Gabby Giffords: We need gun control to protect the Precious Women

[AuH20]

The enemies of civilization are pounding at the door once again with a predictable plea. The reason usually involves a vulnerable minority class, women or children. Those 3 are interchangeable when they come for your rights.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/09/13/Gabby-Giffords-Gun-Control-For-Women-s-Sake-Now

[DamianTV]

Gun Control only succeeds in keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

It does exactly jack shit for anyone else willing to break the law to begin with. Yet, the rephrasing of the law abiding citizen to "children" or "precious women" are just excuses for them to hide behind and validate their immorality to themselves. We know they really dont give a shit about us.

[CaptUSA]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/ashley-wagner-BS1.gif

[pcosmar]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/ashley-wagner-BS1.gif

http://themellowjihadi.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/A-woman-poses-with-the-powerful-weapon-she-received-for-Christmas.-Picture-Instagram.jpg

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/541385_511529982243823_733917307_n.png

[Brian4Liberty]

She wants a more stringent VAWA, one that expands gun control beyond marriage and into dating relationships. This would include new gun control laws for boyfriends, "partners," etc.

Well, look at that. Why yes, let's expand government even further into dating too.

[Anti Federalist]

So, what the fuck is it?

Are females frail flowers in need of protection, or just as capable of bad assery as any man?

Or just portrayed and used as whatever image the social controllers need and want at any given time.

[Anti Federalist]

So, what the fuck is it?

Are females frail flowers in need of protection, or just as capable of bad assery as any man?

Or just portrayed and used as whatever image the social controllers need and want at any given time.

[Brian4Liberty]

Hillary/Gabby 2016!

[Pericles]

So, what the fuck is it?

Are females frail flowers in need of protection, or just as capable of bad assery as any man?

Or just portrayed and used as whatever image the social controllers need and want at any given time.

Yes - a reflection of the same society that wants women soldiers to attend Ranger school because they can kick North Korea's butt, but can't go pee by themselves because of the fear of being gang raped.

[DamianTV]

What they really want is a disarmed populus that they can hide behind as an excuse. Children shouldnt have guns, so they hide behind children. Doesnt matter that not giving children guns is a matter of responsibility and shouldnt really be deemed illegal, just not enough sense of when to use or not to use it. Kind of like not letting 8 year olds drive cars. But just the fact that kids dont normally have guns is all the reason to hide behind those people as an excuse. Convince the world that women shouldnt have guns and they'll hide behind them as well. If some other group (literally ANY group) were well known for not having guns, they'd be just as quick to throw them out front "but we need to protect the Amish from all those bad people with guns". Now replace Amish with ANY group and it can still apply.

The second thing that is happening here is that Citizen Gun Owners are being painted as evil criminals who use their guns for nefarious purposes they scheme up in their hollowed out dormant volcanos while pointing their out-turned pinky fingers to their mouths demanding "one meeelion dooooollarz". Just like any time the MSM rarely mentioned Ron Pauls name during the elections, he was demonized, just like Citizen Gun Owners.

Now lets be perfectly clear.

GUN CONTROL IS NOT ABOUT LIMITING GUNS. IT IS ABOUT LIMITING NON GOVERNMNET GUNS.

Why does DHS need a BILLION rounds of Armor Piercing Rounds? Its not like they are trying to prop up the ammunition businesses. Why does the Post Office need to be armed? Why not just say Fuck It and give IRS agents that stay in the office all day guns? Give Social Workers guns too! Give everyone in Govt a fucking gun, and just ignore the 2nd Amendment!

The 2nd Amendment was NOT created to enable people to commit armed robbery.

These dumb mother fuckers in office fail to get it through their thick heads that all their nanny stateism only deprives responsible people of their ability to defend themselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Domestic meaning the common street thug, so not exactly pointing the finger at Govt here, but the 2nd was also intended to arm the citizens against excessive Govt abuses as well. Such as being tazed for being in a diabetic coma or shot to death for being deaf. The 2nd Amendment enables the people to always have the last say so in our ability to hold Govt accountable for their actions. Ferguson. Was that cop charged with a crime? How about Rodney King? We have absolutely no shortage of Zero Accountability for Govt abuses.

These dumb mother fuckers in office also fail to understand the simple minds of criminals. Criminals do not give a shit if they are told something is illegal or not. They could give two squirts of piss, and Im only saying that because AF thinks its funny! Criminals are gonna do what they do until they get caught, and even then, they wont stop. Youre black and a felon, therefore you can not legally buy a gun. Regardless of race, if a person is considered a felon, no soup for you! But lets look at how serious the offenses are. Smokin a joint. At home. Not driving. FELONY. Resident of a state where pot is legal? Might as well be a FELON. No soup for any of you fuckers either. Now lets take the real hardened criminal. Tell them that walking and texting is now highly illegal. They arent gonna give a shit, theyre gonna do it anyway. Tell them they cant buy a gun and they go STEAL a gun. Make buying Ammo illegal if youre a felon and they will just STEAL that shit too! Or get it on the Black Market. And where does the Black Market for guns come from to begin with? Because Govt created it by trying to make something illegal.

Now Gabby was shot in the head and does have some literal brain damage (IIRC) so I can see her being confused about many things. However, if it is beyond her ability to stand trial, what makes anyone think she is competent enough to PASS LAWS?

Regardless, Govt would hide behind Stephen Hawking if you gave them the chance. Stephen Hawking lacks the physical ability to pull a trigger. Therefore all these gun laws might as well be passed to protect him. Hide behind Stephen Hawking. This just shows how much courage these politicians have. They constantly accuse us of being Conspiracy Theorists. Yet, their behavior could be easily classified as that of Group Paranoia, a.k.a. Mass Hysteria. Notice how Holder is constantly warning against Homegrown Terrorists, yet he does everything in his power to create these criminals at home. All these supposed laws that are supposed to make us safer only end up in achieving the exact opposite result. Gun Laws make people LESS SAFE because they deprive the common man of his ability to defend himself, while at the same time creating Black Markets, Fast and Furious (giving guns to known criminals basically), and arming the thugs and thieves so they have consequences they can use as an excuse to pass even more laws. How is it in areas where gun laws have been relaxed that we end up with LESS CRIME? Maybe its because criminals have half a functional brain and conclude "better not try to rob him, I know he has a gun and he will use it". Or places where citizens are required to be armed? A very small handful of counties, or a better example, Switzerland during WWII. How many armed robberies happen there?

These copsucking politicians have gone out of their rabid-assed minds collectively. They are Leaders that do not think for themselves. They are there as disposable figureheads to maintain the Illusion of Democratic Traits of Govt. They are bought and sold, and sell us as if we are their human property to give. They let Corporations and the Industrial Complexes (Military, Prison, Education, etc) write the laws, their job is that of Sales. Sell it to the other copsuckers. Offer kickbacks to those who support or sponsor the Corporate Legislatuion. They have flat out handed the keys over to the very groups of people that our Constitution and Bill of Rights were supposed to protect us from. Until both the falsely elected leaders and Corporate Warmongers realize they need to respect the people, there will be no change.

[fisharmor]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/541385_511529982243823_733917307_n.png


3094

[Lucille]

#YesArmAllWomen

Good stuff, Damian. I'd rep you but I'm outta...

[XNavyNuke]

#YesArmAllWomen

Good stuff, Damian. I'd rep you but I'm outta...

Covered.
XNN

[amy31416]

She's a brain-damaged pawn. And anyone who uses her for their stupid cause should be shot.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Politicians and Government, always...

Grouping people

Categorizing people

Differences in people

Dividing People

[Danke]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/541385_511529982243823_733917307_n.png

That should be "Stand in Front of Me."

[pessimist]

I used to be pro gun control, but I have changed my mind on the issue.

I am still not comfortable with guns being so easily accessible to every degenerate criminal, nor do I like the idea of stupid people owning guns- how many times do you hear of some kid finding his fathers handgun (used for protection) and blowing his or his little sisters brains out? I hate stories like that.

However, there are just far too many violent animals prowling the streets in this country, I can't fault people for wanting some form of protection.

[Danke]

I used to be pro gun control, but I have changed my mind on the issue.

I am still not comfortable with guns being so easily accessible to every degenerate criminal, nor do I like the idea of stupid people owning guns- how many times do you hear of some kid finding his fathers handgun (used for protection) and blowing his or his little sisters brains out? I hate stories like that.

However, there is just far too many violent animals prowling the streets in this country, I can't fault people for wanting some form of protection.

And the MSM never reports on all the crimes (many time potentially violent crimes) prevented by firearms owners.

[pessimist]

And the MSM never reports on all the crimes (many time potentially violent crimes) prevented by firearms owners.

Oh I know they prevent a lot. That is one of the reasons I changed my opinion.

[Danke]

Oh I know they prevent a lot. That is one of the reasons I changed my opinion.

So how many cases are there of a kid "blowing his or his little sisters brains out?" I'd bet it is insignificant to the amount of gun owners in this country. I'd also bet more kids die in schools, homes and cars, etc.

[HVACTech]

Oh I know they prevent a lot. That is one of the reasons I changed my opinion.

you sound like a woman.

if you are having problems with "gun control" use both hands..

we have plenty of girls around here to help you. ;)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

This doesn't even make sense. Men are physically stronger than women. Why would a man need a weapon beyond their fists if their intent was to inflict harm on a woman? What a dufus.

[pessimist]

So how many cases are there of a kid "blowing his or his little sisters brains out?" I'd bet it is insignificant to the amount of gun owners in this country. I'd also bet more kids die in schools, homes and cars, etc.

There's a whole lot of dumb gun owners was my point.

[pessimist]

you sound like a woman.

if you are having problems with "gun control" use both hands..

we have plenty of girls around here to help you. ;)

Maybe it's low testosterone, not getting enough whippings as a child, or perhaps I didn't smash enough beer bottles over my head at parties in college, but I have no clue what this post was supposed to mean. :o

[pessimist]

wait! I had to log back in to ask:

was that a euphemism for masturbation or something? I can't think. I need sleep.

[Danke]

This doesn't even make sense. Men are physically stronger than women. Why would a man need a weapon beyond their fists if their intent was to inflict harm on a woman? What a dufus.

I am not sure what this has to do with this tread, but...
Some men are stronger than other men. Whether it adrenaline, drugs or desire, a "weaker" person can over power someone bigger than then them.

[Danke]

There's a whole lot of dumb gun owners was my point.

And there are a whole lot of dumb people...period, that's my point. No sense in trying to regulate that. Most of them call themselves law makers, politicians.

[fisharmor]

I am still not comfortable with guns being so easily accessible to every degenerate criminal, nor do I like the idea of stupid people owning guns
Glad to hear you're on board with abolishing the constabulary, then.


how many times do you hear of some kid finding his fathers handgun (used for protection) and blowing his or his little sisters brains out? I hate stories like that.
Well, the thing about those stories is that they're stories.
John Lott showed - using the actual numbers - that little children are statistically more likely to die by drowning in a 5 gallon joint compound bucket than they are to die in a firearms accident.

[tod evans]

Ban joint compound! :cool:

[AuH20]

THOUGHT CRIME!!!!

http://meetville.com/images/quotes/Quotation-Dan-Savage-crime-feminism-anger-america-conservative-Meetville-Quotes-126828.jpg

[pcosmar]

I am still not comfortable with guns being so easily accessible to every degenerate criminal, nor do I like the idea of stupid people owning guns- how many times do you hear of some kid finding his fathers handgun (used for protection) and blowing his or his little sisters brains out? I hate stories like that.



Gun laws do nothing to stop criminals.. (and not all "criminals" are degenerates.)
I am a prohibited person. I can not legally own a gun.. an yet,, I could have a gun at any time.. I can build one. or I could steal one.

I chose to comply with the law for the time being.

And as far as Children,, and accidents..
Education is better,, not only for guns,, but for poisons under the sink,, or power tools.

[pcosmar]

There's a whole lot of dumb gun owners was my point.

A lot of dumb knife owners as well. people cutting themselves and others all the time.

Lots of dumb Car owners (more so than guns)
not sure what your point is ??

[pcosmar]

#YesArmAllWomen

Good stuff, Damian. I'd rep you but I'm outta...

Tried that.. Got arrested and convicted for my wife's gun. :(

[pessimist]

Gun laws do nothing to stop criminals.. (and not all "criminals" are degenerates.)
I am a prohibited person. I can not legally own a gun.. an yet,, I could have a gun at any time.. I can build one. or I could steal one.

I chose to comply with the law for the time being.

And as far as Children,, and accidents..
Education is better,, not only for guns,, but for poisons under the sink,, or power tools.

Yeah I know not all criminals are degenerate- I was referring to the ones who are. The guy that walks into a 7-Eleven and puts a bullet in the head of the cashier for a few measly bucks is pretty low in the gene pool. There are too many people like that- none of them would have a problem finding a gun in this country due to so many people having one.

On the other hand, because there are so many lunatics, rapists, killers, and other assorted violent criminals- citizens should have the right to defend themselves and protect their families and private property. Guns are a great tool for that.

I have mixed feelings on the issue, but I don't support gun control anymore. However, I do think some restrictions are necessary.

Oh, and I agree with education. Also, firearm training. Perhaps requiring training in firearms before you can own one would be a good idea?

[pessimist]

A lot of dumb knife owners as well. people cutting themselves and others all the time.

Lots of dumb Car owners (more so than guns)
not sure what your point is ??

I was originally stating one of the reasons I used to be pro gun control.

I agree with your points.

[juleswin]

This doesn't even make sense. Men are physically stronger than women. Why would a man need a weapon beyond their fists if their intent was to inflict harm on a woman? What a dufus.

Exactly, if anyone needs a gun in a relationship, its the woman. Most men can do all the damage they desire to a woman without ever having to pull a gun. Plus if you are in a relationship with a dangerous man, the best thing would be to leave and buy yourself a fiream instead of just hoping the govt takes his firearm.

[CaptUSA]

Oh, and I agree with education. Also, firearm training. Perhaps requiring training in firearms before you can own one would be a good idea?

Exactly. Because we all know the second amendment reads as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people who have passed a government-approved safety course to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[DamianTV]

Wanna know what is more dangerous than a gun? Get a dart board and just throw random shit up on it. More people die from falling off furniuture and getting hit in the head with hammers than get shot by guns. Prescription medications also kill more people than guns. Excluding Govt guns and Cop on Citizen Violence, Citizen on Citizen Gun Violence has been going DOWN for a long time, despite our population continuing to increase and completely opposite of what MSM would have you believe. Eek! Gun! He must be a criminal!

I'll say it again...

The 2nd Amendment does NOT exist to enable thieves to commit armed robbery.

... which is the exact opposite of what MSM will tell you.

[jkr]

what about this Precious-Women "gaBBy"
http://ofthehighest.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/miriam-carey-american-patriot.png?w=500&h=297

[pessimist]

Exactly. Because we all know the second amendment reads as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people who have passed a government-approved safety course to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Did the founders live in a nation of 314 million people? This country (and the world) is tad different than it was in 1787.

[pessimist]

Wanna know what is more dangerous than a gun? Get a dart board and just throw random shit up on it. More people die from falling off furniuture and getting hit in the head with hammers than get shot by guns. Prescription medications also kill more people than guns. Excluding Govt guns and Cop on Citizen Violence, Citizen on Citizen Gun Violence has been going DOWN for a long time, despite our population continuing to increase and completely opposite of what MSM would have you believe. Eek! Gun! He must be a criminal!

I'll say it again...

The 2nd Amendment does NOT exist to enable thieves to commit armed robbery.

... which is the exact opposite of what MSM will tell you.

Of course there is danger everywhere. Obviously a person who wants to kill will find a way...be it stabbing or strangling someone to death, making a homemade bomb, running a car through a crowd, etc.

However, you have to admit that guns make mass killings far more easier.

[tod evans]

Of course there is danger everywhere. Obviously a person who wants to kill will find a way...be it stabbing or strangling someone to death, making a homemade bomb, running a car through a crowd, etc.

However, you have to admit that guns make mass killings far more easier.

Insane and ludicrous argument used to counter the 2nd..

Realistically if Americans hadn't been conditioned to stop carrying firearms mass killings would be much more infrequent.

Dependence on government is the problem not guns, not crazy people.

[CaptUSA]

However, you have to admit that guns make mass killings far more easier.

Maybe easier, but no more frequent. Mass killing are exceedingly rare. Using that for a justification for restricting gun ownership in any way would be like physically examining every traveler because there was once a terrorist attack. Ok, maybe that's a poor example.

[brushfire]

Insane and ludicrous argument used to counter the 2nd..

Realistically if Americans hadn't been conditioned to stop carrying firearms mass killings would be much more infrequent.

Dependence on government is the problem not guns, not crazy people.

So true

What about bombs? Do bombs make mass killings easier? Seems that in areas where people have lots of access to guns, the bomb is still the weapon of choice.
Sooo.... all we need to do is make bombs illegal, right? There, problem solved.... Life is much easier when you let government create solve all the problems.

For those who are burdened with thinking for themselves, its plain to see that stripping people of their 2nd Amendment is only going to serve one entity, and that is a tyrannical government. Such an act stands to benefit nobody else. No guns does not = safety. In fact, it is the inverse. This has been proven time and time again.

As in the Aurora shooting, as though someone who could have been carrying that day would add to the blood bath. People like Gabby (or more likely her keepers) think that leaving the situation up to the assailant, the reliability of their equipment, or the availability of ammo, is somehow better than having an armed individual who has a vested interest in stopping an active shooter. If we're going to talk about mental illness, we might want to begin with that mindset.

[Pericles]

...................... However, I do think some restrictions are necessary.

Oh, and I agree with education. Also, firearm training. Perhaps requiring training in firearms before you can own one would be a good idea?

A restriction always operates to someone's advantage. Who gains an advantage when there are restrictions on firearms possession and ownership?

Who determines what training is acceptable? See previous paragraph.

A life of liberty requires tolerating some degree of risk.

[brushfire]

A life of liberty requires tolerating some degree of risk.

Another very true statement

[pessimist]

A restriction always operates to someone's advantage. Who gains an advantage when there are restrictions on firearms possession and ownership?

Who determines what training is acceptable? See previous paragraph.

A life of liberty requires tolerating some degree of risk.


I don't understand what the big deal is? I mean, we need to pass two tests to drive a car, right?

Don't most jobs require some form of training? The guy operating heavy machinery has to go through rigorous training beforehand.

Firearms are dangerous, and were designed purely to kill. So I really don't see how it is 'infringing' on people's rights by requiring some form of training before being permitted to own one.

Should we do away with driver’s license, and let everyone drive a car the moment they turn 16? Why even require a driver’s license?

[Pericles]

I don't understand what the big deal is? I mean, we need to pass two tests to drive a car, right?

Don't most jobs require some form of training? The guy operating heavy machinery has to go through rigorous training beforehand.

Firearms are dangerous, and were designed purely to kill. So I really don't see how it is 'infringing' on people's rights by requiring some form of training before being permitted to own one.

Should we do away with driver’s license, and let everyone drive a car the moment they turn 16? Why even require a driver’s license?

Is there any evidence that the driver's licensing scheme really has a positive impact on accidents or death rates? Depending on who you choose to believe, the percentage of uninsured / unlicensed drivers in Texas may be as high as 20%.

Self defense being a fundamental human right, and firearms being a manifestation or that right, even fewer restrictions on the exercise of that right may be tolerated.

[DamianTV]

Of course there is danger everywhere. Obviously a person who wants to kill will find a way...be it stabbing or strangling someone to death, making a homemade bomb, running a car through a crowd, etc.

However, you have to admit that guns make mass killings far more easier.

So if using guns makes killing people easier, why are there LESS gun deaths today than in earlier in history?

The problem is that if we really wanted, we can make everything illegal, but it isnt a solution. Taking physical things away isnt a solution either. Lets say someone wanted to shoot me, and they had a reason to. Take away the gun, they still have the intent. Just like you said. But once the gun is taken away, next, they may try to stab me. Take away the knife. Intent to kill me still exists. So they move on to the next possible way to kill me, of which, there are plenty. Strangle me. Probably with a rope or cord. Still easily taken away, but now getting difficult to outlaw ropes and cords. They might try to hit me with a car. They arent going to give a shit about having insurance on the car, or even care if the car is theirs so they can flat out steal it and try to run me down with it. Once everything has been taken away, a person might be able to still use their own body as a weapon. What do we do then? Put the person in prison? That would make sense, but the way that things are being applied today is to put every single person in a jail cell, and I mean EVERYONE, not just criminals, and all for our own protection from each other. Better yet, put everyone in a straight jacket in a prison cell on a bump on a log on a wart on a frog at the bottom of the sea. Prevent any unapproved human interaction. That is no solution. Sure it might offer some small degree of security but at the expense of total loss of all freedoms.

Lets flip it around though. They have a gun and I dont. Doesnt matter how they got their gun, bought or more likely stolen. That is when I am most vunerable. Then I decide to go get a gun. I get it because I think to myself "Would I not actually be safer if I were able to defend myself"? There are times that gun deaths are valid. Im gonna hurt you and you shoot me in self defense. Id say that is a valid reason. Now, if the person that intended to cause me harm knew I had a gun and was willing to use it to defend myself, do you think they might try an alternative to shooting me? Maybe by reasoning with me? Mabye a lesser application of physical violence? If you and me got in a fist fight in a bar, then its a fist fight, but Im not gonna try to end your life, just win the fight. Minimum necessary force, or at least a Reasonable Level of force. I dont want to start a war of escalation. Kid deserves a spanking then they used to get spankings, not executions, but outlawing Belts and Pants isnt going to stop spankings.

---


I don't understand what the big deal is? I mean, we need to pass two tests to drive a car, right?

Don't most jobs require some form of training? The guy operating heavy machinery has to go through rigorous training beforehand.

Firearms are dangerous, and were designed purely to kill. So I really don't see how it is 'infringing' on people's rights by requiring some form of training before being permitted to own one.

Should we do away with driver’s license, and let everyone drive a car the moment they turn 16? Why even require a driver’s license?

Do babies need a license to learn how to walk? Should someone grant them permission to try to learn to walk? Walking is dangerous! They can walk into table corners or off cliffs, so shouldnt we require Training for babies by authorized personnel only? Maybe we should give some small group of dominant men a shitload of money for Walking Insurance, and have a requirement to have Walking Insurance before allowing a baby to learn how to walk as well! /total_sarcasm

The problem with this statement is that you are converting Rights into Permissions.

Those with the power to Grant Permissions can become abusive with that power. Guns are not exactly difficult to figure out how to use. The other side of this coin is that Rights also literally mean Personal Responsibility. Guess who else can get shot with guns? The person holding the gun. They understand that it is in their best interest to learn to use a gun as quickly and as safely as possible. If you dont, you end up with Dick Cheney shooting at you during hunting season, or shooting themselves in their own foot, as many a cop has already done. The idea of undermining a Right based on irresponsible usage of that Right is no ground to stand on in an attempt to revoke a Right. Criminals are NOT going to take a Gun Safety Class before committing an armed robbery where they shoot the clerk over twenty bucks and change. They are NOT going to register their gun. They are NOT going to buy insurance. They are probably not even going to buy the gun itself, as they can just as easily steal one. If one criminal sells a gun to another criminal, they are NOT going to do background checks. You cant remove the intent of armed robbery from a criminal by making requirements that only punish the truly self responsible gun owner. Every legal and physical method of restriction can be as easily bypassed by the criminal. Even if you were to outlaw the manufacture of all guns period, they would find a way to make their own guns. Take all knives out of prisons and inmates make their own, which are called Shivs.

Its just not possible to outlaw intent to commit criminal or irresponsible behavior at the expense of someone else.

[pessimist]

So if using guns makes killing people easier, why are there LESS gun deaths today than in earlier in history

There are more people who use guns to shoot up schools and malls and post offices and public places than there are who drive a car through a crowd.

You do have the occasional knife wielding maniac running around slicing people up, but most mass murders occur via the use of firearms in this country. You cannot dispute that.


The problem is that if we really wanted, we can make everything illegal, but it isnt a solution.

I'm not advocating gun-grabbing or the outlawing firearms.


taking physical things away isnt a solution either.

Well making things harder to get can be a deterrent. Some mentally ill kid pumped full of anti-depressants who wants to murder a bunch of his classmates only needs to go to his father’s gun cabinet for his weapons. If guns weren't so widely available, he may decide another method (e.g., making a bomb) but the likelihood of success is slimmer. He's more likely to make a bomb that doesn't work, or end up blowing himself up in the process.

The vast majority of folks who commit mass murder are on suicide missions- it's either suicide by cop, or from the barrel of their own gun. If they had no easy access to firearms, they may just off themselves rather than taking a bunch of innocents with them.

I'm just theorizing here.


Take away the gun, they still have the intent.

Firearms make their goals much easier to achieve.


But once the gun is taken away, next, they may try to stab me.

True, but there aren't many mass killings via the use of knives.


Do babies need a license to learn how to walk? Should someone grant them permission to try to learn to walk? Walking is dangerous! They can walk into table corners or off cliffs, so shouldnt we require Training for babies by authorized personnel only? Maybe we should give some small group of dominant men a shitload of money for Walking Insurance, and have a requirement to have Walking Insurance before allowing a baby to learn how to walk as well! /total_sarcasm

The problem with this statement is that you are converting Rights into Permissions.

I'm not sure how gun ownership is on par with breathing air and having the right to vote.

[pessimist]

Is there any evidence that the driver's licensing scheme really has a positive impact on accidents or death rates? Depending on who you choose to believe, the percentage of uninsured / unlicensed drivers in Texas may be as high as 20%.

I'm not sure how to respond to this. So I will ask a question:

Do you think we should get rid of a driver license altogether? What about age restrictions?

[bunklocoempire]

pessimist, what life experiences have you had regarding protecting yourself, your loved ones, or your property?

I'm particularly interested in any "in the moment" situations where you had to do something to react to a nefarious action of another.

[pessimist]

pessimist, what life experiences have you had regarding protecting yourself, your loved ones, or your property?

I'm particularly interested in any "in the moment" situations where you had to do something to react to a nefarious action of another.


I was mostly theorizing in my posts above. Like I said, I changed my position. Guns are a great tool for self-defense. However their sole purpose is to kill, therefore I think adequate training should be necessary.

I don't see why people have such a problem with that. Restrictions are needed in life, otherwise we'd have anarchy.

[bunklocoempire]

I understand you've changed your position.

I also understand if you don't have any life experiences regarding protecting yourself, your loved ones, or your property, you will tend to have the view that you hold.

No experiences with that? None at all? Never been behind the eight ball in need of a gun NOW?

[Danke]

There are more people who use guns to shoot up schools and malls and post offices and public places than there are who drive a car through a crowd.


And if everyone acted as to be responsible for their own safety and that of others, any active shooter would have nearly all of his potential targets shooting back at him and neutralizing the threat to life.

[Danke]

Restrictions are needed in life, otherwise we'd have anarchy FREEDOM.

Fixed.


And, OMG, people acting responsibly or else facing the wrath of the neighbors/community.

[bunklocoempire]

And if everyone acted as to be responsible for their own safety and that of others, any active shooter would have nearly all of his potential targets shooting back at him and neutralizing the threat to life.

The chimps got it figured out. Why so difficult for humans? That leopard ain't gonna change his nature.

EDIT: Notice how they exist with no chimp police state or "anarchy".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKpZUsRJWBg

Disclaimer: My ancestors were not chimps. :p

[DamianTV]

I was mostly theorizing in my posts above. Like I said, I changed my position. Guns are a great tool for self-defense. However their sole purpose is to kill, therefore I think adequate training should be necessary.

I don't see why people have such a problem with that. Restrictions are needed in life, otherwise we'd have anarchy.

You can NOT convert a Right into a Permission without giving unlimited power to the small group of people who Grant Permission. Beyond that, it is all about personal responsibility.

[pessimist]

And if everyone acted as to be responsible for their own safety and that of others, any active shooter would have nearly all of his potential targets shooting back at him and neutralizing the threat to life.


Great post. This is exactly where I think this topic needs to go to take it into a more multilayered discussion.

Now you're basically saying that if everyone was armed, they'd all be shooting back. See, I disagree with this. For one, I think the natural human reaction is to duck for cover and run at the sound of gun shots. Self-preservation instincts would completely take over.

Remember, heroes are considered heroes because acts of bravery are so rare.

Secondly, a scenario of untrained, panic-riddled civilians whipping out guns and firing away in a public environment sounds like a nightmare scenario to me. This is one of the many reasons why I think gun owners should be required training.

[alucard13mm]

Protecting women? What makes women more precious than men? :p

[Danke]

THOUGHT CRIME!!!!

http://meetville.com/images/quotes/Quotation-Dan-Savage-crime-feminism-anger-america-conservative-Meetville-Quotes-126828.jpg


Daniel Keenan "Dan" Savage (born October 7, 1964)[2] is a gay American author, media pundit, journalist and newspaper editor.[3][4] Savage writes the internationally syndicated relationship and sex advice column Savage Love. In 2010, Savage and his husband Terry Miller began the It Gets Better Project to help prevent suicide among LGBT youth. He has also worked as a theater director, sometimes credited as Keenan Hollahan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Savage

Meetville is an online dating site.

[Danke]

Protecting women? What makes women more precious than men? :p

They can incubate humans?

[pessimist]

You can NOT convert a Right into a Permission without giving unlimited power to the small group of people who Grant Permission. Beyond that, it is all about personal responsibility.

Fair enough, but wouldn't it be responsible to have proper training and education before handling and owning a dangerous weapon?

[Danke]

Great post. This is exactly where I think this topic needs to go to take it into a more multilayered discussion.

Now you're basically saying that if everyone was armed, they'd all be shooting back. See, I disagree with this. For one, I think the natural human reaction is to duck for cover and run at the sound of gun shots. Self-preservation instincts would completely take over.

Remember, heroes are considered heroes because acts of bravery are so rare.

Secondly, a scenario of untrained, panic-riddled civilians whipping out guns and firing away in a public environment sounds like a nightmare scenario to me. This is one of the many reasons why I think gun owners should be required training.

The ones that are not trained may duck for cover and not fire back. Still doesn't mean it should be a government requirement. Just the fact that most people are freely carrying guns is a deterrent.

BTW, I go through rigorous "government" Law Enforcement training all the time. But I still support those that don't, to carry. And so do my government instructors. Of course they wish the public would go and get proper training. One of the biggest beef of properly trained gun owners might have with Concealed Carry Courses is that rarely do they cover weapon retention techniques. Even police officers are routinely killed by their own weapon.

[pessimist]

The ones that are not trained may duck for cover and not fire back. Still doesn't mean it should be a government requirement. Just the fact that most people are freely carrying guns is a deterrent.

Do you have proof of this?

[Danke]

Do you have proof of this?

When state pass CC laws, crime goes down. Also, countries that have nukes don't get invaded. How many hijacks since U.S. pilots can carry?

[mad cow]

Do you have proof of this?

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1410993780&sr=1-1&keywords=more+guns+less+crime+by+john+lott

[Pericles]

I'm not sure how to respond to this. So I will ask a question:

Do you think we should get rid of a driver license altogether? What about age restrictions?

The last state to require having a driver's license to operate a car on the public roadways was South Dakota in 1954, and the last state to require a written test before issuing a license was South Dakota in 1959. The lowest current minimum age in any state is 14.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/summary95/dl230.pdf

There are people driving today, who never had to take a test to get a driver's license. So, what problem has been solved by requiring a license?

[DamianTV]

Fair enough, but wouldn't it be responsible to have proper training and education before handling and owning a dangerous weapon?

You cant make that illegal without again making it a fucking permission that can just as easily be revoked for ANY purpose. What part of that are you not getting?

Look, think of it this way. Im a bully. Of course I will deny you PERMISSION to defend yourself against me. That is how bullying works. Covert the Right into a Permission, then revoke that permission based on what ever excuse you feel like. Now if you do try to make it illegal, you will still only end up punishing the Law Abiding Citizen. There is NO CRIMINAL ON THE PLANET that is going to give a shit about meeting anyones requirements to get said permission to get said weapon. NONE. EVER. And trying to put these types of protections you want put in place that only punish the honest man and does nothing to actually stop criminals is exactly how we have become a Police State.

I would much rather be burdened with inconveniences of too much liberty than too little of it. More Laws means LESS Safety. More restrictions on the ordinary individual makes us LESS safe. Less safe and less free.

[bunklocoempire]

Fair enough, but wouldn't it be responsible to have proper training and education before handling and owning a dangerous weapon?

Again, it seems you have never felt the need to have a gun NOW.

Still waiting for you to answer my question regarding your own life experiences regarding this matter.

Here's two from me:

#1. Happened when I was 12 and my sister was 15 in Maplewood MN (suburb/city), about a block from the City of St. Paul border. We were home alone during summer vacation, my sister upstairs and me in my room in the basement. Our house had been burgled before but in this particular instance we were home. An intruder tried to force his way through a crank open window (open only a few inches for safety) across the hall from where my sister was in her room (ground floor). She heard the noise and found him half way in before she started screaming for me to "get the gun". Thankfully the guy fled before I could get upstairs with our rifle and I didn't have to shoot or even confront the guy. But I came running, a pre-teen, with loaded lever action rifle, and never a day in the classroom for "gun safety". We were prepared by our parents. When our folks got home they praised us for our quick action.

Years went by and I found myself in Hawaii with my own family and with no real need for a gun -so I thought.:o dumb, dumb, dumb.:(

#2. Happened in 2007 and a big part of why I found these forums. We had been at this residence for about 6 months (rural) and had not yet met all of our neighbors. We were doing some work when we heard several rifle shots. As this was the country we weren't really surprised, but these sounded really close so we investigated. Turns out our next door neighbor was shooting at wild pigs on our property from his property. He was using a .22 semi-auto rifle and shooting at the area where my wife and myself often take walks.

Called the cops and the cops didn't suggest anything (AF is right, don't even bother). Not much they could/would do. I got the neighbors phone number and talked to him (owner) -it was his twenty something son who we saw doing the shooting. I made it clear they were never to do that again. But they did it once right? Upon further investigation we find out these neighbors are a load of trouble and I was convinced that no "law" was ever going to deter them. Seven years later and nothing has changed with them. When this incident occurred I had only a single shot combo rifle and I certainly felt outgunned. It was time to immediately arm up. The state of Hawaii, who already had numerous run ins with these neighbors, made me (who has NEVER had a run in with the "law") wait 14 days to procure an intent to buy a long gun permit.

14 days to wait is 14 days too many when you're friggin' innocent. Boy, was I surprised.:mad:

Lots of things go through your head in 14 days regarding how to better protect yourself and your family. I came out of that ordeal absolutely outraged that some might suggest innocent folks should be made to jump through hoops when they finally get a clue and start trying to better protect themselves.

[pessimist]

The last state to require having a driver's license to operate a car on the public roadways was South Dakota in 1954, and the last state to require a written test before issuing a license was South Dakota in 1959. The lowest current minimum age in any state is 14.

This country has radically changed from the 1950s, the population is much bigger, far more diverse, and the vehicles much faster. Also, South Dakota had a population of 833,354 two years ago. I don't know what it was from 1954-1959, but I assume it was smaller.


So, what problem has been solved by requiring a license?

Basic understanding of driving, pedestrians, safety precautions, and the ability to read and understand road signs? I mean, if you have dyspraxia or lack spatial reasoning or suffer from some neurological disorder or are half blind- that could potentially interfere with your driving wouldn't you say?

Of course there are idiot drivers and automobile accidents daily but the laws and rules are absolutely necessary. A bunch of people being granted the right to get into a vehicle and use the public roadways without any education or training is a death sentence and a danger to society.

A driver’s license is necessary for a functional society. To strip away all laws and restrictions and apply the laws of the jungle would cease to make us a civilization.

[pessimist]

When state pass CC laws, crime goes down. Also, countries that have nukes don't get invaded. How many hijacks since U.S. pilots can carry?

Apparently Norway has the highest percentage of gun ownership in all of Western Europe (small country though). Low crime rate.

Japan has a large population and strict gun laws. Low crime rate.

I don't know what to make of that.

EDIT: translated to english.

[XNavyNuke]

Did the founders live in a nation of 314 million people? This country (and the world) is tad different than it was in 1787.

It is often portrayed that colonists were provincial bumpkins. In fact, Philadelphia was the second largest city in the British Empire at the time, behind London but ahead of Bristol. On a person per square mile basis, there are about 15 people for every colonial. I think that is something that the "bumpkins" could wrap their mind around.

If shear numbers invalidate governing principles then we may as well do away with the Magna Carta and all of the rules of law derived from it.

XNN

[Danke]

Apparently Norway has the highest percentage of gun ownership in all of Western Europe (small country though). Low crime rate.

Japan has a large population and strict gun laws. Low crime rate.

I don't know what to make of that.

EDIT: translated to English.

Japan is an authoritarian state, always has been. You want to live like that? I always felt safe walking around there, no doubt. A lot of suicides. But don't break any laws. Their prisons are hell. Conform and you are ok, just like Nazi Germany.

[pessimist]

Japan is an authoritarian state, always has been. You want to live like that? I always felt safe walking around there, no doubt. A lot of suicides. But don't break any laws. Their prisons are hell. Conform and you are ok, just like Nazi Germany.

Don't forget the Hikikomoris! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori. Apparently, they're a product of Japan's extreme cultural pressure to succeed.

Anyway- I agree that Japan is authoritarian, but it's just a different culture with ancient traditions. I'd hardly put it on the level of totalitarian regimes that make up the middle-east though.

I didn't really have a point there, btw. Just looking up some stats. One made your argument, and the other disproved it.

American's love their guns. There is no way in hell they'll ever be outlawed here. Also, this country is full of gangs, violence, and crime to the point that guns may eventually be necessary for every property owning citizen.

[Origanalist]

Don't forget the Hikikomoris! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori. Apparently, they're a product of Japan's extreme cultural pressure to succeed.

Anyway- I agree that Japan is authoritarian, but it's just a different culture with ancient traditions. I'd hardly put it on the level of totalitarian regimes that make up the middle-east though.

I didn't really have a point there, btw. Just looking up some stats. One made your argument, and the other disproved it.

American's love their guns. There is no way in hell they'll ever be outlawed here. Also, this country is full of gangs, violence, and poverty to the point that guns may eventually be necessary for every property owning citizen.

Um no, not yet. But guns should be considered a necessity for everyone.

[pessimist]

Um no, not yet. But guns should be considered a necessity for everyone.

EVERYONE?

[Origanalist]

EVERYONE?

Every able bodied person, yes.

[pessimist]

I don't know man, that sounds like insanity to me. Way too much trust in your fellow man.

I'm caught in this weird internal struggle. On an individual level, I'm a libertarian. From an emotional level I'm all about freedom.

But when I observe the world from my neurotic, pattern seeking brain- this underlying progressive nanny streak that is apart of my genetic code comes to the surface.

I will never be able to subscribe to any specific ideology because of it.

[fr33]

She's a brain-damaged pawn. And anyone who uses her for their stupid cause should be shot.

Well it worked for them using James Brady.... Brain damaged people are the best gun control advocates in this brain damaged society.

[Pericles]

I don't know man, that sounds like insanity to me. Way too much trust in your fellow man.

I'm caught in this weird internal struggle. On an individual level, I'm a libertarian. From an emotional level I'm all about freedom.

But when I observe the world from my neurotic, pattern seeking brain- this underlying progressive nanny streak that is apart of my genetic code comes to the surface.

I will never be able to subscribe to any specific ideology because of it.

Consider this as a possible resolution to the dilemma - there is one principle on which both the founders of the United States and Chairman Mao of the Chinese Communist Party agree. "Political power comes from the barrel of a gun."

The disagreement is on the logical conclusion from that political principle.

"And the gun must never leave the hand of the Communist Party." Chairman Mao

"Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Tenche Coxe

[FloralScent]

THOUGHT CRIME!!!!

http://meetville.com/images/quotes/Quotation-Dan-Savage-crime-feminism-anger-america-conservative-Meetville-Quotes-126828.jpg

Fine by me.

[CaptUSA]

But when I observe the world from my neurotic, pattern seeking brain- this underlying progressive nanny streak that is apart of my genetic code comes to the surface.



Do you understand that this is not your genetic code coming to the surface? It's your State-induced programming. Whether you get it from government education or media, they make you feel as if the rare threats are greater than they are and the common threats are best left to someone else - namely, the State.

Even in this thread you are caught up in your contradictions. You advocate for required training because you fear someone without that training may get a hold of a gun. But then you say that all a kid has to do is to go to his father's gun cabinet to get a gun. So the dangerous type you fear wouldn't even have that training - even if you made it mandatory.

I agree that firearm training is a good idea, but that's for your own safety and should be voluntary. It will never protect you from someone who wants to use the gun for violence. Making it mandated by the State is completely insane.

[bunklocoempire]

I don't know man, that sounds like insanity to me. Way too much trust in your fellow man.

I'm caught in this weird internal struggle. On an individual level, I'm a libertarian. From an emotional level I'm all about freedom.

But when I observe the world from my neurotic, pattern seeking brain- this underlying progressive nanny streak that is apart of my genetic code comes to the surface.

I will never be able to subscribe to any specific ideology because of it.

Your fellow man driving that car in the oncoming lane doesn't cross the center line and kill you... well, sometimes they do. :( You have to be as ready as you can to react.
Life is scary, no one gets out alive, and the best one can hope for is to die well.:) (exceptions for personal faith of course ;))

CaptUSA has it exactly right:

Do you understand that this is not your genetic code coming to the surface? It's your State-induced programming. Whether you get it from government education or media, they make you feel as if the rare threats are greater than they are and the common threats are best left to someone else - namely, the State.
Looking back, my own fears, ignorance, and apathy about my right to bear arms was certainly helped on by State-induced programming. I had that experience when I was 12 that I shared, but I still found myself behind the eight ball years later. I knew better but ignored my own experience.:(