No Korean store owner I've ever seen...in LA or Honolulu has ever needed an AR-15 to defend their person or their property"

Moving on...

"Can you prove that my personal observation is incorrect, that my eyes are somehow deceiving me when I compute that there isn't space behind the counter for an assault rifle?

Questions:

1. I may be missing something, but is it codified that any and all firearms stored in a business establishment located within the municipalities you have specified MUST be stored behind the counter?

2. Are all store counters in existance of exactly the same dimensions?

3. Are all "assault rifles" of the same dimensions as well?

In regard to your question, my experience suggests that you are incorrect. The counter of the Korean market I frequented in my former home town spanned nearly half the width of the store space. A Vietnamese market I visited a few weeks ago in my current location also has a counter large enough to easily conceal an "assault rifle".


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #120)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 05:35 PM

129. Oh I never pretended to.

 

I also do not pretend my personal knowledge is the final authority.

It is a documented fact that people DID use AKs and ARs to defend their homes and stores in the LA riots. You can deny it all you want, but the fact remains.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #116)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 04:54 PM

122. Personal experiences are, by definition, personal. Not universal.

I'll give you another (non-gun) example: Way back in the Miocene Era, I owned a Chevy Cavalier- one of the dreaded GM J-cars,
widely and justly derided as unreliable pieces of shit. I needed wheels and it was all I could afford.

Yet the one that I had must have been blessed by the spirits of Gaston Chevrolet and William Crapo Durant as it was quite reliable.
However, I knew very well that most of them were indeed no better than a Yugo and did not discount other owners' accounts of craptacularity just
because my experiences were different.

I don't doubt for a minute your description of the Korean shop owners that you are familiar with. I do doubt very much that you know all Korean shop owners.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #122)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 05:00 PM

124. I never said otherwise...

But when posters are told that their personal experience is insignificant, well that just ain't true. Try going into GD and telling posters that their experience of intolerance in the United States is invalid because it's personal. Seriously, I frickin' dare ya.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #84)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 10:56 AM

94. Just because you have never personally seen them, does not mean they don't exist.

Rooftop of a mini-mall in Koreatown LA during the riots using "assault weapons" to defend their persons and property.




http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-02/news/mn-1281_1_police-car

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0429/p01s07-ussc.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #84)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:05 PM

95. Once again....

 

you do realize your personal experiences are not the sum total of human experience, correct?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_biker (Reply #95)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 07:58 PM

140. I never made that claim. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #140)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 05:51 PM

174. Well, you did challenge people who questioned on that.

The fact that you don't personally know anyone...

...who does something does not mean nobody does. Do you really not understand that?

And you have no idea how many Korean owned liquor stores...

...I've been into. Do you really not understand that?

Remember?

You are suggesting that somehow your experience is comprehensive and proves a point. It isn't, and it doesn't. Have we established that much at least?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #140)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 09:18 AM

212. But you have claimed that our (yours & mine) experiences are identical

 

"Response to Marengo (Reply #164)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 02:19 PM

ellisonz

165. No. Did you?

What I do know is that in most of the one's I've been in there isn't enough space behind the counter to hide such a large weapon.

How many AK-toting Korean liquor mart store owners have you seen? I'm betting not a single one. Therefore, based on both ourexperiences most Korean liquor mart store owners likely don't feel they need an AK to defend their life and property."


From what information have you drawn this conclusion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #212)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 12:58 PM

218. So your experience on the average day is that the average liquor store owner has an AK in his store?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #218)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 03:28 PM

220. As I made no claim whatsoever, how is it you conclude our experiences are identical?

 

"Therefore, based on both our experiences most Korean liquor mart store owners likely don't feel they need an AK to defend their life and property."

What experiences have I described that would lead you to assume the underlined?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #218)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 03:51 PM

221. AK or no AK.

Marengo is not making any claim either way. There isn't sufficient information on which to base either conclusion. You, however, insist on making the claim that they are not there. Your conclusion is unsupported.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #221)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 03:55 PM

222. My conclusion is supported by my observation.

That is the basis of empiricism. It's an inescapable reality - this fetish for the idea of an objective social science conclusion is fucking hilarious - it doesn't exist - we're not talking about the laws of gravity - we're talking about things that are inescapably clouded in any claim to objectivity i.e. a "supported conclusion."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #222)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 07:43 PM

227. Did you actually look behind each counter or ask each store owner?

 

If not, what exactly have you observed which leads you to believe there is not an assault rifle somewhere in the establishment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #227)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 08:01 PM

228. Ha...

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the average liquor store owner keeps an assault rifle to defend his store. At this point, that is exactly the claim you are making.

Citations please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #228)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 08:57 PM

229. Nope, I've made no claim. You have, therefore burden's on you.

 

"No Korean store owner I've ever seen...in LA or Honolulu has ever needed an AR-15 to defend their person or their property."

What evidence do you base this on?

"At this point, that is exactly the claim you are making"

Please cite my claim. Shouldn't be hard, all you have to do is copy & paste where I have written something which suggests "that the average liquor store owner keeps an assault rifle to defend his store."

Cite or retract.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #229)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 09:12 PM

230. "Cite or retract."

I'll say whatever I like. This isn't the Harvard Debate Team dude. I'm not writing an academic paper for peer-review. You can't even begin to present an argument that I'm wrong and so you're making a ridiculous demand and I don't care to bother to oblige. Sorry. Better luck tomorrow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #230)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 12:05 AM

233. Your credibility lies in shards.

I'll say whatever I like.

Yes, you will. And you will fail to support it in any meaningful fashion, yet you will claim that you have made a substantive point.

This isn't the Harvard Debate Team dude.

That's painfully obvious, yes.

You can't even begin to present an argument that I'm wrong and so you're making a ridiculous demand and I don't care to bother to oblige.

If you fail to produce any type of evidence to support your assertion, then the inescapable conclusion is that you are, in fact, wrong. There is nothing ridiculous in the demand that you provide proof, or even the semblance of proof, of your assertions. You "don't care to bother to oblige" because you are incapable of obliging. Your position is completely untenable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #233)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 12:37 AM

234. Says you...

The reality here is that no one is able to prove me incorrect. Does your average liquor store owner keep an assault rifle for store defense? No one has presented a single instance in which a store owner used an assault rifle to defend his store in a non-riot situation, an argument based on what I would note is predicated on a single photograph.

What are your thoughts on this article? Does it engage in race-baiting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #234)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 01:03 AM

235. Says I ...

The reality here is that no one is able to prove me incorrect.

And you are unable to prove yourself correct. Yet you continue to insist that you are.

Does your average liquor store owner keep an assault rifle for store defense?

I don't know. And neither do you.

What are your thoughts on this article? Does it engage in race-baiting?

What article is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #235)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 02:01 AM

236. I don't feel a need to prove myself correct...

...I'm confident in my observation as a human being.

So we both don't know, and my guess is as good as yours.

I mixed threads up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #236)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 11:42 AM

239. Yes, that much is clear.

So we both don't know, and my guess is as good as yours.

But I'm not the one who's guessing. I don't put much stock in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #230)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 07:14 AM

237. I'm waiting for either a citation from you of where I made such a statement, or a retraction...

 

of your claim that I did.

Basically, you a making a FALSE claim to support your argument by insisting that I have said something I have not. This demonstrates a lack of integrity on your part.

This may not be a debating team, but is seems a simple & common courtesy NOT to "put words in my mouth".

"The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the average liquor store owner keeps an assault rifle to defend his store. At this point, that is exactly the claim you are making."

Please cite where I made the underlined claim.

"You can't even begin to present an argument that I'm wrong and so you're making a ridiculous demand and I don't care to bother to oblige."

Hmmm, I don't think you quite understand what's going on here. The issue is that YOU cannot present evidence to prove YOU are right.

You have made the definitive statement:

"No Korean store owner I've ever seen...n LA or Honolulu has ever needed an AR-15 to defend their person or their property."

However, you offer no proof or evidence that you CAN know such a thing. You didn't search the establishments or question the owners. Rather than aknowldge this, you make a claim that counter size is insufficient to conceal an "assault rife", as if counter size is universal, and when that fails, declare that I have MADE A STATEMENT in agreement with you when I did no such thing.

Now, ask yourself what impression a neutral observer of our exchange may form of your credibility from your debating tactics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #237)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 02:55 PM

241. There are no neutral observers in this Group.

I don't really care what you think about my credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #241)


Response to ellisonz (Reply #241)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 08:03 PM

245. I'm still waiting ellisonz...

 

Cite or retract.

It's the adult thing to do after misrepresenting another.

I guess you could concede you have no integrity.

Yeah, that would work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #245)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 08:28 PM

246. Not going to do either one.

When you come into a thread and tell someone their personal observation is false and then persist to carry on like this you are basically making the claim that my personal observation is incorrect. You are attacking my integrity and I won't stand for it. I also won't play games like this, if you want to rag on my opinion either do it or not. Honey badger doesn't care.

"Marengo
227. Did you actually look behind each counter or ask each store owner?

View profile
If not, what exactly have you observed which leads you to believe there is not an assault rifle somewhere in the establishment?"


Posing that question in and of itself is a claim, you are claiming that my personal observation cannot possibly lead me to a conclusion. The cult of empiricism lives. I'm now going to give you a gift that will help you understand where I am coming from on this question of observation: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montaigne/ - pay particular attention to notions of "natural judgment" - enjoy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #246)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 09:26 PM

251. Yes, I do and will continue to question your integrity

 

"You are attacking my integrity and I won't stand for it."

Yep, sure am. Cite my articulation of my experiences or retract your assumption that they must lead to the below underlined conclusion:

"Response to Marengo (Reply #164)
Wed Feb 8, 2012, 02:19 PM
ellisonz
165. No. Did you?

What I do know is that in most of the one's I've been in there isn't enough space behind the counter to hide such a large weapon.

How many AK-toting Korean liquor mart store owners have you seen? I'm betting not a single one. Therefore, based on both our experiences most Korean liquor mart store owners likely don't feel they need an AK to defend their life and property.
DU Democracy for America Group - "We are the great grassroots"


"Posing that question in and of itself is a claim, you are claiming that my personal observation cannot possibly lead me to a conclusion."

I rarely use these, but...

Uh, are you suggesting this question is somehow an articulation of my experiences?

"When you come into a thread and tell someone their personal observation is false and then persist to carry on like this you are basically making the claim that my personal observation is incorrect."

Only once have I stated that in my experience your observation is incorrect:

Me: "In regard to your question, my experience suggests that you are incorrect. The counter of the Korean market I frequented in my former home town spanned nearly half the width of the store space. A Vietnamese market I visited a few weeks ago in my current location also has a counter large enough to easily conceal an "assault rifle"."

In response to your post: "Can you prove that my personal observation is incorrect, that my eyes are somehow deceiving me when I compute that there isn't space behind the counter for an assault rifle?"

If you are referring to counters in ALL Korean markets, this observation is demostrably incorrect.

This is the only reference I have made to any experience, and this can't reasonably lead you to the conclusion: "Therefore, based on both our experiences most Korean liquor mart store owners likely don't feel they need an AK to defend their life and property."


So, cite, retract, or cede.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #251)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 09:33 PM

253. I'm simply suggesting you have a motive here...

...and it's political. According to Aristotle, "Man is by nature a political animal."

I will do none of what you suggest. I'll just keep pointing out the reality as best as I can; color me skeptical. You are no great arbiter of objectivity! No one appointed you grand inquisitor...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #253)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 09:47 PM

254. My only "motive" is not to be associated with a position I have not articulated.

 

"No one appointed you grand inquisitor..."

No one appointed you as my spokesperson, least of all me. Yet you acted as such.

No cite or retraction?

Well, as I said, I rarely use these...

That's me wishing fair winds and following seas to your integrity. Too bad you let it get away from you so easily, they're hard to recapture I hear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #222)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 11:58 PM

232. "I haven't seen one, and therefore they don't exist."

My conclusion is supported by my observation. That is the basis of empiricism.

Yes. Of course it is.

this fetish for the idea of an objective social science conclusion is fucking hilarious - it doesn't exist

We're not talking about "an objective social science conclusion" -- we're talking about the presence or absence of a firearm. I say, "Lacking concrete evidence, who knows?" You say, "Lacking concrete evidence, there is no firearm."

we're talking about things that are inescapably clouded in any claim to objectivity i.e. a "supported conclusion."

No. No we're not. Please come back down to earth. We're talking about absence or presence of physical objects, based on physical observation. Your position that "If I haven't seen it, it doesn't exist" is fatally flawed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #84)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:10 PM

96. What is the difference?

 

..in LA or Honolulu has ever needed an AR-15 to defend their person or their property.

The video I linked showed Koreans on the roof using shotguns and hunting rifles. An AR15 would be far more appropriate a choice for their task.

Easy to push the pro-gun argument from the comfort of a "subdivision" - it gets a bit harder when you live in the big city. God Bless the Suburbanites of America.

I reject the notion that people who live in cities are somehow incapable of owning firearms like everyone else in America, or are less entitled to do so.

And I spent years living in downtown Atlanta.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #84)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 10:35 PM

200. Now, perhaps you can explain the substantive difference between...

 

The Ruger Mini 14 (or 30, can't tell at this resolution) displayed in post 94 and an AR-15. The difference that makes the Mini 14 entirely unlike the AR in basic function and magazine capacity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #200)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 10:40 PM

201. I'm not getting in a technical debate.

Frankly, if I had my way both would be banned and you guys would be shooting frickin' muskets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #201)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 10:55 PM

203. FYI, Other than the operating system...

 

there isn't a considerable difference between the Ruger Mini 14/30 and an AR-15. Both are gas operated, semi-automatic rifles which can accept 30 round magazines.

Do you consider the AR-15 to be an "assault rifle"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #203)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 08:47 AM

210. Don't expect an answer. He tends to run away when asked about his lack of knowledge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #210)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 09:05 AM

211. Interesting, he certainly presents himself as knowledgeable. N/T

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #211)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 09:44 AM

213. His knowledge is from what he reads on the internet.

He has never owned nor even handled a firearm, this by his own admission. He has no practical knowledge of firearms.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #201)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 11:29 AM

214. "I'm not getting in a technical debate."


If I hadn't the foggiest clue about information vital to the debate, I wouldn't either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnnyRingo (Reply #21)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 07:36 PM

75. There will not be such a scenario.

"...a semi-auto high power rifle will keep a renegade government at bay..."


No, never. The fact that private citizens control their own arms and would stand against a military force is the force that stabilizes such situations. While the unarmed may be herded like sheep, the prospect of having shooting contest with other Americans is serious enough for an American serviceman to think long and hard on the legality and moral correctness of such an order.

I'm sorry I can't say the same for all federal law enforcement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnnyRingo (Reply #21)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 02:38 PM

110. It's always refreshing to hear a voice of sanity from a gun owner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #110)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 09:16 AM

238. A rather loaded statement Starboard...

 

"It's always refreshing to hear a voice of sanity from a gun owner"

Interesting choice of the word "refreshing". Are you suggesting "sanity" from a gun owner is "refreshing"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #238)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 02:16 PM

240. How perceptive of you Marengo.

Sanity from any source is refreshing, especially in the crazy times we live in. To hear a sane voice from a gun owner is always welcome in the midst of the gun carrying mania that currently abounds.
We no longer live in a world where guns are for hunting and killing. A world where guns could put food in mouths or kill an adversary. We now live in a world where guns have been sanitized. They are now described and peddled as "personal safety devices" or "self-defense tools". They come in all shapes, sizes and colors and are accessorized to the max, with everything from laser sights to fashionista fanny packs.
Yes, my friend, it is very refreshing to hear a voice of sanity, still audible above the crazed ramblings of the madding crowd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #240)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 08:29 PM

247. I understand you point of view...

 

Don't agree with it, but I understand it

I responded to your post because, in my view, a general and quite negative characterization of all gun owners may be interpreted in it. Am I correct that you own a firearm? If you do, I think it likely you wouldn't others thinking that sanity from you, a gun owner, to be refreshing.

If you don't own one (or more), my apology as I must be thinking of someone else. However, as a gun owner myself, I would suggest a qualifier is called for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #247)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 09:03 PM

248. I had no desire to negatively characterize all gun owners.

I have owned guns at various times in my life. Not presently as I have no need. I don't hunt and have no enemies that I'm aware of. The only firearms I own currently are emergency flare guns, which are truly designed to save lives without taking life. I have no problem with responsible gun ownership, including keeping a gun handy for the defense of one's home. The carrying craze is a whole other issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnnyRingo (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 01:55 PM

18. That's a well thought out post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnnyRingo (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:43 AM

85. "He needs his guns to protect his guns from criminals."

It's pretty when you get down to the argument for owning an unlimited number of guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnnyRingo (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 05:44 PM

173. So much wrong with this

Last edited Thu Feb 9, 2012, 05:03 PM - Edit history (1)

"I don't even think it's debatable, beyond collector value, that in many heavily populated urban and residential states some weapons go well beyond self protection and fall into criminal intent status. The MAC-10 for instance, would be a very odd choice for an early morning jog through suburbia, and an AK-47 seems laughably unnecessary for a trip to the store in Youngstown, regardless of the high crime rate. This is what Glocks and Colt Combat Commanders were designed for."


I actually take a bit of offense at the notion of owning an AR-15 goes " well beyond self protection and fall into criminal intent status." What does that mean? Because I live in a major city that its criminal to want to own a AR-15? Well I enjoy rifle shooting, and to own a pistol in my area you have to go through a lot of paperwork, hundreds or dollars in fees, appear before a judge, and after all that you can still be denied purchase. If you want to apply again, go ahead and pay the couple of hundreds in fees again and try again. And mind you this is just to own and purchase, NOT CCW.

I've always been more of a rifle guy myself and it appears your a fan of pistols. Different strokes for different folks but the argument you put forward is very similar to another argument I've heard about pistols. (I don't believe any of this)

That only killers wants pistols. Why do you need a gun that's concealable unless you only want to hide it on your person and kill someone with it. I'm sure you don't harbor any homicidal intent but to claim just because someone wants to own a rifle and they live in the city doesn't mean they fall into some nebulous "criminal intent status" just because you think so, that term is so loose it could be applied to you by someone thinks differently than you.

I've seriously heard that argument before and I'm sure if you do some searching on DU2 you'll find pretty much the same notion in some of the anti's posts.

Also I don't know why everyone seems to think of a MAC-10 as some super scary weapon. I've actually shot one before and its nothing more than a cheap knock off of a semi-automatic Uzi that's heavier, and bulkier than it needs to be and which also jams a lot. Heck I rather some gang banger shoot at me with an MAC-10 rather than a normal pistol, probably less chance he'd hit me. Hell this actually happened in NYC sometime ago, some punk decided to shoot at cops with a MAC-10 it jammed and they killed him.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/police-shoot-man-at-hotel-in-times-square/

If that thug had an actual reliable weapon things might have been worse for the cops. Thank god for dumb criminals. Another thing you wouldn't really carry an AK for self defense, but it does make a fine target gun or a hunting rifle. You do realize there's not much difference between a Mosin Nagant first manufactured in 1891 and an AK? They shoot the same round only difference is and AK's semi-automatic and uses detachable magazines.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:42 PM

54. Boy oh boy I see posters here see no reason to have some limits. It's not worth even having

 

an open mind discussion to some limits. So posters its was nice to see different points of views. You all have opened my mind. Thanks again. Have a good day fellows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #54)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 04:53 PM

61. Open mind?

 

You expect others to respect the limits you wish to arbitrarily impose based upon your own fear and ignorance and you somehow think this means WE are not open minded?

If you're going to question a person's rights, be prepared to get some pretty brutally frank feedback. If you can't handle that, well, tough.

Buh-bye...come back when you grow thicker skin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_biker (Reply #61)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 05:05 PM

64. Yep, like I said hothead.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #64)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 05:18 PM

66. Yep...

 

you appear to be quite proud of your fear and ignorance.

Personally, I'd be embarrassed to make some of the comments you've made, but I place a premium on understanding things before I comment on them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_biker (Reply #66)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:44 AM

86. She's got you pegged. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #54)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 07:22 PM

74. We already have "some limits".

 

We already have "some limits."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #54)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:47 PM

99. Please, propose what you think would be a reasonable limit, and support your assertion....

 

with some fact, evidence or logic.

Thus far, you haven't done so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #99)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:04 PM

101. No matter what I say many posters won't agree. Why bother really?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #101)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:48 PM

103. If you have nothing to add....

 

.....why did you come in here in the first place?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #101)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 02:05 PM

106. Someone might. I honestly don't think that you'll come up with something new, but you might.

 

Every waterfall starts with a single drop...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #101)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 07:27 PM

136. Understand, southernyankeebelle, that those of us who support


the RKBA have dealt with factose-intolerant individuals who have made ZERO effort to educate themselves on this issue for a very, very long time.

What does it say when self-described liberals refuse to read one book by an esteemed liberal criminologist that expresses an educated viewpoint different than their own? Pretty pathetic, really.

So with regard to the question you posed, perhaps you should ask yourself a different question.

"Why haven't I bothered to do some real research into this nuanced subject, even as I've been informed that award-winning liberal criminologists are there to walk me through it?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Simo 1939_1940 (Reply #136)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 09:07 PM

249. Emphasis on "one book by an esteemed liberal criminologist"

Esteemed by whom? Any other liberal criminologists? Oh, right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #249)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 09:48 PM

255. You mean Gary Kleck?

who in 1993 won the Michael J. Hindelang Award of the American Society of Criminology, for the book which made "the most outstanding contribution to criminology" in the preceding three years (for his book Point Blank)
https://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php
His peer reviewed work was not funded by anyone, the FSU criminology dept is not funded by the NRA or anyone else, and his conclusions were the opposite of his original hypothesis. His work is published in criminology journals.
My favorite quote of his:
Fixating on guns seems to be, for many people, a fetish which allows them to ignore the more intransigent causes of American violence, including its dying cities, inequality, deteriorating family structure, and the all-pervasive economic and social consequences of a history of slavery and racism.


Contrast that with Hemenway, Cook etc.
their papers are published by in house publications (by their employer, so are these papers really peer reviewed?), in departments at are funded by the same foundation that astro turfs the prohibition lobby. They are also largely written by economists and media outlets gets the press release version.
Kind of parallels the climate science denial echo chamber does it not?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Foundation#Organizations_funded_by_the_Joyce_Foundation


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #255)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 10:01 PM

256. Yes, and your quote is excellent.

And yet many still fixate on guns instead of those causes of American violence. Makes one wonder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #54)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 04:39 PM

169. There are plently of limits already

You need to do some more reading if you think there are no limits on gun owners. There are over 20k gun laws already on the books. It helps your argument when you know about the subject matter being discussed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 06:06 PM

69. Not that I needed another reason to dislike Romney, but this will do.

Mac10 rifles, huh?

I've never understood why ignorance on the part of lawmakers and their constituents is roundly mocked and derided unless the topic is firearms; in that case, the more outlandish and hyperbolic the claims the better. I've always found it telling that I've yet to meet a gun prohibitionist that really knows the subject, on the contrary they often seem proud of their own ignorance of what they consider a contemptible field. I think this is a dangerous state of affairs on several levels, one being bad lawmaking and another being the way the issue can be a sort of right wing gateway issue.
It's akin to being fed the anti-drug message all through school and then discovering that smoking a joint didn't destroy your life; it makes you wonder what else you were lied to about and causes you to start questioning some assumptions. Learning about guns and then taking a hard look at the distortions surrounding them really can push people away from the Democratic party and towards libertarianism or the GOP; the rhetoric around them is so polarizing and often dishonest that it's a real turnoff if you're trying to reconcile progressive ideals with a belief in the 2nd Amendment. The two are not irreconcilable, but it's not the gun owning Democrats I see turning people away from the party with a rain of contempt and snark. I mean is driving wedges into your own party actually a winning strategy that I'm not aware of or something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dissonance (Reply #69)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:46 AM

87. Why do you need to own an unlimited number of guns as fast you can buy them? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #87)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 09:22 AM

89. Who said anything about need?

 

I fail to see where I have to justify a need for something to you or anyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_biker (Reply #89)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 04:07 PM

113. I fail to see where...

...I don't have a right on this website to ask a legitimate question of another poster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #113)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 04:45 PM

118. You can ask all you want.

 

You have no right to expect an answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #87)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 09:56 AM

91. Why does anyone have to justify their need/needs to you? N/T

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #91)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 04:08 PM

114. Why do you have respond to my post? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #114)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 02:16 AM

150. Because this is a discussion board, and I'd like an answer to that question.

 

Since you inquired about someones needs and all.

Just because you deem a question "legitimate", does not make it so.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #87)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:49 PM

100. Why should there be quantity/calender limits?

 

It's you job to support your proposals, not our responsibility to dis-prove them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #100)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 04:09 PM

115. Why shouldn't there be some limits?

How is that not a basic principle of "a well-regulated Militia"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #115)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 04:47 PM

119. You don't seem to understand how this works

 

As of right now, there are no limits. If you're proposing a change to the status quo, the onus is upon you to justify said change.

So, how about you answer the nice poster's question, and we can get on with the discussion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_biker (Reply #119)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 04:51 PM

121. Bahahaha...





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #87)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 05:15 PM

127. Where did I say

Anything about owning an unlimited number of guns as fast as I can buy them? I mused about dishonest rhetoric and how it's a turnoff to many people and how ignorance of firearms is a point of pride with some people, but I don't believe I mentioned anything about buying large quantities of firearms quickly. Did you have some other point I'm missing here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dissonance (Reply #127)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 05:22 PM

128. Your post implies that gun control reform by its nature is a losing wedge issue.

I'm simply trying to point out that there are reasonable gun control reform measures that actually would probably bring votes to the Democratic Party. I'm hardly ignorant of firearms, I'm a Democrat, and I think we can't run away from these wedge issues and so we might as well engage them from a responsible public policy making approach. Do you disagree with that analysis?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #128)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 05:57 PM

130. "I'm hardly ignorant of firearms"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #130)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 06:03 PM

131. Thanks buddy!



Seriously, I don't why you guys think this is fucking rocket science. It's really not - this ain't O-Chem or something

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #131)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 07:24 PM

135. because you don't seem to have a lot, if any, knowledge

of what you speak of. When pressed for more detail you ignore, or claim to have already told us. You come in here spouting ideas that have been produced before, and shot down on legal terms well before you decided to speak them. You seem to believe that calling anyone who does not agree with you as an"extreamist" all the while claiming that you are "reasonable".

Your obvious lack of knowledge of firearms, and firearm law shows in every post, yet you continue to make the same mistakes, over and over.

You have claimed to have never owned a firearm, then you claim to own them.

You are not to be believed, or listened to, unless it is for the laugh content.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #135)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 07:34 PM

137. "You have claimed to have never owned a firearm, then you claim to own them."

I have never claimed to own a firearm. That is a false statement and I think an objective poster can judge the rest of your smear on it's own. Your basic argument is that say since a person has never rode a horse, they cannot understand horse despite having access to books, photographs, and films of horses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #137)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 07:53 PM

138. I know horse people

that you tell you Just that. Reading about and looking at pictures will give you a superficial understanding at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #138)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 07:56 PM

139. Prove it.

Oh wait you can't. It's a stupid presumption. I love how in the same thread I'm told personal experience is insignificant in making an accurate judgment I'm not being told personal experience is key to making an accurate judgment. Such hypocrisy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #139)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 09:53 PM

143. not the same thing

your personal experience with some store owners have little to do with what some one else's experience (and news videos). Both are first hand experience and both are equal.
My military experience is nothing like One eyed's, and a little like pave pusher's, but all three are equally accurate and tiles in the same mosaic.

having in-depth knowledge of horses or anything else only comes from experience. I read a few books about Korea and watched MASH as a kid, but I did not know shit until I lived there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #143)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 10:14 PM

144. Fortunately...

...in the internet era, you can go online and probably ask Koreans as many questions as you would like about living in Korea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #144)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 10:39 PM

145. Awwwwwwwww but still missing much

I was there when they had real elections, watched the economic effects of those reforms. IIRC, they doubled their minimum wage in the late 1980s and allowed labor unions. It is one thing getting a history lesson about post WW2 US from Thom Hartmann, it is quite another watch it happen first hand someplace else.

Drinking Soju and beer with first time voters, watched their military freak when the first Kim Il croaked. Actually work with their military. Eat in their mess halls, drink beer and talk shop with a ROK AF draftee or NCO that happens to be same specialty. Being at the national museum when the school field trip buses show up.

Nawwwww, not the fucking same at all. You are missing out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #145)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 11:23 PM

146. But.... but... but....

 

Teh INTERWEBZ!!1!11! It makes us all INSTANT EXPERTS!!!

Al GOre told me so!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #137)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 08:29 PM

141. You are correct, I was crossing one of your posts with Hoyts.

My apologies, it has been a long day looking after my Mom, and I am tired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #141)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 08:38 PM

142. Thank you for acknowledging that. .

My best wishes to you and your Mom, while we may argue about gun politics, we all love our families and make mistakes. We're human.

Aloha.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #137)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 04:50 PM

170. A horse is a horse

"Your basic argument is that say since a person has never rode a horse, they cannot understand horse despite having access to books, photographs, and films of horses. "

Not really. The argument is more similar to a person who has never ridden a horse telling a horse trainer the best way to train horses. Then crafting laws dealing with the only acceptable way to train horses even though that person has no practical knowledge of horses.

And have you read that many books about firearms? Films don't count unless its educational or a documentary, Hollywood is absolutely terrible about portraying firearms in a realistic manner. It would seem many anti-gun posters do not know much about firearms because I consistently see semi-autos being lumped into fully automatics, MAC-10s called rifles, not knowing the difference between calibers, and other false data that has to be refuted by a pro gun poster. I actually really wished more anti-gun people read up on this stuff it would make discussion so much smoother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DragonBorn (Reply #170)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 09:23 PM

250. I've read books on criminology...

...and yes some on guns. There is nothing special about being a gun fan in your reasoning capability. Get over yourself - understanding guns is far and away easier than understanding something like organic chemistry or yes, equine science. Guns are just pieces of metal, plastic and wood. Really, it's not that complex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #128)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 06:35 PM

132. because none of your proposals

are reasonable. We offer reasonable proposals and we get nothing in return. NICS being only the exception after part of the Brady Bill being struck down for violating 10A.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #128)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 07:04 PM

133. "reasonable gun control reform"


Within this very phrase lies the reason pro-gun rights advocates won't deal with pro-restriction supporters.

Because they have a long history of been anything but reasonable and honest, and because they have openly advocated an incremental approach to regulation. When Josh Sugarmann openly suggests that exploiting public ignorance on the features of "assault weapons" is a good strategy for pro-restrictionistas, can you seriously expect pro-RKBA supporters to expect him to bargain in good faith?

Please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #128)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 08:17 PM

186. What reasonable gun control measures

that would bring more votes than they would repel are you referring to?

You seemed to be specifically talking about 1 gun a month in your initial response to me, but is that really that popular and effective of a law? It would seem that even the gun owning Democrats regard that law as more nuisance and feel good measure than effective tool for lowering violence, so I hardly imagine that any GOP by default gun owners look at it much differently. On the purely strategic level, I think the political calculus really is against gun control, the passion balance among gun owners vs gun controllers is just too great, and gun control itself is just too ineffective as a life saving measure to really justify much party support for it.

IMHO, I think many of the stronger proponents of gun control should be asking themselves one question; "am I about saving lives, or am I about suppressing firearms for other reasons?". For my money, I'm a saving lives guy, and since I'm not made of time and money, I like to see maximum return on my investment of either, and gun control is a lot of both for few lives saved. Drug policy reform, dialing back our aggressive foreign policy, smart aid to the 3rd world, all of those and many other areas of activism would save far more lives than all the gun control in the world ever would, so that is were I choose to focus my own life saving efforts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dissonance (Reply #186)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 08:51 PM

190. I am about saving lives.

A restriction like this is a band-aid but it's better to have one than not. Also, I don't see how there has to be a trade-off between gun control and everything else you mention. I for one can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #190)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 09:00 PM

192. As can I

But people's money and time are not inexhaustible resources, and when it comes down to it those things should be focused on where they do the most good. As another poster put it, fix the drug war and healthcare and maybe we can work our way down to guns, as of the moment they're a statistical blip on our list of national and party priorities, or at least they should be.

To rephrase my question; are you willing to lose on important issues (that cause great loss of life) that the GOP simply will not address because of a personal animosity towards guns and their owners? It's not like this is an abstract "what if" scenario, we've been losing elections behind this shit for years and its time we said enough is enough and get our priorities straight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dissonance (Reply #192)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 09:07 PM

193. Gun control can be self-supporting.

It's called a user-fee....

I think the GOP will attack on gun issues just as they have for the last 10 election cycles irregardless of whether Democrats put forward reform or not. The President has stated he is for gun control reform, I support his initiative: http://azstarnet.com/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html

I don't think we should cave to Republicans; I think we should win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #193)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 10:11 PM

196. Since when

is assessing information, in this case that crime is in free-fall while guns sales skyrocket, and reevaluating a course of action "caving"? It's a double win for us, we can jettison an unpopular plank that has cost us votes, money and elections free of guilt since we can point to the falling crime rates as our rationale, and we can outflank the GOP with one of their key constituencies. Every time another state liberalizes their gun laws and the predicted bloodbaths don't happen, the whole party looks dishonest and/or out of touch, and that hurts all of us. Admitting we were wrong on guns might smart a little bit for some people, but in the long run it would be one of the strongest moves we could possibly make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dissonance (Reply #196)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 10:26 PM

198. Crime is not in a "free-fall" - Crime is plateauing over the last decade.


Violent crime rates in the United states per 100,000 population beginning in 1960. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Violent_Crime_Rates_in_the_United_States.svg

Gun sales are skyrocketing because the upper middle class has disposable income to spend on non-necessity purposes and because of spreading paranoia.

The NRA will attack the Democrats-at-large this year no matter what, we might as well have a sensible reform proposal. Sometimes you have to do things that might not be politically popular with certain groups because it's the right thing to do. That's commonly called courage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #198)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 03:42 AM

207. Free fall, plateau,

We're talking semantics here; violent crime is lower than it's been in a long time while gun sales are at an historic high and shall issue CCW is more common and widespread than it's ever been.

As to who's buying guns and why; do you have anything besides your opinion to substantiate that assertion? It might just be my personal experience (there's that thing again!), but I haven't seen a lot of 1% types buying up all the stock at Butch's Gunshop, Discount Guns, or any of the other Western Washington gunshops I frequent. Now I've seen a whole lot of women buying compact handguns and younger guys buying semi-auto rifles, but not so much the top hat and monocle crowd. I will give you that guns are an excellent investment, I've yet to lose money on a gun transaction yet, though I'm also a knowledgeable purchaser that can do my own repair and refinish work.

Also, in my decidedly blue home-state, our CCW permit program is at a record high number of permitees, without any parking space dispute related violence or fatal road raging. Although there isn't any data kept about the income levels of permit holders, the numbers alone tend to rule out the upper crust as the primary drivers of the spike.

Expanding on those thoughts, nationwide CCWs are also at record high levels, while shooting deaths have not risen but fallen. I'm not claiming any causal relationship, but I'm certainly claiming the debunking of the anti-CCW rhetoric about returns to the wild west and such. The right thing to do here would be saying "gee, we were wrong about that whole blood in the streets thing", discarding the useless gun control party plank, and moving on to more important things. That would take a bit of courage, no one likes to admit they were wrong, but we've got to do the right thing no matter what the cost. Right? Now falling back on the same old spin and misinformation, that would be the wrong thing to do, no doubt about it.

Also, you know what would catch the NRA completely flat footed and doom the national GOP this year? A presidential endorsement of CCW reciprocity. Heck, put in a clause that invalidates the statute if permit holder caused mayhem ensues, but put the issue to the test once and for all and take away one of the GOP's most potent weapons in the process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dissonance (Reply #207)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 09:29 PM

252. The gun lobby is big money.

Pretending the gun business is anything other than similar to any other industrial lobby is deep denial. It's a business that creates substantial detrimental effect for which it takes no responsibility.

Blood does in the streets, it's just that people don't care.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not that into kowtowing to interest groups:

Politics meet fun and faithful at US conservative confab
AFPBy Michael Mathes | AFP – 6 hours ago

Along a bank of talk radio booths set up in the CPAC basement, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann -- a tea party favorite who was in the Republican nomination race until January -- glad-handed Joe Wurzelbacher, a.k.a. 'Joe the Plumber,' a controversial figure from the 2008 campaign who is planning his own run for Congress.

At a nearby booth the National Rifle Association encouraged attendees to play a target shooter simulation game. Throughout the day, hundreds of men in business suits gleefully picked up the plastic orange rifle and took aim at targets.

"They're loving it," said the NRA's Kyle Jillson.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/politics-meet-fun-faithful-us-conservative-confab-195035215.html


Color me unimpressed by the gun fetish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 06:45 PM

70. Elsewhere in Mass... A bunch of guys with REAL machine guns, chainsaw their way into an apartment

and force a mother to lay in dog urine for 1/2 an hour at gunpoint while her screaming 3 year old was kept in another room.

It's ok though. The machine guns they used were authorized by the government and will not be effected by this law.

Whew!

Note to self... Never move into an apartment with the letter "R" in it. It can be mistaken for the letter "F".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #70)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 08:17 PM

77. What was the third most often used lie?

:scratchhead:

Oh yeah! We're from the government and we're here to help you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:11 AM

263. A reasonable solution, The Perlman Firearms Responsibility Bill proposal

I beleve I have a reasonable solution that works, it is called The Perlman Firearms Responsibility Bill proposal

I would like to highlight some of the notable points which set The Perlman Firearms Responsibility Bill proposal apart from others.

The Perlman Firearms Responsibility Bill proposal builds upon the basic premise of the Brady Bill and brings it up to date with modern computer technology, expanding coverage to all firearms and creating a system to help effectively limit the catastrophic firearms incidences we have been facing in our changing society, and it does this without creating overbearing restrictions on the second Amendment rights of responsible Americans of sound mind.

If enacted, The Perlman Firearms Responsibility Bill proposal means that anyone purchasing a firearm through legal channels would have a thorough and effective background check before the sale would be approved. This would apply even at gun shows. At the same time, after initial application for The Firearms Responsibility card, background checks at the point of sale are a speedy process similar to running a credit card.

The Perlman Firearms Responsibility Bill proposal also takes a serious approach to addressing the actual technical aspects of various firearm designs which are arguably not responsible features fit for civilian use. These questionable features have recently and rightfully become the focus of the media and many politicians. Unfortunately these questionable features are most commonly and inappropriately referred to, simply as “assault rifles”. I say inappropriate because not all so called assault rifles are equipped with the features in question. Likewise these same features in question can also be found on many firearms of conventional design. Rather than simply banning so called assault rifles, I believe that we need to look at the individual features which have brought the focus of the media to them.

The firearms responsibility card database not only speeds up background checks, but also has two additional substantial benefits:

First the database through shared data and inter-collaboration between agencies, can aid law enforcement agencies and even the higher agencies delegated to protect our national security.

Second the database effectively collects a record of all legal firearms sales transactions, and over time will collect ownership data for many firearms already produced and in private hands. This will happen as these firearms are eventually sold or inherited from one owner to another. Each used firearm recorded in the database, unless stolen, is one less firearm capable of being traded in black markets or of ending up in the hands of someone not qualified to possess a firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to matthew04401 (Reply #263)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:37 AM

264. somethings things I disagree with

New firearms manufactured in the US or imported from other countries shall not have ammunition preloading mechanisms capable of holding more than ten rounds.

New firearms manufactured in the US or imported from other countries shall not have ammunition preloading mechanisms capable of being removed without partial disassembly of the gun

That would ban anything that uses a box magazine. It would also ban most pistols, including those used in the Olympics and other target competitions. BTW, those same Olympic pistols are "assault weapons" under California law, unless they changed it. That is not what brings media attention. The media looks at plastic stocks and pistol grips. The media doesn't have people who actually know what they are talking about on the subject. A blogger for Occupy the Second Amendment put best: "listening NPR discuss gun politics is like watching Fox discuss climate change."

I also don't have a problem with resident aliens owning guns. The can in most other countries.
Registration is a proven failure in every other country, why bother? A FOID or PAL system, maybe. If you have the card, isn't the background check an unneeded redundancy? That is why the ATF waives CCW permit holders, if the state record keeping is to their standards.
There is no gun show loophole. An FFL must do the same as his store front.

Of course medical privacy laws will conflict with it. The Bush and Cheney "terror watch list" that doesn't actually have any terrorist suspects on it, should be abolished as the stupid Bush policy that it is.

I will give Mr. Perlman credit for a reasonalbe and fairly well thought out idea. Certainly worth discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #264)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:38 PM

269. re: somethings things I disagree with.

The media looks at plastic stocks and pistol grips. The media doesn't have people who actually know what they are talking about on the subject.


That's basically the point I made in the conclusion.

The looks should not be an issue, it is the specific features we should be considering.

"The Perlman Firearms Responsibility Bill proposal also takes a serious approach to addressing the actual technical aspects of various firearm designs which are arguably not responsible features fit for civilian use. These questionable features have recently and rightfully become the focus of the media and many politicians. Unfortunately these questionable features are most commonly and inappropriately referred to, simply as “assault rifles”. I say inappropriate because not all so called assault rifles are equipped with the features in question. Likewise these same features in question can also be found on many firearms of conventional design. Rather than simply banning so called assault rifles, I believe that we need to look at the individual features which have brought the focus of the media to them."

That would ban anything that uses a box magazine. It would also ban most pistols,


This would only apply to new firearms, your existing firearms would be grandfathered. most current firearm designs could comply with slight design modifications to future production runs. one example would be a magazine which flips down from the back of the pistol grip with a fixed pivot point at the lower rear of the grip and a latch at the top.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to matthew04401 (Reply #263)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:44 AM

265. Was it necessary to zombie this year-old thread?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #265)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:39 AM

266. Maybe that's why we need guns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread