Another Nut With A Gun Goes On A Rampage

[bbsam]

No it is not my right to pick up any nuclear device and you know it. The topic is about guns not nuclear devices and you can remain gun less or buy a gun, it is certainly your right to do so. I don't own a gun but sure wouldn't want my options taken away. ]

I thought the topic was defending yourself against tyranny. If you and yours can't match their fire-power, where does that leave you? If you don't like the nuclear imagery, how about an A-10, or an M1 tank, or even a fully automatic .50 cal. machine gun. Fact is, you will always be out-gunned.

 

[bbsam]

Not his words but but those of the FFs and the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. You don't have to agree with it, like it or worry about it. Basically it's none of your business.


I suppose RFK got what he had coming to him too and A Lincoln too? By those standards, 0bama would get what he had coming too? All of them did things that Americans thought were wrong, right? Reagan wasn't shot because of anything he had done right or wrong. The last sentence speaks loudly about your personal lack of character. anyone you disagree with deserves to be shot.


Rhetoric? You don't like it so it's just words without meaning. I'll remember that the next time you quote any of the founding fathers.

I guarantee you that the only time I will ever quote any of the "founding fathers" is to refute the implication that the "founding fathers" were of a single mind on any given topic.

 

[tourists24]

I always post this on gun control debates. Held true then; holds true now.

[video=youtube;T_QjEL0uUgo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_QjEL0uUgo[/video]

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Just curious--is Ted's glass half full or half empty?

 

[tourists24]

Just curious--is Ted's glass half full or half empty?

I think its fully loaded....lol

 

[trplnkl]

Just curious--is Ted's glass half full or half empty?

It is partially consumed.

 

[The Other Side]

I always post this on gun control debates. Held true then; holds true now.

[video=youtube;T_QjEL0uUgo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_QjEL0uUgo[/video]

You guys can listen to this kook, but complain about what I say?

Geez.

Peace

 

[tourists24]

You guys can listen to this kook, but complain about what I say?

Geez.

Peace

he's a kook? how's that? and I dont complain about what you say. I enjoy the different point of view. Disagreeing isnt complaining

 

[The Other Side]

he's a kook? how's that? and I dont complain about what you say. I enjoy the different point of view. Disagreeing isnt complaining

Tourists,

My position that he's a kook comes from his contradicting positions on the constitution. While on the surface it sounds like he knows what he's talking about while defending guns (and you must know I hate guns) and he defends the second amendment as if GOD himself ordered it, he also blatantly argues against the constitution in the same paragraph.

When he says that a "victim" should have the right to "shoot" the offending person, then he's argueing against himself. No where in the second amendment does it say anyone can kill anyone, it says "in defense of the state", it also does not say "for personal protection", more specifically, the use of guns in the second amendment states the use of the gun shall be against "a tyrannical goverment" not a rapist, not a burgular, not a child molester. These are things that gun owners have used to modify the second amendments meanings.

Additionally, Ted is asking for instant justice, as in the wild wild west. What about due process? What about the presumtion of innocense? If we just settled our injustices on the streets by arming the whole society, why would we need police officers? Ted's positions are "more guns will solve crimes"

In fact, we have the most guns on the streets now of any nation and that has translated into the highest crimes rates in the world for a domesticated society. More guns isnt the answer.

In all his examples, he solves them with a gun. Rape a woman, shoot the man, molest a child, walk in and shoot the man, steal my bike, whip out my 38 and crank off 6 rounds into the guy. Do you see the slippery slope in this argument?

Eventually, we would shoot people for stealing the paper off our lawns or for looking at us the wrong way.

More guns is NEVER going to be the answer. Just look at school shootings, why in the history of this country have school shootings only accelerated after 1980 along with the overjustification for guns in republican party politics?

Since the republicans made this issue a political hot button in each campaign, more mass shootings have taken place each year. In schools , in restaurants and in the workplace. Only since it became a focus for votes has gun violence spiked in the country to a level where its unsafe in many places.

Personally, I find there are too many people with guns that shouldnt have them. True, there are sportsman whose guns are used for competition and I support that, and there are those that truly go out in the woods and kill an innocent animal and hopefully eat them but moreover, most gun owners are just plain wierdos who stockpile weapons for the great domestic apocolypse that they are told is coming.

In inner cities (where i grew up) guns are everywhere. People there shoot each other just for walking down the wrong street. The percentage of homes with guns in the inner cities far exceeds where I live today and by comparison, I live in a crime free zone. The inner city however, with all the guns available and using Ted Nugents theory, is the most violent place to live.

I prefer to live in an area where a gun isnt needed.

Peace.

 

[trplnkl]

You guys can listen to this kook, but complain about what I say?

Geez.

Peace

Please...OHHHH .....please enlighten us what he said in this video that you fond so kooky?

 

[The Other Side]

Please...OHHHH .....please enlighten us what he said in this video that you fond so kooky?

I did.

Peace.

 

[The Other Side]

My '"persona" could be best described by Private Joker in Full Metal Jacket.

"The Duality of Man".
[video=youtube;KMEViYvojtY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMEViYvojtY[/video]

Peace.

 

[trplnkl]

I did.

Peace.

You posted that while I was typing my request, I'll be back a little later with a reply.

 

[cachsux]

When he says that a "victim" should have the right to "shoot" the offending person, then he's argueing against himself. No where in the second amendment does it say anyone can kill anyone, it says "in defense of the state", it also does not say "for personal protection", more specifically, the use of guns in the second amendment states the use of the gun shall be against "a tyrannical goverment" not a rapist, not a burgular, not a child molester. These are things that gun owners have used to modify the second amendments meanings.

That`s because , at the time of the writing of the constitution, and perpetrator of the above mentioned crimes would have been hung from a tree long before the idea of someone using a gun on them.

In all his examples, he solves them with a gun. Rape a woman, shoot the man, molest a child, walk in and shoot the man, steal my bike, whip out my 38 and crank off 6 rounds into the guy. Do you see the slippery slope in this argument?

I bet we`d see a lot less rapes,molestation, and theft on the way down.

Eventually, we would shoot people for stealing the paper off our lawns or for looking at us the wrong way.

More guns is NEVER going to be the answer. Just look at school shootings, why in the history of this country have school shootings only accelerated after 1980 along with the overjustification for guns in republican party politics?

Since the republicans made this issue a political hot button in each campaign, more mass shootings have taken place each year. In schools , in restaurants and in the workplace. Only since it became a focus for votes has gun violence spiked in the country to a level where its unsafe in many places.

You point out these above crimes as if everyone with a gun were the ones out committing them. Nowhere do you mention the mental stability of the person with the gun in their hand. Some have obvious signs of mental issues others do not. Will taking away guns stop this? Maybe some. But I also think the ones unstable enough to do harm will just find another way to do it. Some homes in this country have guns in them. Every home in this country has knives in them. Should we get rid of them to prevent stabbings?

Personally, I find there are too many people with guns that shouldnt have them. True, there are sportsman whose guns are used for competition and I support that, and there are those that truly go out in the woods and kill an innocent animal and hopefully eat them but moreover, most gun owners are just plain wierdos who stockpile weapons for the great domestic apocolypse that they are told is coming.

My home has guns in it. We don`t hunt. We do target shoot if we can find the time. We don`t run around in the front yard with tin foil on our head waiting for the Apocalypse, zombie uprising maybe, but no Apocalypse. We don`t even take them out the doors. But woe be it on whomever breaks in with the intent of harm as that individual will meet his maker in a hurry.



In inner cities (where i grew up) guns are everywhere. People there shoot each other just for walking down the wrong street. The percentage of homes with guns in the inner cities far exceeds where I live today and by comparison, I live in a crime free zone. The inner city however, with all the guns available and using Ted Nugents theory, is the most violent place to live.

You`re leaving out of this equation however the amount of drug use, poverty, gangs,domestic violence, etc in your example of the inner city. You could also factor in ethnic background. Would the absence of guns turn it into a utopia or would they just go back to knives and bats?


I prefer to live in an area where a gun isnt needed.

At the moment right now. What sufficient amount of desperation would cause your neighbors to turn violent and take up weapons against each other? You`re not suggesting you`ll be perfectly safe just because you live in an area with higher property values?

Peace.

 

[wkmac]

You posted that while I was typing my request, I'll be back a little later with a reply.

http://youtu.be/0Wi8Fv0AJA4

 

[tourists24]

All I know is I like having the right to have a gun in my home (or even on my person). It gives me a chance of defending myself if some numbnut tries to bring serious harm to me or my family. It doesnt guarantee it, but it gives me a chance. Begging for someone to spare me my life is not my idea of defending my family. Banning guns does not and will not keep guns out of a guy who is willing to break the law to murder. May make it harder to get but they will be found.

 

[The Other Side]

All I know is I like having the right to have a gun in my home (or even on my person). It gives me a chance of defending myself if some numbnut tries to bring serious harm to me or my family. It doesnt guarantee it, but it gives me a chance. Begging for someone to spare me my life is not my idea of defending my family. Banning guns does not and will not keep guns out of a guy who is willing to break the law to murder. May make it harder to get but they will be found.

I dont know where you all live that guns are needed because you all live in areas constantly under threat, but ive been in my town since 1992 and we make the top 3 list of safest cities every year. The concept that "i would use my gun in self defense if an intruder came into my home" sounds great, but if you are following the law, your guns would be locked into a safe, separated from the ammo and with trigger locks.

By they time you turned on the lights, entered the combination, unlocked the triggers, loaded the ammo and gathered your thoughts, you would be looking at begging for your life anyways. After that, you probably would be looking down the end of the barrel of your own gun.

I have no problem if you want a gun for protection, I have a problem with stockpiles of guns. I know plenty of people who own more guns than they do knives and forks. These types usually use the guns on themselves.

I have a problem with anyone suggesting instant justice and I definitely have a problem with anyone suggesting that crime will go down because people are armed. This just isnt the case. This country is armed to the teeth and violent crime keeps increasing.

One person tried to make it about drugs and ethnicity but crime among white kids is just as high. Mass School shootings are typically white kids. One on one shootings are typically minority based. Why the difference? Why do white kids feel the need to mass kill having every priviledge known to man, and minorities tend to shoot only an intended target?

There are many people in this country who are not in the right mind to possess a weapon of any kind. But to suggest that we should increase the number of guns on our streets and neighborhoods to protect ourselves is only making the problem worse.

As I said, i am no fan of guns and I do support those who sport shoot or hunt to eat, but I dont support having guns in the home because you are told to fear your fellow citizen.

Peace.

 

[tourists24]

As I said, i am no fan of guns and I do support those who sport shoot or hunt to eat, but I dont support having guns in the home because you are told to fear your fellow citizen.

Peace.

I understand your points. I do not do it because I fear my fellow citizen. I do it simply because I live by the principal that if you break into my home to take what is not yours or harm my family, one of us will not walk out of there. It will not be locked away in a safe at night. You want to break in, take your chances. There are 2000 different shades of gray from innocent to outright craziness when it comes to guns.

 

[Lue C Fur]

I dont know where you all live that guns are needed because you all live in areas constantly under threat, but ive been in my town since 1992 and we make the top 3 list of safest cities every year. Good for you that you live in such a safe place. Im sure that the doctor and his family (Wife and 2 daughters) who were raped, strangled, and set on fire thought they were safe also. They live in a really nice commuity with a very low crime rate. I guess they were just unlucky when those 2 POS came to their house. My point is...just because you live in what you consider a safe neighborhood does not mean you are safe.

The concept that "i would use my gun in self defense if an intruder came into my home" sounds great, but if you are following the law, your guns would be locked into a safe, separated from the ammo and with trigger locks. What law says you have to keep your guns in a safe, seperated from ammo and trigger locks? Not any of the places ive lived have laws like that.

By they time you turned on the lights, entered the combination, unlocked the triggers, loaded the ammo and gathered your thoughts, you would be looking at begging for your life anyways. After that, you probably would be looking down the end of the barrel of your own gun. I agree...would be worthless to own a gun with laws like that.

 

[cachsux]

I dont know where you all live that guns are needed because you all live in areas constantly under threat, but ive been in my town since 1992 and we make the top 3 list of safest cities every year. The concept that "i would use my gun in self defense if an intruder came into my home" sounds great, but if you are following the law, your guns would be locked into a safe, separated from the ammo and with trigger locks.

What law? Were I live you can put it under your pillow with a full magazine, one in the chamber, safety off and pre-cocked. Piss poor common sense and gun safety but legal all the way.

By they time you turned on the lights, entered the combination, unlocked the triggers, loaded the ammo and gathered your thoughts, you would be looking at begging for your life anyways. After that, you probably would be looking down the end of the barrel of your own gun.

If you practice home defense like one would practice a fire drill or storm event you will not be fumbling around like the three stooges while the intruders have their way. And what makes you think the intruder will be super efficient in the course of his crime? From the time we determine something is up in the house until you`re looking down the barrel of a fully loaded 9mm ready to send you to your maker is less than 30 seconds.

I have no problem if you want a gun for protection, I have a problem with stockpiles of guns. I know plenty of people who own more guns than they do knives and forks. These types usually use the guns on themselves.

Who cares how many they have? One is all that it takes IF the person is of the mental mindset to take your life.

I have a problem with anyone suggesting instant justice and I definitely have a problem with anyone suggesting that crime will go down because people are armed. This just isnt the case. This country is armed to the teeth and violent crime keeps increasing.

Instead of a Klein-esque blanket statement why not provide factual numbers,they are out there, of where violent crime is increasing in the country. Is it in the areas where the majority of crimes were in the first place? Did your inner city crime rate go up or are we all going crazy and committing these crimes across the board equally irregardless of where one lives?

One person tried to make it about drugs and ethnicity but crime among white kids is just as high. Mass School shootings are typically white kids. One on one shootings are typically minority based. Why the difference? Why do white kids feel the need to mass kill having every priviledge known to man, and minorities tend to shoot only an intended target?

I did not make it about drugs and ethnicity. I pointed out that your statement of high crime in the inner city being directly related to the number of guns was only partially correct. I said those other factors, including poverty, played a part. As far as your statement of white kids being the majority in school shootings check this out:
http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/violence-in-schools/national-statistics.html


There are many people in this country who are not in the right mind to possess a weapon of any kind. I agree 100% But to suggest that we should increase the number of guns on our streets and neighborhoods to protect ourselves is only making the problem worse. We do not suggest INCREASING the number of guns but rather do not try to take away our guns. I fully endorse making sure someone is of sound mind to own a weapon as best we can based on the law but that is not 100%. But those same people who are not in the right mind will cause harm against others irregardless of what they do it with.

As I said, i am no fan of guns Absolutely your right and I support it, God bless. and I do support those who sport shoot or hunt to eat, but I dont support having guns in the home because you are told to fear your fellow citizen.

We don`t own guns because we fear our fellow citizen. We have them so we don`t have to. I`m no fighter, never have been. I don`t know martial arts or any other such stuff. But I guarantee you send in the biggest baddest guy you want and I`ll even up the battle real quick with a firearm.
Peace.