Ban on Gun Ownership?

[McRocket]

whether you like guns or not- fuck anybody, and i repeat FUCK ANYBODY who wants to ban them. i am so goddamn sick of this bleeding heart "waahhhhh somebody might get hurt.... or offended..... somebody else did something stupid, so now YOU have to pay for it..... waaaahhhhh, the govt. knows best..... waaahhhhh" bullshit agenda all these pussy ass liberal fascists keep trying to push. fuck the un and their proposed worldwide ban on "small" arms. fuck the bleeding hearts, fuck the million mom march and fuck all this dishonest propaganda that the leftist media keeps spewing about gun violence. watch in the next 10 years as muslim extremists fist fuck europe until it becomes their own personal playground. you know why? because the citizens can't have guns, that's why. you want america to end up the same way? keep lobbying for more unconstitutional, bullshit gun laws. you want big brother controlling your life, taking your personal freedom away and making you a slave? keep lobbying for more gun control.

god i am so sick of this shit. support the libertarian party and the nra. they are the ONLY people who care about constitutional rights in this day and age.

I am not for banning guns; but it seems to me you are going to be fucking allot of people - from your above statements.

I find it interesting that those that are the most rabid about keeping guns (both on this site and off of it) seem to be the angriest and/or most paranoid about their reasons for keeping them.

 

[Facetious]

^ Just keep nibblin away at them with crafty semantic and you may eventually change the world !

 

[Facetious]

If the people elect officials that represent their views, why shouldn't they be in a position to take away something?

Isn't that fiat ?

 

[TyrannosaurZ]

If firearm owners are not willing to give up their weapons, then don't expect Iran to give up their nukes.

Taking away ownership; be it land or otherwise, is what breeds terrorists.

Totally different. Iran has threatend to use nukes on us and isreal if they get them, totally unprovoked. Gun owners aren't saying they are going to shoot innocent people, or countries when they buy a gun.

Way to fail.

 

[McRocket]

Totally different. Iran has threatend to use nukes on us and isreal if they get them, totally unprovoked.

Exactly where did you read that it is the official policy of the Iranian government (let alone it's people) to use nuclear weapons on Israel as soon as they have them?
Give the people of Iran a little credit. They aren't all brain dead idiots. Obviously if they launched nukes at Israel, then Israel would retaliate with their VERY extensive stockpile of nukes and missiles to get them there and wipe out the country.
If I was an Iranian citizen and I considered Israel an enemy (whether for good or bad reasons), obviously I am going to want nuclear weapons; if for no other reason then my enemy has a vast stockpile of them already (which Israel does).

Wouldn't you if you were them?

 

[McRocket]

^ Just keep nibblin away at them with crafty semantic and you may eventually change the world !

Stating my opinion that they seem angry and/or showing some degree of paranoia is a 'crafty semantic'?

Reads like a plainly stated opinion to me.

And I assume you are joking. But I am not naive enough to think I will ever change their opinions on these deeply held thoughts of theirs.
All I can do is point out what I think about them and let them figure it all out for themselves.
Most of them will take these thoughts of theirs to their graves - I assume. But some might see the light of compromise one day through there angry and/or fear coloured glasses.

 

[marquis2]

Suicide? If they ban guns you'll just see more people hanging, jumping, poisoning, slitting, etc... That's a statistic that really has very little to do with gun control. If someone wants to check out (mirroring the "if someone wants to commit a crime) they're going to do it... just with a different "tool".
Not to mention... suicide supports Darwin's theory pretty well. If they're that fucked up, then the fact that they blow their brains out shouldn't affect my freedoms... they chose to give up all of their freedoms in one shot...

If people genuinely want to end it all they will , as you say , find some way of doing it.The point I made in another post is that a lot , the majority in fact , of people who attempted suicide but were rescued by others realised that after all they didn't really wish to die.Shooting tends to reduce the options.

Can I say that, living in a country where gun ownership is rare, I don't feel the slightest need to carry one for self protection or to defend my property.It's just not a part of my life.But if everybody else had one then I might feel different.

 

[McRocket]

^^ Very good points, IMO.

 

[TyrannosaurZ]

Their president said that. Where have you been? He also denies the holocuast among other things...

 

[McRocket]

Their president said that. Where have you been? He also denies the holocuast among other things...

1) I did not ask for who (I assumed you meant him). I asked for exactly where?

and 2) the reason I asked for where was because I assume it was in his famous speech referred to here:

http://www.gwynnedyer.net/articles/Gwynne Dyer article_ Iranian Cisis.txt

However, it is many people's assertion that that speech was mis interpreted. Example from the above link:

'The US government's explanation is that President Mahmoud
Ahmedinejad threatened in May to "wipe Israel off the map," and that
nuclear weapons are the way he plans to do it.'

'But there are a number of holes in this narrative, and the first is
that Ahmedinejad never said he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map." This
is a strange and perhaps deliberate mistranslation of his actual words, a
direct quote from the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the font of all
wisdom in revolutionary Iran, who said some twenty years ago that "this
regime occupying Jerusalem (i.e. Israel) must vanish from the page of
time."

It was a statement about the future (possibly the quite far future)
as ordained by God. It was NOT a threat to destroy Israel. Attacking
Israel has never been Iranian policy, and a few days later the man who
really runs Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, publicly stated that Iran "will
not commit aggression against any nation." While Ahmadinejad continues to
say nasty things about Israel, he too has explicitly rejected accusations
that Iran plans to attack it.'

In addition:

'Israel has had its unacknowledged nuclear
weapons targeted on Iran since Ahmadinejad was a small boy. Even if Iran
were eventually to get some too, it could not realistically hope to catch
up with Israel's hundreds of weapons and sophisticated delivery vehicles.
(Israel can strike Iran with aircraft, with ballistic missiles, and
possibly with Harpoon missiles fired from its German-built Dolphin-class
submarines and refitted to carry nuclear warheads.)'


And you did not answer my other question. Since Isreal has a vast huclear arsenal and is Iran's enemy, would you not want your country to also have nuclear weapons - were you an Iranian citizen?

 

[shayd]

Days Shayd . . . Days ! :1orglaugh
_____________________________________________________________________________________

I guess if one were raised in a densely populated area of a city, guns are just plain foreign to most residents. The only ones with guns are cops and crooks. It's not like you're just gonna be able to open your back door and shoot a paper target 300 YDS out. Guns to rural people are chewing gum and riding a bike simultaneously. :dunno: yawn

Pretty uneventful 'cause we're well practiced ~

Damn, I wish I was better with dates! :1orglaugh

 

[bodie54]

In another thread I wrote about my neighbor's house being Burglerized by "Metizo's"

Renegade - Do you mean "Mestizos? ....'cause I've never heard of Metizos.

McRocket wrote: Wouldn't you if you were them?

Israel has a proven track record of not using their nukes, despite frequent provokation, and despite a philosophy among many of their neighbors that Isreal should be eradicated from the face of the earth. Would you trust those with that philosophy with nukes? I wouldn't.

 

[McRocket]

Renegade - Do you mean "Mestizos? ....'cause I've never heard of Metizos.



Israel has a proven track record of not using their nukes, despite frequent provokation, and despite a philosophy among many of their neighbors that Isreal should be eradicated from the face of the earth. Would you trust those with that philosophy with nukes? I wouldn't.

Yes, I do trust them - to a point.
Would I trust them if they had them and Israel did not? Probably not. But since Israel could obliterate Iran with a push of the button any time it wishes, I do trust Iran not to launch nukes at Israel first - were they to have them.
MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) worked for U.S.S.R./America. I see no reason that it cannot work in this case also.

And no offense, but what provocation? Since the 70's/80's, Israel has been absolutely secure militarily in the Middle East. No one can touch them in either conventional or nuclear forces. And they know it. Ever since the Yom Kippur War, their survival as a nation has not been threatened in the slightest.


Most people in the West seem content with Israel having a nuclear monopoly in the Middle East.
I am not one of them.
I used to be, but not any longer.

 

[bodie54]

And no offense, but what provocation?

No offense taken, and no offense to you, but surely you can't be completely serious?

Have you forgotten scud missles raining down on defenseless civilians during the gulf war? And how Israel laid down for that in the best interests of the coalition? How about the terrorist organizations that passionately and determindly espouse the eradication of Israel? How about living in a country where on any given day you could be blown to bits by some lunatic with a bomb strapped to his body? Forget all the apologist bullshit about Ahmadinejad. As Tyrannasaur (and many others) have pointed out, the man is an anti-semite and a holocaust denier. Sorry, but I don't want anybody who's grip on reality is that tenuous (and hate inspired) gaining access to nuclear weapons. Period. And to add the exclamation point, let's revisit those Ahmandinejad quotes again....

"God willing, the eradication of Israel would soon be realized through the continued wisdom of the Palestinian nation."

"As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

"....no doubt the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot [Israel] from the face of the Islamic world."

Most people in the West seem content with Israel having a nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. I am not one of them.

I am. More than comfortable, actually. Unlike their neighbors, they've proven they can be trusted with them.

 

[McRocket]

^^Well, we have different opinions.

I will simply restate that I think a balance of power is for the better.

And since this is not the thread for this, the rest is best discussed elsewhere, IMO.

 

[Imagine]

Isn't that fiat ?

What? If people want a change, vote for officials that represent that view with the intention to make the change, how could that possibly be a bad thing? If the change is so bad that people don't want it, then why in the nine hells would they vote the officials into office? It may be arbitrary, but it's more or less as close to true democracy you can get under a representative government system. That some people may not agree with that view or that people are stupid enough to want a bad change is unfortunate, but that's democracy for you.

 

[ninetysixcavy]

If people genuinely want to end it all they will , as you say , find some way of doing it.The point I made in another post is that a lot , the majority in fact , of people who attempted suicide but were rescued by others realised that after all they didn't really wish to die.Shooting tends to reduce the options.

Can I say that, living in a country where gun ownership is rare, I don't feel the slightest need to carry one for self protection or to defend my property.It's just not a part of my life.But if everybody else had one then I might feel different.

Jesus. Go kill a deer today...:1orglaugh There's far too many of them.

 

[Facetious]

What? If people want a change, vote for officials that represent that view with the intention to make the change, how could that possibly be a bad thing? If the change is so bad that people don't want it, then why in the nine hells would they vote the officials into office? It may be arbitrary, but it's more or less as close to true democracy you can get under a representative government system. That some people may not agree with that view or that people are stupid enough to want a bad change is unfortunate, but that's democracy for you.

Mob rule maybe . . ?

This is a Constitutional Republic not a democracy. * this is an ideological based statement. YMMV

I wouldn't necessarily champion the oppression of the 49% minority nor would I advocate the masterdom of the slim majority. Powers can balance without the confiscation of natural civil liberties.

 

[Imagine]

Mob rule maybe . . ?

That'd be anarchy, which is entirely different.

This is a Constitutional Republic not a democracy

Which, in practical implementation in this case, is a representative democracy...

I wouldn't necessarily champion the oppression of the 49% minority...

So going against 49% is wrong, but going against 51% is perfectly fine or what?

Powers can balance without the confiscation of natural civil liberties.

Last time I checked, guns were not a universal, natural civil liberty.

 

[AFA]

I guess if one were raised in a densely populated area of a city, guns are just plain foreign to most residents. The only ones with guns are cops and crooks. It's not like you're just gonna be able to open your back door and shoot a paper target 300 YDS out. Guns to rural people are chewing gum and riding a bike simultaneously. :dunno: yawn

Pretty uneventful 'cause we're well practiced ~

Even those uppety city folk, go down to the parking garage and take out their 4 wheel SUV's to drive to the shooting range in the country if there isn't one in the city. Rosie O'Donnell's bodyguard carried one, but I don't know why as she's loudly anti gun for the rest of us. Do as I say, don't do as I do? Both she and I know she's really special.

Dogs, are indeed good protection, but I'd hate that the bad guy shot them while defending me, blew my brains out, (if I had any), and raped my wife and kids while I bled to death.