# Buy your daughter a gun for school!



## NYC Composer (Feb 18, 2015)

Now THIS is friggin' brilliant. The solution to campus rape- give your daughter a gun before she gets loaded at the frat party! I try to see middle ground in general, but this is just plain stupid:


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/us/in ... tcore-ipad


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 18, 2015)

I clicked the link before I looked at the source. I read a few paragraphs and thought it was from The Onion. I mean, really, who would say these things?

From the Pro side:
_
*“If you’ve got a person that’s raped because you wouldn’t let them carry a firearm to defend themselves, I think you’re responsible,”*_

-Really? The person committing the rape isn't responsible?

_* “If these young, hot little girls on campus have a firearm, I wonder how many men will want to assault them. The sexual assaults that are occurring would go down once these sexual predators get a bullet in their head.”
*_
-He sounds like a dirty old man to me.

And from the Con side:

_*“If you have a rape situation, usually it starts with some sort of consensual behavior, and by the time it switches to nonconsensual, it would be nearly impossible to run for a gun."*_

-Where does he get his stats that most rapes start with consensual behavior? Sounds bogus to me. Plus, it's a "carry" law, not a "store your gun at home" law.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 18, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Wed Feb 18 said:


> Now THIS is friggin' brilliant. The solution to campus rape- give your daughter a gun before she gets loaded at the frat party! I try to see middle ground in general, but this is just plain stupid:
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/us/in ... tcore-ipad



You're stereotyping college girls. Most of them do not "get loaded at frat parties" because most don't belong to frats or sororities and do not go to frat parties.

I used to work campus police, and i can tell you that most were committed outside of the party environment, by outsiders (non-students and staff).

Now, should we have open carry or concealed carry on campus? I don't know. I might be okay with it if the people are screened carefully and complete a thorough training course and psych evaluation.

But then again, I might not be. I don't really know.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 18, 2015)

I linked that article on Facebook this morning, with this comment: 

"For anyone who thought negative IQ scores weren't possible:"


----------



## PMortise (Feb 18, 2015)

OR - you can just buy you daughter a gun before giving her driving lessons. That way she's ready for college. :roll:


----------



## BGvanRens (Feb 19, 2015)

Pretty much wins the face palm of the day award..could not believe what I read.


----------



## FriFlo (Feb 19, 2015)

You Americans and your odd love to guns is just hilarious IMO! Of course I realize, that you just have a history and there are some people, that cannot be talked with reason. But can those people be really that great in numbers? I mean, it is pretty obvious, that you are constantly shooting at your own foot with the weapons law! How can so many people be so damn resistant to any kind of reason? I will never get that about the US, as much as I love the country!


----------



## AC986 (Feb 19, 2015)

FriFlo @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> You Americans and your odd love to guns is just hilarious IMO! Of course I realize, that you just have a history and there are some people, that cannot be talked with reason. But can those people be really that great in numbers? I mean, it is pretty obvious, that you are constantly shooting at your own foot with the weapons law! How can so many people be so damn resistant to any kind of reason? I will never get that about the US, as much as I love the country!



It's called Constitution and Amendments. Which incidentally we don't have here in Great Britain because we have fucking royalty and a cult religion.

David Cameron recently said that people should now be able to defend themselves in their property against attack without the fear of retribution from the law. (apparently not in the street as we have graphically seen here over the years).

How Dave? With a fucking rolling pin? 

A guy or guys are suddenly in your house with weapons. How are you going to defend against that?

Charlton Heston said to anti gun lobbyists something like, if your British Prime Minister and the American President has all these people around them carrying guns for protection, then we should be allowed to have that same protection.

If I was an American, I would have a gun because how are you going to get all the guns in from everyone if you change the law? South side Los Angeles are going to take all their guns back right? :wink:


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

adriancook @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> FriFlo @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > You Americans and your odd love to guns is just hilarious IMO! Of course I realize, that you just have a history and there are some people, that cannot be talked with reason. But can those people be really that great in numbers? I mean, it is pretty obvious, that you are constantly shooting at your own foot with the weapons law! How can so many people be so damn resistant to any kind of reason? I will never get that about the US, as much as I love the country!
> ...



Amen, brother!


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 19, 2015)

adriancook @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> FriFlo @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > You Americans and your odd love to guns is just hilarious IMO! Of course I realize, that you just have a history and there are some people, that cannot be talked with reason. But can those people be really that great in numbers? I mean, it is pretty obvious, that you are constantly shooting at your own foot with the weapons law! How can so many people be so damn resistant to any kind of reason? I will never get that about the US, as much as I love the country!
> ...



Yanno Adrian, I don't think it's likely you're going to tour South Central in your convertible anytime soon, so I think you're safe.  

How much crime by gun on non-criminals is there in your area?

If you were American in NYC , you wouldnt be able to get a legal gun without showing a serious need for one and jumping through a lot of hoops, and that's the way I like it. We've managed to have one of the safest cities in the country that way. Personally, I do not want everyone in a large major city where there is plenty of jostling and traffic issues to be carrying guns and starting wild west shootouts on the subways.

If the answer to every problem of violence is "more guns", well jeez. Follow the logic.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

FriFlo @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> You Americans and your odd love to guns is just hilarious IMO! Of course I realize, that you just have a history and there are some people, that cannot be talked with reason. How can so many people be so damn resistant to any kind of reason? I will never get that about the US, as much as I love the country!



It's unreasonable to want to be able to protect yourself and your family from intruders? 

If your citizens are unarmed, what happens if your government gets out of control and oppresses you, what will you be able to do about it? Nothing. You are under their thumb. But I guess you must think that willingly being under the thumb of a tyrannical and oppressive government is "reasonable".


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 19, 2015)

Michael K. Bain @ Wed Feb 18 said:


> NYC Composer @ Wed Feb 18 said:
> 
> 
> > Now THIS is friggin' brilliant. The solution to campus rape- give your daughter a gun before she gets loaded at the frat party! I try to see middle ground in general, but this is just plain stupid:
> ...



There are a lot of reported and unreported rapes/date rapes/non consensual sex incidents at frat parties over the years. I understand why you think I was stereotyping, but do you think there isn't a lot of drug and alcohol use at parties in dorm rooms? Sure was when my kid went to school a few months back.

Is the girl actually wearing the gun during a makeout session that starts becoming more serious than she wants it? Derringer strapped to her thigh? C'mon.


----------



## JohnG (Feb 19, 2015)

Michael K. Bain @ 19th February 2015 said:


> If your citizens are unarmed, what happens if your government gets out of control and oppresses you, what will you be able to do about it? Nothing. You are under their thumb. But I guess you must think that willingly being under the thumb of a tyrannical and oppressive government is "reasonable".



Yes, I plan to hold off the US Marines with my gun in my house. It'll be just like that movie with that guy.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 19, 2015)

Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> FriFlo @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > You Americans and your odd love to guns is just hilarious IMO! Of course I realize, that you just have a history and there are some people, that cannot be talked with reason. How can so many people be so damn resistant to any kind of reason? I will never get that about the US, as much as I love the country!
> ...



I think people who look around the world and believe we are in a tryrannical and oppressive government should move to North Korea or Saudi Arabia for a while, then report back.

I do not believe, btw, that it's unreasonable to have protection against intruders. I believe it's unreasonable to have an ARSENAL to defend yourself from the coming Armageddon of government takeover. I believe having stockpiles and multi magazines and ordinance beyond a shotgun or maybe a single handgun isn't home protection, it's preparing for mounting an aggressive assault with 15 militia guys, all of whom get blowed up in about 15 minutes by people who do it fulltime, like the battalion my son provides strategic intelligence for.


----------



## JohnG (Feb 19, 2015)

NYC Composer @ 19th February 2015 said:


> ...all of whom get blowed up in about 15 minutes by people who do it fulltime, like the battalion my son provides strategic intelligence for.



Do you think it would take that long?


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

JohnG @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Michael K. Bain @ 19th February 2015 said:
> 
> 
> > If your citizens are unarmed, what happens if your government gets out of control and oppresses you, what will you be able to do about it? Nothing. You are under their thumb. But I guess you must think that willingly being under the thumb of a tyrannical and oppressive government is "reasonable".
> ...



Scoff if you must. But at least with weapons, you can put up a fight. Without weapons, you might as well 

Plus, I'm not talking about citizens standing alone. In the US, there are several state governments that will not bow to an oppressive federal government. Texas is a very rich state. A confederation of these states' government's resources (National Guards, the oil industry, defense contractors, etc.) and a well armed citizen militia could put up a good fight.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > FriFlo @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> ...



Of course I don't think the Federal government is anywhere near that oppressive at this time. I'm talking about being ready for any possibility.


----------



## JohnG (Feb 19, 2015)

Michael K. Bain @ 19th February 2015 said:


> Plus, I'm not talking about citizens standing alone. In the US, there are several state governments that will not bow to an oppressive federal government. Texas is a very rich state. A confederation of these states' government's resources (National Guards, the oil industry, defense contractors, etc.) and a well armed citizen militia could put up a good fight.



Ok, maybe half an hour? Then they run out of ammo and -- uh-oh....


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Michael K. Bain @ Wed Feb 18 said:
> 
> 
> > NYC Composer @ Wed Feb 18 said:
> ...



Sure there is, but not everyone, not by a long shot, especially at schools not known for being "party schools".


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

JohnG @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Michael K. Bain @ 19th February 2015 said:
> 
> 
> > Plus, I'm not talking about citizens standing alone. In the US, there are several state governments that will not bow to an oppressive federal government. Texas is a very rich state. A confederation of these states' government's resources (National Guards, the oil industry, defense contractors, etc.) and a well armed citizen militia could put up a good fight.
> ...



That's just silly. You really think these states' national guards and their armed militias would run out of ammo anytime soon? Have you never been to Texas? Defense contractors galore.

There are no less than 20 states that would join a rebellion if need be, In fact, I would reckon there would be more states in the rebellion than not.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 19, 2015)

The snag is that the rabbit is already out of the hat on this one. Amendments mean nothing. What has been amended once, can be amended again. The real problem is that there are thousands of guns in circulation and that is a very difficult problem to solve.

As far as protection is concerned, a gun is only useful if the offending party doesn't have one. If they do, which is the argument for having a gun in the first place, you have to be willing to use yours, which counts out most people who have any sort of moral decency about them, so it is still not really any protection.

D


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

Daryl @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> As far as protection is concerned, a gun is only useful if the offending party doesn't have one. If they do, which is the argument for having a gun in the first place, you have to be willing to use yours, which counts out most people who have any sort of moral decency about them, so it is still not really any protection.
> 
> D



It's morally indecent to do what s necessary to protect loved ones from dangerous intruders? You've got to be kidding me.


----------



## JohnG (Feb 19, 2015)

Michael K. Bain @ 19th February 2015 said:


> There are no less than 20 states that would join a rebellion if need be, In fact, I would reckon there would be more states in the rebellion than not.



You "reckon" so? Possibly because you live someplace with a number of like-minded patriots who drink beer late at night and imagine themselves at the center of a drama that is pretty much confined to your living room and a few Facebook groups?

Also it's "no fewer," not "no less" than 20, since it's a finite number. FYI.

Finally, you might find that some of those defense contractors and national guardsmen take their duty to the federal government seriously.


----------



## pixel (Feb 19, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> I think people who look around the world and believe we are in a tryrannical and oppressive government should move to North Korea or Saudi Arabia for a while, then report back.



Going that way of logic: if your salary drop to 10$/month you will be happy because in North Korea people doesn't get salary at all? :wink: 

One thing that I learned in my life: Always compare to better than you, not to worse.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 19, 2015)

Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> JohnG @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Michael K. Bain @ 19th February 2015 said:
> ...



Michael, my friend- armed rebellion against the federal government is called insurrection. Treason and sedition by some. If you really want another Civil War, may I respectfully suggest you discuss it with colleagues who agree with you, and not too much publicly? I'm not trying to shut you up-if you don't see my point, please feel free to continue along the same line. Hopefully you're just speaking theoretically?


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 19, 2015)

pixel @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> NYC Composer @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > I think people who look around the world and believe we are in a tryrannical and oppressive government should move to North Korea or Saudi Arabia for a while, then report back.
> ...



Ok. So to the point, do you believe we live under a tyrannical and oppressive guvmint?


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

JohnG @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Michael K. Bain @ 19th February 2015 said:
> 
> 
> > There are no less than 20 states that would join a rebellion if need be, In fact, I would reckon there would be more states in the rebellion than not.
> ...



I don't drink beer, and I don't use Facebook. I spend my time working, sleeping, eating, watching TV and movies, making music and doing charity work.




JohnG @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Also it's "no fewer," not "no less" than 20, since it's a finite number. FYI.



And even if I did spend my time drinking beer and posting on facebook, I reckon that would be just as productive as spending my time correcting people's grammar on the internet.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Michael, my friend- armed rebellion against the federal government is called insurrection. Treason and sedition by some. If you really want another Civil War, may I respectfully suggest you discuss it with colleagues who agree with you, and not too much publicly? I'm not trying to shut you up-if you don't see my point, please feel free to continue along the same line. Hopefully you're just speaking theoretically?



Yes, I'm speaking theoretically. I have never killed anyone and am not even a hunter. I love animals and I love most people.

I hate war. And we aren't anywhere near that point here in the USA. And I do not wish it to ever happen. I pray it doesn't. And I don't use "I pray" as a mere figure of speech, either.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 19, 2015)

Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> NYC Composer @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Michael, my friend- armed rebellion against the federal government is called insurrection. Treason and sedition by some. If you really want another Civil War, may I respectfully suggest you discuss it with colleagues who agree with you, and not too much publicly? I'm not trying to shut you up-if you don't see my point, please feel free to continue along the same line. Hopefully you're just speaking theoretically?
> ...



Good to hear, Michael. We agree on most of that.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > NYC Composer @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> ...


Thanks, and I want to make clear that the only reason I am discussing protection from an oppressive government is as a reason for not taking guns away from citizens.

If you met me, you'd find me to be a very nonviolent person.


----------



## pixel (Feb 19, 2015)

Btw does anyone here, really believes that teenager with a gun can be reasonable and safety? :wink: 
This is the age when we grow up mentally. A lot of stupid mistakes, instant action without even one thought etc
Only small % of kids in that age is mentally developed and rationally thinking. Most of teenagers is unpredictable and "wild".


If gun is the answer for any problem then maybe we should shoot up each other right now? 

We can do two things: 
-looking for reason of actual situation and trying to repair source of it
-follow this way deeper and deeper where gun will be the final solution on every problem

Did you ever had a gun applied to your head? I had, and even if I had a gun that time, I would not have to use it. Just 1 second to reaction before I was blocked to make any move. 
It's easy to talking about guns but without abilities and proper training, gun can be unsafe even for the owner. This is real live not holywood movie and we are not Rambo :mrgreen:


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

pixel @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> It's easy to talking about guns but without abilities and proper training, gun can be unsafe even for the owner. This is real live not holywood movie and we are not Rambo :mrgreen:



I agree totally, and I for one think that no gun should be granted unless the person completes a proper training course and psych evaluation.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

pixel @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> If gun is the answer for any problem then maybe we should shoot up each other right now?
> 
> We can do two things:
> -looking for reason of actual situation and trying to repair source of it
> -follow this way deeper and deeper where gun will be the final solution on every problem



Thankfully, guns aren't the answer for most problems. But unfortunately, they are the answer for some.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 19, 2015)

Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Daryl @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > As far as protection is concerned, a gun is only useful if the offending party doesn't have one. If they do, which is the argument for having a gun in the first place, you have to be willing to use yours, which counts out most people who have any sort of moral decency about them, so it is still not really any protection.
> ...


I think you over estimate the number of people who would be prepared to kill on the off chance a burglar might turn out to be violent. In any case, by the time you find out, you are already dead. Unless you shoot first, in which case my statement stands.

D


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

Daryl @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> ...



I wouldn't shoot someone to protect my possessions or my money. Life is more important than materials.

But if that person is seeking to harm my family or loved ones, I'd shoot. And if I waited until that person actually shot first, or drew blood with a knife first, it might be too late at that point.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 19, 2015)

Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> But if that person is seeking to harm my family or loved ones, I'd shoot. And if I waited until that person actually shot first, or drew blood with a knife first, it might be too late at that point.


But if you shoot first and ask questions later, you're a murderer. It can't be self defense.

D


----------



## JohnG (Feb 19, 2015)

Michael K. Bain @ 19th February 2015 said:


> And even if I did spend my time drinking beer and posting on facebook, I reckon that would be just as productive as spending my time correcting people's grammar on the internet.



A stinging riposte!

If you don't do Facebook, you are no doubt unaware of what kind of pals you could meet who agree with you. There are lots -- they post pictures of themselves defending the border, shooting their guns, announcing their devotion to Jesus (leaving aside the pesky "turn the other cheek" bits, natch).

Also, as long as you are handing out advice, do you think I should stop spending my time conversing with loonies on the internet too?


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

Daryl @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > But if that person is seeking to harm my family or loved ones, I'd shoot. And if I waited until that person actually shot first, or drew blood with a knife first, it might be too late at that point.
> ...


In cases of imminent danger, if you don't shoot first, you or your loved one could well be dead.

By imminent danger, I'm referring to someone pointing a gun at you or a loved one, or going toward you or a loved one with a knife or other weapon.

In that case, would you wait for the criminal to actually inflict their intended damage before shooting?


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

JohnG @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> There are lots -- they post pictures of themselves defending the border, shooting their guns, announcing their devotion to Jesus (leaving aside the pesky "turn the other cheek" bits, natch).



Now I don't know about those pictures, but I certainly am against shooting at people trying to cross the border illegally. Unless of course, the person crossing the border is doing something that presents imminent danger to someone. But of course, that last bit was just for theoretical argument. I am not saying that people crossing the border are frequently presenting imminent danger to anyone.



Michael K. Bain @ 19th February 2015 said:


> Also, as long as you are handing out advice, do you think I should stop spending my time conversing with loonies on the internet too?



I don't remember handing out advice, to tell you the truth. 

But if we all stopped conversing with loonies on the internet, I suppose we'd do very little conversing on the internet at all.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 19, 2015)

Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Daryl @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> ...


It doesn't matter how you rationalise it, shooting first is murder, and most sane people don't have the stomach for that. Besides if someone is coming towards you with a gun and you start to point yours at them, they will shoot first, so already you have the situation you are trying to avoid. Sorry, but guns in households for protection are a bad idea. They offer no protection unless you are prepared to use them and shoot first, and if you are prepared for that, you should never be allowed anywhere near a gun

D


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

Daryl @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> It doesn't matter how you rationalise it, shooting first is murder, and most sane people don't have the stomach for that. Sorry, but guns in households for protection are a bad idea. They offer no protection unless you are prepared to use them and shoot first, and if you are prepared for that, you should never be allowed anywhere near a gun
> 
> D



Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Self-defense from immediate danger is neither unlawful or premeditated.



Daryl @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Besides if someone is coming towards you with a gun and you start to point yours at them, they will shoot first, so already you have the situation you are trying to avoid.



Maybe so, but if someone was pointing at gun at my family member - not me - I could definitely get get him before he gets my family member.

If I had a gun and saw someone trying to murder your family, I would shoot that person. And if it happened to kill the person, I would feel bad for being *forced* to take a life. But better a murderer's life than allowing him to kill innocent people...your family.

If my family is ever in danger of being murdered, I hope you are not the only person around with the ability to do whatever it takes to stop it.


----------



## AC986 (Feb 19, 2015)

Michael, liberals will come out with just about anything to put you off dying first. You need to understand that, which I think you do. A liberal would rather you die than try to protect yourself or anyone else. Liberals have been protected for years by non liberals, but you might as well fart at the sun, I'm telling you.

In the immortal words of Robert Mitchum - 'if I'm gonna die, I'm gonna die last'




:mrgreen:


----------



## JohnG (Feb 19, 2015)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015 ... /23309195/


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 19, 2015)

The whole "shoot the bad guys" fantasy is BS.

I personally know:
* A guy who shot himself in the leg on a hunting trip.
* A woman who lost her son when the kids found the household gun and "played" with it.
* A woman who accidentally shot a round through the bedroom with her two kids sleeping inside.
* A few people who took (or attempted to take) their own lives with a gun.

The person I have never, ever met:
* The person who protected their family from an intruder.

Let's be honest here. People are more likely to be shot with their own gun than somebody else's. Suicide is the most common gun death.

Paranoia and gun-hero fantasies are not good reasons for gun ownership. If you find yourself fantasizing about blowing away intruders in the middle of the night, turn off the TV, read better books, and play some relaxing music with friends and family while watching the sunset. This will bring much more joy than a hollow-tip round.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 19, 2015)

Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> If my family is ever in danger of being murdered, I hope you are not the only person around with the ability to do whatever it takes to stop it.


Unlikely, because we don't have the same BS gun culture as the US.

D


----------



## Daryl (Feb 19, 2015)

JohnG @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/12/montana-homeowner-prison-killing-teen-trespasser/23309195/


Yes, I thought as much. This idea that you can have a gun, shoot first and call it self defence really doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

D


----------



## Daryl (Feb 19, 2015)

JonFairhurst @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Paranoia and gun-hero fantasies are not good reasons for gun ownership. If you find yourself fantasizing about blowing away intruders in the middle of the night, turn off the TV, read better books, and play some relaxing music with friends and family while watching the sunset. This will bring much more joy than a hollow-tip round.


Yeah, don't watch Death Wish, for sure. :wink: 

D


----------



## José Herring (Feb 19, 2015)

If you really loved your daughter you'd make sure that she was well armed when she gets falling over drunk at a frat party with a bunch of horny college boys. Take care of you and yours.


----------



## AC986 (Feb 19, 2015)

How many gun deaths from gun related crime in the USA last year?


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

Daryl @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> JohnG @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/12/montana-homeowner-prison-killing-teen-trespasser/23309195/
> ...


Self defense has stood up in case after case after case. In the linked case above, the person shot was unarmed. No one here is advocating shooting someone who isn't trying to harm someone.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

JonFairhurst @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Paranoia and gun-hero fantasies are not good reasons for gun ownership. If you find yourself fantasizing about blowing away intruders in the middle of the night, turn off the TV, read better books, and play some relaxing music with friends and family while watching the sunset. This will bring much more joy than a hollow-tip round.



How many people fantasize about blowing people away in the middle of the night?

I for one hope I never have to shoot someone. But if it someone tries to harm my family, I want to prepared.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

I pose this question to each of you, so that Daryl will see that he is in the minority.

If someone were trying to kill your family member with a gun, would you wait until he fired, or would you shoot him first?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 19, 2015)

I just show the bad guys my penis and they run away.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 19, 2015)

It happens all the time. I have a right to protect my property.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 19, 2015)

Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> I pose this question to each of you, so that Daryl will see that he is in the minority.
> 
> If someone were trying to kill your family member with a gun, would you wait until he fired, or would you shoot him first?


Well, firstly being in the minority doesn't make me wrong. History should teach you that.

And secondly, I assure you that whilst there could be a remote possibility that you could save your family member in your scenario, the number of people who would die if all of us had your attitude would be far greater, and as Spock says, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. Emotionally I would want to do everything that I could to save my family member. Dispassionately, shooting to kill would only be to the detriment of society as a whole.

I think you need to think very clearly about your statement "trying to kill". You can only know this if they actually do try. Holding them hostage at gunpoint is not trying to kill.

D


----------



## pixel (Feb 19, 2015)

My question is: where do you live that you are so afraid of be assaulted, attacked by thief at night? 
Jeez. Every time when I read pro-gun posts then I have feeling that you guys are live somewhere in africa's village where there is a civil war.

I'm so so happy that i have moved to small town in Scotland and I don't need to be aware of people wanting to kill me. I can even leave open doors in my house because probability of stealing is soooooo small


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

pixel @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> My question is: where do you live that you are so afraid of be assaulted, attacked by thief at night?
> Jeez. Every time when I read pro-gun posts then I have feeling that you guys are live somewhere in africa's village where there is a civil war.
> 
> I'm so so happy that i have moved to small town in Scotland and I don't need to be aware of people wanting to kill me. I can even leave open doors in my house because probability of stealing is soooooo small



I do not sit here in fear that someone will try to kill me or my family. But people should be prepared because there are indeed evil people in the world.


----------



## pixel (Feb 19, 2015)

Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> I pose this question to each of you, so that Daryl will see that he is in the minority.
> 
> If someone were trying to kill your family member with a gun, would you wait until he fired, or would you shoot him first?



It's impossible to answer you question if someone has never been in that situation. 
It's so stressful and unusual that every answer will be nothing more than just a wishful thinking. 
I had that situation and I was totally blocked to thinking about killing the aggressor. I'm happy that I can keep cold blood in almost any situation that, like in this case, I solved it with just the conversation. Yes, conversation is really powerful tool if you know how to use it


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

Daryl @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > I pose this question to each of you, so that Daryl will see that he is in the minority.
> ...



So, if someone is someone is pointing a gun at a family member, should I ask him "Are you planning on using that against the person at whom you're pointing it", and then trust him that he's being honest with me?


----------



## pixel (Feb 19, 2015)

Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> pixel @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > My question is: where do you live that you are so afraid of be assaulted, attacked by thief at night?
> ...



You can spend whole live and be aware of danger or you can spend that time being happy that everything is alright now. I feel like the most happy man in the world just after I stopped to care about "what kind of disaster can happen to me". I was like that for my whole live but no more.
I know that I have much more likely to be hit by car or get terminal disease, even today so I don't worry about it. Everything is fine now for me so I'm happy


----------



## Daryl (Feb 19, 2015)

Michael, you can argue all you like, but all you have proved is that under no circumstances should you ever be allowed to have a gun.

D


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

pixel @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > I pose this question to each of you, so that Daryl will see that he is in the minority.
> ...



Well, yes, it's impossible to know what I would do 100%. I might freeze up. 

But what I hope I would do is size up the situation and then act accordingly. If the person seemed remotely reasonable, I would tell him to drop the gun or I'll shoot him to protect my family. 

If however, someone is pointing a gun at my family, and I believe he can't be reasoned with - he's angry or high or whatever, I might have to shoot without warning. 

At the end of the incident, the perpetrator is the one who put himself in the situation, not me, so if he has to be shot - well, better him than my family.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

Daryl @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Michael, you can argue all you like, but all you have proved is that under no circumstances should you ever be allowed to have a gun.
> 
> D



You have proved that you should never be in a situation where you have to protect someone who is in imminent danger.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 19, 2015)

Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Daryl @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Michael, you can argue all you like, but all you have proved is that under no circumstances should you ever be allowed to have a gun.
> ...


Nonsense. This is not about me protecting someone, it's about whether someone should be allowed to be judge jury and executioner by gunfire. I believe not; you believe so.

D


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

pixel @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > pixel @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> ...



You are no happier than me, I can assure you. I count my blessings every day, and I have many. I am very very grateful for those blessings and I take advantage of every opportunity in life that will bring me true joy. In fact, I have a joy and peace in me that surpasses all of of life's hardships. 

I do not sit around being worried about my family being murdered. But people are evil, so we should be prepared in case the unthinkable does happen.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

Daryl @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> ...


That is the nonsense.

The fact is that if someone points a gun at your family, you would give him the opportunity to kill them by shooting first, even if you had a chance to stop it.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 19, 2015)

Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Daryl @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> ...



Hmmm. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree then. I can't imagine living in a society where your view is the norm. Luckily, I don't.

D


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

Daryl @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> ...



Every one of my family and friends and neighbors would do what is necessary to protect the others' lives. And that is one of the many ways in which I am blessed.


----------



## AC986 (Feb 19, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> I just show the bad guys my penis and they run away.



I would run away!


----------



## AC986 (Feb 19, 2015)

pixel @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> My question is: where do you live that you are so afraid of be assaulted, attacked by thief at night?



Ummmm in England!


----------



## AC986 (Feb 19, 2015)

Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> I do not sit around being worried about my family being murdered.



No but liberals think that you do. This is what they have difficulty with. They can't see that this is merely down to planning and thinking more than 10 minutes ahead. Most liberals can think 10 minutes ahead of course, but they have difficulty thinking 10 minutes behind.

That's their biggest weakness. Selective memory.


Where's Chim? He's missing out on this one.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 19, 2015)

Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> How many people fantasize about blowing people away in the middle of the night?
> 
> I for one hope I never have to shoot someone. But if it someone tries to harm my family, I want to prepared.



Think this through...

A bad guy enters your home in the middle of the night with an intent to harm you. (Really? Why?) If so, they're likely prepared. Maybe they have a gun in hand. Maybe there are many of them. They're committed. They disabled your alarm, drugged your dog, and are sneaky and quiet. They kick open your bedroom door. Bummer. You're too late.

So maybe you keep a gun under your pillow, another in the cushion of your armchair, one under the kitchen sink, and yet another taped behind the toilet.

Great. A burglar breaks in while you're away and you've introduced four guns into the wild. Or your kid grabs one and kills a playmate. Awesome. Or you get drunk and depressed. Easy out. Or you, your spouse, or teen gets into a heated argument. Bang, "I win."

I recommend keeping firearms in a gun safe. You won't get to play "Dirty Harry" in the middle of the night, but that happens less often than getting hit by lightning anyway. It's accidents, suicide, and passion that are the more likely situations.

The gun in the safe lets you protect your family in the case of a disaster situation. This is inline with the "militia" intent of the US Constitution. And it reduces the overall risk of gun ownership.

There are those who think it's safest to have everybody armed with loaded guns at the ready. My response is in the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB4PgrEfWzA


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

JonFairhurst @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Think this through...



I have.



JonFairhurst @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> A bad guy enters your home in the middle of the night with an intent to harm you. (Really? Why?)



Why indeed! But it happens, and you cannot deny that.



JonFairhurst @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> If so, they're likely prepared. Maybe they have a gun in hand. Maybe there are many of them. They're committed. They disabled your alarm, drugged your dog, and are sneaky and quiet. They kick open your bedroom door. Bummer. You're too late.



In that case, oh well. Can't control that. But why not be prepared for other things I can control?



JonFairhurst @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> So maybe you keep a gun under your pillow, another in the cushion of your armchair, one under the kitchen sink, and yet another taped behind the toilet.



If I keep my gun with me or in a locked gun safe while I'm away, why do I need one in all those other places?



JonFairhurst @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Great. A burglar breaks in while you're away and you've introduced four guns into the wild.



If I keep my gun with me or in a locked gun safe while I'm away, that won't happen.



JonFairhurst @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Or your kid grabs one and kills a playmate. Awesome.



If I keep my gun with me or in a locked gun safe while I'm away, that won't happen.



JonFairhurst @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Or you get drunk



I don't drink or do drugs.



JonFairhurst @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> and depressed. Easy out.



I have been deeply depressed before, for 6 months straight. Not once was I even tempted to hurt myself or hurt anyone else.



JonFairhurst @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Or you, your spouse, or teen gets into a heated argument. Bang, "I win."



I am not a violent person. I never strike anyone with a fist, palm or weapon. I do not strike. Why would I shoot with a gun because of an argument? Do you think all people are mere animals who can't control their anger?



JonFairhurst @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> I recommend keeping firearms in a gun safe.



My gun would be in a gun safe, except for while I'm sleeping, in which case, it would be in a quick access gun safe beside my bed.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

adriancook @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > I do not sit around being worried about my family being murdered.
> ...



And I really don't understand that. Why not think ahead? Why not plan?




adriancook @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Where's Chim? He's missing out on this one.



Yes, his input would be good.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 19, 2015)

Michael, I'm glad to read that you own and use a gun safe. Given the choice of reducing irresponsibility and ignorance or reducing the number of guns in the world, I'd reduce irresponsibility and ignorance any day!


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

JonFairhurst @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Michael, I'm glad to read that you own and use a gun safe. Given the choice of reducing irresponsibility and ignorance or reducing the number of guns in the world, I'd reduce irresponsibility and ignorance any day!


Thank you, and thanks for your level-headed input.


----------



## wst3 (Feb 19, 2015)

[quote="Michael K. Bain ]
I wouldn't shoot someone to protect my possessions or my money. Life is more important than materials.

But if that person is seeking to harm my family or loved ones, I'd shoot. And if I waited until that person actually shot first, or drew blood with a knife first, it might be too late at that point.[/quote]

That's pretty much where I am at this point in my life.

I was single for a long time, had a studio in my home, had insurance, did not have a gun. Didn't see the need. Someone comes in to the basement and takes all my gear I will be upset, disappointed even. And rebuilding would not be trivial. But it would be possible.

Now I'm married, three young kids, and (irony abounds) still haven't rebuilt the studio for real, although the gear is still here, and I do have a smaller rig up and running.

Still have insurance, but I also added a gun to the equation.

If someone beaks in, and stays in the basement they simply have to hope they exit before the police arrive. But if they come up to the first floor we are going to have a conversation, and I will be armed, and if need be, I will use deadly force.

No, I still don't know for certain how I will know - I mean I guess there are the obvious cues, like said burglar points his weapon at me, but beyond that it is going to be a judgement call. One I pray I never have to make.

If my gun stays in the safe (except for trips to the range) for the rest of my life I'm ok with that. Heck, that's my strong preference. But, should I ever need to make that choice I want all my options. If I can detain the burglar till local law enforcement arrives that's better, if I can scare him out of the house that's acceptable, although the next house he breaks into might disagree.

None of which is directly related to the OP. Which is stupid beyond belief.

I've know two women who were victims of rape, and another who was a victim of abuse. It changed them. It's awful, I mean really horrible, and unless you know someone who was raped, or were raped yourself I'm not sure you can understand. Heck, I'm not sure I understand completely, but I have witnessed the results, and there are no words strong enough!

That said, arming college age girls is just dumb. Ignoring the part where alcohol and firearms are a bad combination (and the article does seem to suggest that these young ladies ought to carry their weapons to the frat parties???), I think the number of people that age who can handle that responsibility is small. Very small.

If I remember correctly (and it was a while ago) pretty girls tended to be pretty distracting. From what I heard from some of those pretty girls, the distraction could be mutual. Teen-age into early 20s is not exactly the peak of our maturity.

And then there are some of the other quotes - too much. I still think the whole thing is a put-on, at least I hope so. Otherwise that's 15-20 minutes of my life I'd like back!


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 19, 2015)

I hate stupid moral self righteousness and absolutism.

If I lived in a crime ridden area or a very remote area, I might want to have a gun. I would get the proper training.

Moreover, if anybody ever breaks into my apt on the edge of Harlem and threatens my wife, I will brain them with a cudgel I keep for self protection.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 19, 2015)

I have some questions:

1) Do you know somebody first hand who was in their home when an intruder entered?

2) Do you know somebody first hand who effectively used a gun against an intruder?

3) Do you know somebody who was killed or injured by a gun owned by them, a friend, or family member?

In my case, I don't know anybody in categories (1) or (2), but know at least 6 people in (3). Most were suicides. I believe that my experience is in line with the statistics.

Anybody else have experiences to share?


----------



## Sebastianmu (Feb 19, 2015)

I think the whole "yeah, but what if...?"-strand of the argument is flawed and misleading.

The problem is this: the current rules on weapons in the US are the CAUSE of the increased risk of someone showing up in your bedroom WITH A GUN and trying to kill you or someone you care about. With a law that is more restrictive, this risk would be considerably smaller. 

You are using something which is a result of the current regulations as an argument for why they shouldn't be changed. Classical fault in logic: circular reasoning. 

And I'm with Daryl: Since you cannot know if the intruder would kill or harm someone until they actually did, you have no right to shoot them beforehand. (At least not in the head or center body, maybe a shot in the leg would do the trick.)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 19, 2015)

"I don't want a gun. Guns just attract more guns." - Bobbie Neuwirth


----------



## wst3 (Feb 19, 2015)

Sebastianmu @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Since you cannot know if the intruder would kill or harm someone until they actually did, you have no right to shoot them beforehand. (At least not in the head or center body, maybe a shot in the leg would do the trick.)



I find that logic flawed, and in fact, at least in my home state, the test is whether or not a reasonable person would feel that their life is in jeopardy.

If a person is in my home, uninvited, and they have a weapon I'm pretty sure the outcome will not be one I will like. If they choose to immediately leave the house then we are ok. Otherwise I will shoot. And I won't shoot for the leg or the head, but rather the center of the body, as I was trained to do. It is the most likely shot to stop the person. And that is the goal.

And, admittedly, that is my opinion. I do not have a problem with someone choosing to not own a gun, but I do have an issue with someone else trying to make that choice for me.


----------



## wst3 (Feb 19, 2015)

JonFairhurst @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> I have some questions:
> 
> 1) Do you know somebody first hand who was in their home when an intruder entered?
> 
> ...



Sure, since you asked... I know someone from the first two categories, and thankfully, no one from the third.

I was in my home when an intruder tried to enter. And I believe that the only thing that stopped the intruder was my neighbor, and his shotgun. Well, after a while staring at my neighbor's shotgun the intruder seemed quite pleased to see the police. And you know what, they all had guns too!

The rest of that story - my dog is barking, it is not his usual late night bark, so like an idiot I go downstairs to investigate, only to find a guy trying to open my back door - which is locked for a reason! All of the sudden he makes a big show of lacing his fingers and placing them behind his head. I was really confused. My dog weighed 35 pounds, and I'm just not that threatening looking, especially in my PJs. But since he was being so nice about it I called the cops - only then did I notice my neighbor holding a shotgun, standing in my back yard. With his 80 pound German Shepard. 

So did he really need the gun? I don't know. And I have no idea what the guy had planned for my house. Maybe he just wanted to give my dog a treat? Upon questioning he swore he thought he was sneaking into his own house - that was his story, and he stuck to it. So I'll never know, but I do know I'm glad my neighbor stopped by, gun and all.


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 19, 2015)

I got tired of guns long ago.
My hunting days are over, guns are locked away, there's no crime where I live since I decided to move to a rural area.
Folks here win Guns for attendance prizes at Churches.
You can't buy booze but guns, hell yeah....

Nah, these days I am into EOD training, trying to score a Javelin shoulder fired anti tank weapon and do short range compound Bow training since I don't want to kill an intruder until after I interrogated him, had some coffee while we chat, etc.

Much better wounding people, kind of like when we was kids, after beating each other up you became friends for life.

My brothers daughters NEVER had any trouble dating, or even in College, turned out fine.
Probably because whenever a guy came by to date them, he made sure he was cleaning his weapons in the family room when he was introduced.

Thanks to rich white Liberal Film producers and video games, our kids are well armed and ready to fight.

I'm with the Liberals on this one, only rich people should have guns, minorities and poor should have their neighborhoods like in Chicago "Gun Free" and then ring the entry and egress routes with Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinics.

Many great programs Liberals have brought America, so leave them alone when it comes to abortions and only them owning weapons....
They know what's best for folks, just ask them.. 0oD


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 19, 2015)

Sebastianmu @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> And I'm with Daryl: Since you cannot know if the intruder would kill or harm someone until they actually did you have no right to shoot them beforehand.



If someone illegally enters your house and threatens your family by pointing a gun at them, do you think that they are safe? Don't you assume that he intends to hurt them? 

What more do you need to convince you to take whatever action necessary to stop him? Will your wife and child have to take a bullet before you shoot him?



Sebastianmu @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> (At least not in the head or center body, maybe a shot in the leg would do the trick.)


Cops are trained to "shoot to kill". Why? Because a shot to the leg leaves the criminal able to fire his weapon.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 19, 2015)

I'm a liberal, and I know what's right for America.

Reason, compassion, tolerance, rule of law and everybody stop being so fcking right all the fcking time.


----------



## pixel (Feb 20, 2015)

Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> pixel @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> ...



I didn't want to argue about that  and I'm glad that you enjoy life to


----------



## muk (Feb 20, 2015)

If you pretend to protect your family by having guns at home: look at the facts. You don't protect them, you endanger them.
Here are some official statistics:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firea ... gun-use-2/

Alone from this studies it's clear that: there were 230 incidents in 2010 where a weapon has been used for self defense.

In the same time there have been 8'275 criminal gun homicides, 19'392 suicides with a weapon, and 606 unintentional shootings. So, for each live that has been saved through the use of a weapon, there are 123 deaths of innocent people.

There is no reasoning with that. Even if you leave out the suicides it's still 1 to 38. Self defense against tragical accident: roughly 1 to 3.

The whole protection argument is utter bollocks. Rather I have a feeling that it is in fact about a deep republican suspicion against the government, which is why they want to protect themselves rather than relying on the police, the law, the jurisdiction etc. Fine, to each his own. But rather than cling to wild west fantasies, face the facts of your policy: because of this suspicion thousands of innocence people die every year.


----------



## AC986 (Feb 20, 2015)

chimuelo @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Nah, these days I am into EOD training, trying to score a Javelin shoulder fired anti tank weapon and do short range compound Bow training since I don't want to kill an intruder until after I interrogated him, had some coffee while we chat, etc.



I knew you'd come through! :D 

Michael K. Stop answering these fucking liberal questions!!! This is what they do. They ask you leading questions like they're fucking Pharisees. They've done this a million times! They're trying to trap you and every fffffucking time you fall into it. Cheesus. What the fuck business is it of anyone's whether you're happy or not? Totally nonsensical question. Stop falling into it!!!!

Especially Larry! :mrgreen: 

People that break into your home either armed or unarmed *ARE NOT REASONABLE PEOPLE!*


----------



## muk (Feb 20, 2015)

adriancook @ Fri Feb 20 said:


> People that break into your home either armed or unarmed *ARE NOT REASONABLE PEOPLE!*



That's probably true. But neither are people who want to have a gun at home to defend themselves. Because fact is that it is a far greater danger than a safety measure.


----------



## AC986 (Feb 20, 2015)

muk @ Fri Feb 20 said:


> adriancook @ Fri Feb 20 said:
> 
> 
> > People that break into your home either armed or unarmed *ARE NOT REASONABLE PEOPLE!*
> ...



Someone breaks into your house and you think it's probably true that they're unreasonable.

I see.

I love these conversations.


----------



## muk (Feb 20, 2015)

Talking about reason, consider this: before one person is protected with a gun, 38 innocent people have died through these 'protective' guns. And that's not even counting the suicides. Statistically speaking it's three times more likely that somebody of your family gots shot by your own gun in an accident, than that she/he can be protected with it. Oh, and by the way, any intruder you are going to face is much more likely to have a weapon on his own if there is free access to firearms.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 20, 2015)

Never mind. I'm tired of arguing.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 20, 2015)

pixel @ Fri Feb 20 said:


> Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > pixel @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> ...



I'm not arguing. I was assuring you that I am not a worry wart.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 20, 2015)

Never mind. I'm tired of arguing.


----------



## markwind (Feb 20, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Feb 18 said:


> I linked that article on Facebook this morning, with this comment:
> 
> "For anyone who thought negative IQ scores weren't possible:"


lol!


----------



## muk (Feb 20, 2015)

Michael K. Bain @ Fri Feb 20 said:


> I can't do anything about that. But I can protect my family. You want me to give up my ability to protect my family?


Why, but you can. Vote for a more restrictive access to firearms.
Nope. But firstly, there are safer and more efficient measures to protect your family (like an alarm system, safety doors and windows etc.). Secondly, you could still protect your family if access to firearms was more restrictive.






Michael K. Bain @ Fri Feb 20 said:


> Hogwash. You don't know my family.


 That's right. It may be different for any individual family. I corrected my statement above. Yet over all families in the US storing a weapon at home that's true.



Michael K. Bain @ Fri Feb 20 said:


> What is it with you liberals? Why do you assume that you know what is best for every person in the world?



Having rules is an important part of living in a society. In the political process and through votes the rules that will be applied are bargained. Liberals tend to be in favor for more rules, republicans of less. Which doesn't matter in this particular case. In this case statistical evidence shows that thousands of innocent lifes can be saved if the possession of firearms is more restricted. I therefore deem such a regulation as reasonable and necessary.




Michael K. Bain @ Fri Feb 20 said:


> You take away the free sale of guns, they'll buy them on the black market. They are criminals after all.


Against which the state would have to make interventions. But again, what statistics say:

You take away the free sale of guns: and you prevent nearly 32,000 deaths a year (counting criminal homicide, shooting accidents, and suicides), plus 78000 wounded. The price for it is that in 230 cases there wouldn't be a gun around to protect against intruders.


----------



## AC986 (Feb 20, 2015)

I'm not talking about morons with guns that shoot there own fucking dicks off!! That's an issue more to do with imbeciles and why people are genetically, or otherwise built that way. Who the fuck cares about suicides? If someone is hellbent on committing suicide, they will do it one way or another regardless of guns. They can stick their head down a fucking 15 inch gun on a fucking battleship for all I care. They can throw themselves in front of Gunther's tank tracks!!! Fuck them!!!!

Now will all you fucking liberals fuck off for five fucking minutes and let me rant here!!!!


----------



## AC986 (Feb 20, 2015)

Anyway…..











:mrgreen:


----------



## muk (Feb 20, 2015)

Your five minutes are up :D


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 20, 2015)

We need to get rid of the second amendment. It's entirely vestigial and cancerous. There. Done. If you want to play Charles Bronson go to a shooting range. Only people who watch Fox News live in fear to the point they think an armed society is a good idea. Its not a good idea. It's absolutely infantile, it's insane, and it makes this country a much more dangerous place. Gun rampages are the fault of the NRA, not video games or action movies.


----------



## AC986 (Feb 20, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Yanno Adrian, I don't think it's likely you're going to tour South Central in your convertible anytime soon, so I think you're safe.
> 
> How much crime by gun on non-criminals is there in your area?




None Larry. But then again, I haven't been able to get out at night that much lately.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 20, 2015)

muk @ Fri Feb 20 said:


> ...there were 230 incidents in 2010 where a weapon has been used for self defense...



When one compares this data - 230 cases of self-defense/year - to the related emotional fear and desperate need for a gun, we should step back an wonder what the hell is really driving the need for guns so high.

Compare this to the number of deaths and injuries from traffic accidents. And then consider that it was generally conservatives who fought against rules to require seat belts and airbags. They fight against environmental rules that help prevent kids from getting cancer. They often want to rush to war. I've heard more than a few say, "we should just nuke 'em."

I think the self-defense angle is BS. It's an attempt at a logical argument to justify an emotional need. The need seems to be more about personal power, fear of losing control, and a desire for aggression. It sure isn't about saving lives. The saving lives thing is a constructed argument, not the underlying emotional attachment. That's why one can show that fewer lives are lost in countries with gun control and it doesn't matter. Gun owners don't really care about lives saved.

Then again, what good will it do to convince a paranoid gun nut that they are power hungry coward with aggressive tendencies. Let's say one agrees. He'll still fight to the last inch to keep his guns.

The only hope is for people to deal with their paranoia, aggression, and emotional attachment to weaponry. As if that will ever happen en mass.

Nah. We're stuck with who we are as a group. Some of us are trusting and gentle. Some will shoot you if you're on their lawn. All we can do is hope that they store the things properly and know how to (and how not to) use them.

But let's cut the BS about guns making us safe. It's a red herring. 

Take a stuffed animal from some children and they bawl.
Take a blanket from some toddlers and they throw a tantrum.
Take a pacifier from some babies and they cry.
Take guns from some adults and you get similar results.

It's about *feeling* safe. It has nothing to do with being safe.

If it were about being safe, we'd have background checks without the gun show loophole.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 20, 2015)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3HJVp3n9c


----------



## Daryl (Feb 20, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Feb 20 said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3HJVp3n9c


It's almost as if he's been reading this thread. :lol: 

D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 20, 2015)

And every other one. The arguments are all tired.


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 21, 2015)

Now that I am stocked with plenty of weapons and ammo, I agree we should eliminate the 2nd amendment.
I am with Liberals on this one again, as it makes no sense to barter away your strategic advantage by allowing the peasants to arm themselves.

Sadly this won't happen though as Liberals have been removed from DC en masse in 2010 and again in 2014. The only way they can return is by becoming lobbyists a little sooner than they thought.

Let's pray the President and Liberal leaders like Sharpton, Holder, Hillary Clinton and Farakhan don't totally destroy what's left of the once proud party that represented the middle class.

But it sure looks like we will be stuck with a GOP super majority that achieves nothing, proving again these 2 supposed political divides only exist in the minds of Sheep.. o=?


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 21, 2015)

Ba-a-a-a-! B-a-a-a-!


----------



## TheUnfinished (Feb 21, 2015)

Governments can be so reckless, not basing their policies on paranoid fantasies.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 22, 2015)

What liberals? There's Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, just a handful. This country has moved so far to the right it's almost unrecognizable. Clinton was a moderate Republican, Obama's policies place him right of Richard Nixon. Considering the reactionary times he's served in, not the least of which is the out and out racist hatred he's faced his whole presidency, what he has managed to accomplish is freaking heroic.

Complaining about liberals at this point is like whining about the food on the Titanic. The insane right wing has f*cked the country up almost beyond recognition. 






chimuelo @ Sat Feb 21 said:


> Now that I am stocked with plenty of weapons and ammo, I agree we should eliminate the 2nd amendment.
> I am with Liberals on this one again, as it makes no sense to barter away your strategic advantage by allowing the peasants to arm themselves.
> 
> Sadly this won't happen though as Liberals have been removed from DC en masse in 2010 and again in 2014. The only way they can return is by becoming lobbyists a little sooner than they thought.
> ...


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 24, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> I just show the bad guys my penis and they run away.



I forgot to mention- I am NEVER gonna rob your house.


----------



## JohnG (Feb 24, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ 20th February 2015 said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3HJVp3n9c



I like the bit about the security guard at the school:

"...and you've got: Kevin."


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 24, 2015)

I forget that line - I only saw it once a few days ago - but he sums it all up really nicely, doesn't he.

Soundhound is right about the drag to the far right, by the way. It's nice to see I'm not the only one shrieking about that!


----------



## bbunker (Feb 24, 2015)

I'm late to this party, but:

Ugh.

18-year-olds and guns just don't mix. Basic training is full of 18-year-olds, and every day I would wake up and say a silent prayer to the Flying Spaghetti Monster: "Please, O Spaghettious one, don't let today be the day that my young colleague on my right ends me by forgetting how to screw on a god-d*&$ blank adaptor."

I survived that experience. Please don't make me say the same prayer at college, too. But, you know, without the blank adaptor. And most of the latent homoeroticism.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 24, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Feb 24 said:


> I forget that line - I only saw it once a few days ago - but he sums it all up really nicely, doesn't he.
> 
> Soundhound is right about the drag to the far right, by the way. It's nice to see I'm not the only one shrieking about that!



Well, our generation can't die off fast enough. Once we're out of the way, the kids will be alright. 

As to the drag to the right, it's not hard to explain. This is why elections matter-the makeup of the Supreme Court is key to a lot of things. A conservative court will reflect a lot of far right values that the majority country doesn't generally agree with.

Of course, the radio talk shows and Fox TV help to gin up anger among disappointed white guys who see their automatic supremacy slipping away.


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 27, 2015)

Please NYC, 
Look back at the record number of women and Latinos that removed Liberals last November.

The middle class rules the voting booths, not Liberals or Conservatives.
Middle Class America is all races and mixtures, they are the Independents that decide who wins elections.

Why do you think these 2 minority parties say nothing about the Middle Class until clear winners in their Primaries happen..?
Now all of a sudden they talk about the middle class, etc. Folks are tired of these clowns and thankfully our kids are smarter than we were, we actually bought the shit they shoveled. Kids these days know better.

And FWIW the most recent lawlessness with immigration is ONLY because Liberals read the results of the elections and were startled to see their very people they figured were in the bag were the very ones who removed their sorry asses.

What's really no surprise to me, is the pollsters have been wrong for years and they still have everyone paying them fooled.
Most Mexicans I know aren't happy about the millions they could see as a raise going to these clowns who lie to their faces as they shake their hands.
What really is misunderstood is the way they alienate legal Union and right to work Mexicans by letting these folks jump to the head of the line. They see that as direct competition, but you wouldn't know that unless you have seen Union meetings.
Californias Carpenters Union is no longer AFL-CIO, as is Nevada, Utah Oregon and Washington. They have shown how successful they are being Union, but not being duped. They are mostly Mexicans and at their Hall there's an English translator for the dumb Americans who get such a crappy education for trillions wasted.

Travel to Japan and Europe, even mexico and you'll notice how they speak 2 and 3 languages, yet they spent pennies on the dollar.

Folks are just tired of watching Liberals and Conservatives getting rich and powerful as the very people who fight in wars that give them such good lives, are screwing everybody over, except themselves of course.

Also keep this in mind,Liberal policies sound great, but just do the exact opposite of what they claim, same with Conservative jive.
Which states have the highest poverty, highest wealth inequality, highest crime rates....?

California, Illinois and New York.

Time for working folks to get rid of the leftovers of these 2 dog and pony shows and elect someone who had a job instead of a law degree or daddy's checkbook...

Oh, and let the States decide if they want guns or not. 
Federal laws are not obeyed by the very leaders who make them so why should anyone listen to their song and dance...??


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 27, 2015)

Highest poverty rate by household income, 2014-New York ranks a shameful 38th according to the census bureau. Illinois, a shameful 24th, California a shameful 35th.

Worse even that New York: Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Alabama, New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississipi and, though not a state, D.C.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U. ... verty_rate

edit-your crime stats are off too. Your favorite state, Nevada, is quite a bit more murderous per capita than New York. So are a lot of states. Look up the FBI stats.

To some of your other points-

1. Whether the Prez's action on immigration is lawless or not will be decided by the courts.
2. Both parties CONSTANTLY talk about the middle class. That it's always lip service, well, perhaps.
3. I agree that the education in this country is woeful.
4.As to guns, no, I don't want the states to decide. I want the Second Amendment amended to include rational thought when it comes to guns. I'm pretty tired of the peoples' right to form militias and build arsenals-also, I'm tired of the mentally ill shooting up places. The constitution should be a living, breathing document.


----------



## AC986 (Feb 28, 2015)

Both parties. That is the big problem now. Every imbecile and his wife winds up thinking in terms of two parties. And look where we are with it? In the fucking toilet.

Shocked to see California so low down on that list. I see New England is still out in front as usual. Don't you guys still wish you had the British governing the place now? I'm sure sure most of you do.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 28, 2015)

Throwing progressive thought into the same bag as what now passes for conservatism is a lazy and useless way of looking at things, imho. Starting with Ronald Reagan the American right wing devolved into an atavistic cesspool, consumed with a fascistic devotion to nationalism, the fantasy of trickle down economics, a rising xenophobia and religious intolerance.

The Democrats haven't been much better. But their failing has been not sticking to their guns, because they are bought out by much of the same corrupting money as the Republicans. 

But though tempting, saying the two parties are the same is playing into the corrupting forces hands. The Koch brothers would like nothing more than a complacent populace that has no hope. Or has hope in the abject fallacies pushed by the neo facist right wing. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would never have a voice if not for the Democratic Party. The country desperately needs a full generation of progressive policies--rebuilding infrastructure with massive WPA like projects, a proper single payer health care system. 

There is so much to do, but we spend all our time when a democrat is in the presidency fighting off the insane right wing trying to obstruct and derail everything, because they think they are entitled to be in power, no matter what.

Democrats don't invite heads of state inappropriately in the middle of delicate critical negotiations. Democrats don't deprive people of their rights by union busting. Democrats don't elect religious fundamentalists (much). The Democrats don't deregulate everything in sight, destroying our industrial base. 

But Bill Clinton deregulated, you say. And you're absolutely right. Clinton was a moderate republican, as Obama has turned out to be as well. The country has moved dangerously to the right, and it needs to move back the other way. Saying the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are the same shit as Boenner et al, isn't just incorrect, it's destructively stupid.


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 28, 2015)

Nice talking points but have you noticed the Unions were never busted...?
I have a very nice pension thanks to them, would have been much larger if we didn't give millions every year to Liberal shake down artists and big fat cat AFL-CIO bosses.

Remember the Shovel Ready jobs where Liberals got rich, Union bosses got big pay hikes and we gave back 3 bucks an hour just so people could afford to pay us during the wealth redistribution amongst Liberals and their friends...?

Is Union busting what you call laws that allow the members to decide where their cash goes for Organizing...? That's parroted talking points Soundhound, nothing more.

We want our money to go purchase Liberals and Conservatives in the State Capital like the West Coast Trade Unions that left the AFL-CIO do.
They use that money to help Contractors become more flexible and give workers skin in the game, sometimes you make less, sometimes you get prevailing wage increases, also raised by the local politicians, not rich white Liberals in Washington.

They had their trillions, we see them being removed for lying and breaking promises they can't keep. It was inevitable.

Face the facts, these morons in DC know nothing about economics, the Fed took away their candy and did things the right way.

Now we will get Conservatives, so thank those you worship, don't blame the middle classs for getting rid of these ancient wealthy whites.

We have a chance to see infrastructure programs, and it will be by evil CEOs risking their capital to get Federal and Private contracts.
You'd be surprised at a Union meeting how many members voted out Liberals for taking their money and building themselves railroads to their winery's, bridges that lined their pockets, and personal Airport Terminals hardly used.

All we can do is hope for the best, but Liberals are history for what they did for themselves, not for what they didn't do for Americans trying to work their way above stagnating wages, that are not going to grow more thanks to Federal regulations for ACA, and every other shakedown they force businesses to operate under.

This is why small businesses and community Banks are gone, Federal/Liberal regulations that cause such a terrible TOC, only big Banks can stay above the shit they bury us under. Guess what Dodd/Frank fixed the "too big to fail" Banks right....?
Wrong again, more lies and tricks to allow these giants to have America by the balls.

So worship or demonize whoever you want, your guys are losers, and the middle class said so loud and clear.
Would love to see someone like Warren actually say no to big Union money heisted from taxpayers and given to her. She says the right stuff, but look at her salary for teaching a single class, she sometimes doesn't even show up for, and combine that with her life long benefits and salary in DC.....
For a blue eyed Cherokee who despises big money, she sure takes in a bundle and still uses other peoples money without their consent.

Fix that problem and the Democrats can go back to actually representing the people instead of lying to them as they increase their personal wealth from us.


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 28, 2015)

Ok I have family stuff that's going to take up time today, but wanted to get a quick reply in before that particular storm gathers its forces!  I'll be able to check in now and then to continue the fun. 

<<
Is Union busting what you call laws that allow the members to decide where their cash goes for Organizing...? That's parroted talking points Soundhound, nothing more. 
>>

Tell me you're not referring to what's going on in Wisconsin. Please tell me that. Because if so then you are cutting and pasting the Fox News party line in defense of what Walker is doing/has done. Unless you are a Fox News watcher, you know it's absolutely bullshit, misrepresenting the facts, pure propaganda. 

Your criticism of Warren is also bullshit, I'm sorry to say. It's the old right wing nonsense--liberals can't push for progressive policies if they don't live completely outside the current system. That's a load of crap. You can work with what you've got going and have the guts to speak out. 

As I said, the Democrats are absolutely complicit in all this, they are not without blame, not by a long shot. But there are voices within the Democratic party calling for genuine reform and policies that would start to undo some of the damage that's been done by the right wing the last couple of generations. Lumping the democrats in with the Republicans is really easy, but more than that it's lazy. It doesn't require any analysis or much thought. 

I hate to ask this, but you don't watch Fox News do you? Your line about 'worship and demonize' sounds very much like the oversimplified, reactionary baby food they feed their viewers. I'm hoping you don't watch Fox News, and I'm assuming you don't, and I apologize for asking...


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 28, 2015)

Those are original lines brotha' man SoundHound, I am pro Union, monthly LIUNA member not that you would know what that even stands for.

Why don't you let these clowns take your cash by joining a Union and building America, then we talk shop about where every penny goes and why many members are voting for the other team these days.

Secondly, Mexicans are more racist than Americans, it's in their blood. Ever been to Mexico and watched they way they treat Central Americans...?
These Central Americans are called Saro-Tays, Paraso der Merda...and other great names.
Liberal pollsters have brought destruction to your party by being wrong on every count so far when it comes to "Mexican" immigrants. Mexicans got their green cards the proper way and are furious about seeing these folks getting a crack at jobs they want their kids to have in the trade unions. But again, rich white Liberals wouldn't know this as they can't see very well from their Mansions and understand the issues that face people who work in the real world.
Their pollsters were wrong about the results, wrong about which issues to stand for, wrong about letting Sharpton organize their riots from the DOJ, wrong about sending the Clintons to every Liberal seeking re election, remember wherever they went people lost, unless it was somewhere close to a massive great society neighborhood, they are usually wired in from all of the free treats handed out.

Your boys are going to lose their ass again if Hillary and her Green Energy backers from the Middle East don't get any competition from a Primary.
Seems to me the Liberals are more concerned about themselves, and seek lavish gigs in hopes the Clintons, Buffet, Soros, Styer, and the Saudi Royal Family get back in again...

Ever notice the billionaire Liberals that are always talking about Green this, and Green that own Billions in big Oil...?
Wonder why the Pipeline's final link hasn't been laid down. Instead we have several big Oil spills from railway cars owned by Warren Buffet, yes the Presidents "Advisor."
I have no issue with capitalists making money, but most Sheep are worried about interuptions as they graze on the free grass, seemingly unaware that the evil they despise is the evil they promote. Research might actually help but I doubt that those getting free stuff want to see the gravy train stop.

Before I go back to installing 8.1 AGAIN... :twisted: ask yourself why Liberals didn't vote on anything like immigration, tax reform, you know legislation we demanded get fixed, even after the Liberals were handed their hats again last WInter, there was a lame duck session with zero opposition to stop any legislation from being passed, yet they didn't even take advantage of that, but rather brought forward the Pipeline bill, that naturally was voted down as the Big Oil Green guys that purchase Liberals will not allow that to happen.
Here we now have a majority of GOP thanks to your ass clowns, and suddenly all the laws that could have been passed, that will never be passed are being brought forth....
They are simply giving their brethren GOP "arch enemies" the Green light for executive actions when they take over in 2016.

Get use to that type of leadership, but there will be so few Liberals, they won't need executive action.

In my opinion the GOP will do exactly nothing, just like the Liberals before them when they had the Golden opportunity to "SERVE" Americans rather than lie and cheat them out of what little they make during the era of wealth redistribution.....

I could be wrong, maybe the GOP might actually bring us single payer and infrastructure.
Bet they won't need 1.2 trillion, more like 250 Billion to get the Bidding process going. In the real world competition keeps costs down, and invites risk takers to use their money instead of stealing tax payers cash and saying,...ooops...the website cost 1.1 billion instead of the 10 million most Corporations used to get a site up and running.

Lets hope a real progressive type of era comes our way, but you really need true progressive-ism like we have in Nevada, where corporations pay the public pensions and salaries and tax payers sit at the table during negotiations.

Thankfully the Kennedy "Union Busters" don't have a voice in Nevada.
Too bad your wealthy white Liberals can't see what real progressive people live like in Nevada. Wages have stagnated but when you pay ZERO taxes, and Oil is cheap from local fracking, you consider yourself lucky after the Liberal/Conservative equity scam back in 2008 that took 10 years of our lives from us.

Cheerz and right wing is a dream world you prefer to live in, I live in NO WING since neither of these 2 crime families stand up for the middle class.....
If you cant handle hearing those you worship criticized, at least prove I am wrong instead of using that tired (yawn.yawn) right wing fox news jive. I saw you try that on another member here, and it was weak at best, shows you watch Fox more than either of us. 
I have no time to waste I love life, if I need to be deporessed I can read the NYTime op-eds, or MSNBC, Fox, CNN, etc.

But I hate being lied to by corporations and advertisements, then taking more lies when the "stenographers" return and pretend to be investigative jounalists.

Hopefully you didn't miss Rachel, Ed or Sharpton's "News" by reading this, my guess is like to get mad so you watch Hannity and Colmbes...... 0oD .


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 28, 2015)

when I get done wth family stuff and you've successfully dealt with 8.1 (fingers crossed!) we can get into it. suffuce it to say that I think you for the most part talk out of your ass. my wife has been a union worker her whole life and though they are in many ways worthless, things are MUCH better than if they didn't exist. if Scott walker gets his way, there will be terrible repurcussions in Wisconsin and the surrounding economies. I'm glad you don't watch fox news, the reason I asked is that's the only place I've heard quite a few of your ideas. I dont worship Rachel Maddow, I don't worship anything thanks for the insult (we can have a conversation without being assholes, wanna try?) though I think she's pretty great. I read the ny times, economist, watch pbs evening news and bbc and have lved the brilliant editorial of Jon Stewart and Colbert fr the last ten years. 

your reductivisit, repetitive shtick has no substance. it seems a grab bag of unrelated nonsense. would we be have been better off With Al Gore than George Bush, who basically left the country in ruins? if you think there's no difference, well, you haven't been paying attention to the last fifty years.


----------



## gbar (Feb 28, 2015)

JohnG @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> Michael K. Bain @ 19th February 2015 said:
> 
> 
> > If your citizens are unarmed, what happens if your government gets out of control and oppresses you, what will you be able to do about it? Nothing. You are under their thumb. But I guess you must think that willingly being under the thumb of a tyrannical and oppressive government is "reasonable".
> ...



LOL. The whole idea that you can even have a successful armed revolution that DOESN'T involve the military as part of the armed uprising is kind of laughable, right? 

Weird Factoid: The whole reason we have a US Constitution instead of relying on the Articles of Confederation is largely because of armed uprisings like Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. The second one happened after the Constitution was ratified, and Washington used the new army to put that sucker down and hanged a few people to set an example


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 28, 2015)

Michael K. Bain @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> JohnG @ Thu Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Michael K. Bain @ 19th February 2015 said:
> ...


Dude, when was the last time your government went after you?
Oh, wait, there was the civil war, when the Union went after the slave holder states.
So maybe, for people that still pledge allegiance to those beliefs, there is a reason to fear that one day they may forced to abide by our constitution.
This whole "we need weapons to be ready in case our government goes after us" is a load of crap, and it only works on the uneducated, which by device, are many... :roll:


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 28, 2015)

It's not the Federal Government that has folks worried, it's the traitors who would allow the UN to implement it's plans drawn up at the Ministry Of Defense in the UK that has folks worried.

Read about it on the UN's website, better yet download the documents on how to allocate resources and take land away from people who worked their entire life to pay for it. Agenda 21. Sounds like fun to me.

Doubtful this would ever happen but the fact our elites over at the UN think about this and have a plan in place already is what gets the far right gun lovers upset.
Can't say I blame them, these type of "announcements" sell more Guns than Liberals and the NRA combined during another gun death where promises of "Gun Free" areas invite the very trouble they try to avoid.

But It's sure nice to be able to fish and hunt if you need to.
I just can't see standing in line for food I could easily provide without wealthy politicians instructing me on how to eat, where and when water will be dispersed, etc.

Call me crazy, but I won't ever be caught dead living like that, and what's even crazier is the people who wrote this.

Obama's new "Gun Control" executive action I have seen floating as a balloon from more overpaid Liberal Pollsters, will sell lots of guns, just like we have seen under Liberals for 6 years. Record ammo sales, record assault rifles, record carry and conceal permits.

Didn't scare me though as I know Liberals use such fear for purely political points and re elections, it's just that most Americans don't believe a word they say.

If you like your Hunting Rifles, you can keep them...PERIOD.

That's like saying now that crony capitalism has made us all wealthy here in DC, we want the people to become equal, not with us, but themselves. We can keep our guns and money, we just don't like the peasants getting ideas about becoming wealthy since the redistribution was channeled back to us and our friends, there's just not enough to go around.... 0oD


----------



## Soundhound (Mar 1, 2015)

Ohhhh, I get it now...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSRm_X3BLPU


----------

