burbleflyer 0 #126 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuote"Matt's position..."? Isn't that usually, "on the floor, getting stepped on"? - I am not going to bother to dignify this with a reply. You asked me to define my position; for what I assumed was a reasonable, intelligent point that you were trying to make. Oh, and dont fool yourself. After they come for my guns, they're coming for yours MR Browning and Glock owner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #127 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteHow can you say that with a straight face? We have a HUGE standing army! Exactly my point. At the time of the authoring of the Declaration Of Independence, the thought was that there should not be a standing army. That has changed. The fact that a standing army is now considered universally acceptable is all the more reason that the people should retain the means to oppose it should it run amok. How do you not see that? - Frankly, I think it is a good point. However, I think you would find that most of the people who tout their "2nd amendment rights" haven't even thought of it that way."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #128 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote"Matt's position..."? Isn't that usually, "on the floor, getting stepped on"? - I am not going to bother to dignify this with a reply. You asked me to define my position; for what I assumed was a reasonable, intelligent point that you were trying to make. Oh, and dont fool yourself. After they come for my guns, they're coming for yours MR Browning and Glock owner. Really? Drunk driving is illegal and they haven't come for my beer. I can't drive 90, but I can still go 65. I can't bang a 16 year old, but I am still fine with a college girl. I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument. It's a cop-out."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
burbleflyer 0 #129 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHow can you say that with a straight face? We have a HUGE standing army! Exactly my point. At the time of the authoring of the Declaration Of Independence, the thought was that there should not be a standing army. That has changed. The fact that a standing army is now considered universally acceptable is all the more reason that the people should retain the means to oppose it should it run amok. How do you not see that? - Frankly, I think it is a good point. However, I think you would find that most of the people who tout their "2nd amendment rights" haven't even thought of it that way. Goes to show how naiive you are because thats EXACTLY how we DO look at it. Commie. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #130 July 16, 2004 QuoteCommie. INTELLECTUALLY INSECURE NARROW MINDED SHITHEAD. (Edit: If the "Go Fuck Yourself" and "Commie" comments were humor that I missed, I take this back and genuinely apologize.) Otherwise: Moderators, go back and look at the attacks I have endured and tried to maintain a polite discourse, and if you think I should be banned, knock yourself out. From the Forum rules: Obvious personal attacks like "go fuck yourself" or "you are immature and ignorant" will generally get you banned immediately and/or get your threads locked."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #131 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe Constitution is not a "living document" open to interpretation. Its pretty freakin simple. It spells out our God given rights in fairly simple language. Not true at all. The reason that the amendment process was put in place was to allow the document to evolve with the changing times.Notice the recent furor over the gay marriage ban Well, what we've arrived at here is this: The Constitution may well be a "living breathing document" in that it can be AMENDED. It is NOT "living breathing" in the sense that a specific passage means one thing one day, and then some time years later can be taken to mean its opposit, just because times have changed. The "living breathingness" comes from the ability to be amended to keep with the times, not from the bizarre notion that it is proper to interpret an unrecognizable meaning out of the same old words that haven't changed. Once again, people have distorted what should be a very clear meaning in an attempt to make it mean what they want it to mean -- in this case, "living breathing document." - --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
burbleflyer 0 #132 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote"Matt's position..."? Isn't that usually, "on the floor, getting stepped on"? - I am not going to bother to dignify this with a reply. You asked me to define my position; for what I assumed was a reasonable, intelligent point that you were trying to make. Oh, and dont fool yourself. After they come for my guns, they're coming for yours MR Browning and Glock owner. Really? Drunk driving is illegal and they haven't come for my beer. I can't drive 90, but I can still go 65. I can't bang a 16 year old, but I am still fine with a college girl. I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument. It's a cop-out. You ramble and I dont see your point here. And if you dont get the "slippery slope" thingy you're beyond hope. Goodnight commie! Read a few chapters of the manifesto before you nod off. Any thoughts on repealing ONE gun law? I thought not. Poser. Take your Glock and Browning to the next buy back. Good night. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
burbleflyer 0 #133 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteCommie. NAME CALLING INTELLECTUALLY INSECURE NARROW MINDED SHITHEAD. Moderators, go back and look at the attacks I have endured and tried to maintain a polite discourse, and if you think I should be banned, knock yourself out. Glad I stayed to read this one. Do you need a Whambulance? A bit sensitive here are we? I think your views spell communist or at best socialist. Remember you said "for the common good" not me. This Republic was never about the common good. It was about individual freedom. Its not a democracy, its a Constitutional Republic. Its not about majority rules. Its about individual freedom. The Constitution IS written in stone. Its not up for interpretation. It is what it says it is. The "common good" thingy is communism. Pure and simple. Sorry to ruin your night. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TypicalFish 0 #134 July 16, 2004 Actually, it was the "Go Fuck Yourself" that teed me off. Though it sounds like fun. And if laws are not for the common good, what are they for? Or am I missing something?"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TypicalFish 0 #135 July 16, 2004 QuoteDo you need a Whambulance? No, actually, it just felt kind of good. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #136 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuote"Matt's position..."? Isn't that usually, "on the floor, getting stepped on"? - I am not going to bother to dignify this with a reply. You asked me to define my position; for what I assumed was a reasonable, intelligent point that you were trying to make. Dude, it was a JOKE. LIGHTEN UP.[/I] --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TypicalFish 0 #137 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote"Matt's position..."? Isn't that usually, "on the floor, getting stepped on"? - I am not going to bother to dignify this with a reply. You asked me to define my position; for what I assumed was a reasonable, intelligent point that you were trying to make. Dude, it was a JOKE. LIGHTEN UP.[/I] - I always get thrown off by the "tongue" one."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites burbleflyer 0 #138 July 16, 2004 QuoteActually, it was the "Go Fuck Yourself" that teed me off. Though it sounds like fun. And if laws are not for the common good, what are they for? Or am I missing something? This Republic was never about the common good. It was about individual freedom. Its not a democracy, its a Constitutional Republic. Its not about majority rules. Its about individual freedom. The Constitution IS written in stone. Its not up for interpretation. It is what it says it is. The "common good" thingy is communism. Pure and simple. Sorry to ruin your night. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TypicalFish 0 #139 July 16, 2004 QuoteSorry to ruin your night. Sorry, bf, that's a power you just don't have. I am serious with my question; what are laws if not for the common good? Are you saying we should live in a lawless society?"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #140 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote"Matt's position..."? Isn't that usually, "on the floor, getting stepped on"? - Oh, and dont fool yourself. After they come for my guns, they're coming for yours MR Browning and Glock owner. Really? Drunk driving is illegal and they haven't come for my beer. I can't drive 90, but I can still go 65. I can't bang a 16 year old, but I am still fine with a college girl. I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument. It's a cop-out. How can you "not buy" something that can be clearly shown in historical data to actually be in effect?! We started out with no restrictions on guns. We got Dodge City, where they outlawed carry. We got NFA '34. We got GCA '68. We got AWB '94, and all the others in between. We used to be able to have machine guns, but not anymore (don't give me class III bullshit). We used to be able to carry when/where we wanted. Now we have D.C., NYC, L.A., Chicago, Detroit, Morton Grove... We now have the assault weapons cosmetic-features ban. You tell me where it stops. As far as your driving analogy is concerned. If we had started out at no speed limit, then 100mph, then 70mph, then 55mph, then 35mph, then you'd have an apt analogy. There is a clear and defined AGENDA to the incremental infringements on gun rights. Drunk driving laws address a specific problem that lowering the speed limit to a draconian low would not. What is addressed by forbidding rifles to have bayonet lugs, or a magazine capacity over 10 rounds? We can clearly establish the incrementalism, i.e. "slippery slope" of gun laws. That itself is reason to believe in the theory of it. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TypicalFish 0 #141 July 16, 2004 Oh, I believe in the theory of it, I am saying that not ALL things are going to go down that slope. They may reach an equilibrium, in the spirit of your previous post. I guess what I was looking for was a real discussion as to why you need to have an assault weapon; if the case can be made, logically, intelligently, without hysteria, then I am all for it. (My own personal viewpoint is that no matter what you ban, people will always find a way to kill each other). I would for once just like to hear a justification beyond "because a 200 year old document says so"... And you are right, this is America, you don't need to have a reason to do anything, I would just like to hear it. ("You" in this case refers to the population at large; not just Jeffrey)"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #142 July 16, 2004 QuoteTake your Glock and Browning to the next buy back. Good night. LOmofoL!!!! Hey, I read in the paper yesterday that Brazil is planning to spend three million dollars on a "gun buyback" that they *gigglesnickerguffaw* hope will "keep firearms off the streets..." From the Miami Herald: QuoteGOVERNMENT PUSHING GUN BUYBACK PLAN Brasilia - Brazil plans to begin buying guns from private citizens in attempt to keep firearms off the streets of a country with one of the highest murder rates in the world. A spokeswoman for the Justice Ministry said the government budgeted 10 million reals ($3.3M) for the purchases Tuesday evening. The government hopes to take 80,000 guns off the street by the end of the year. Under the new program, the government will pay 300 reals ($100) per assault rifle, 200 reals per rifle and 100 reals per pistol. Citizens will be compensated for both registered and unregistered weapons. Those who turn in unregistered firearms will not be charged with illegal arms possession if they turn them in before Dec. 23, when tough new law takes effect. OMFG. Just what idiots are in government who think that gun buybacks are apt to get any guns from criminals who use them to hurt people?! They "HOPE" to take 80,000 guns off the streets. They'll be lucky to get EIGHTY guns. What excuse could they possibly have for such a misguided scheme given that these "buyback" programs have been DISMAL FAILURES EVERYWHERE THEY HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTED?! How do they plan to apologize to the people of Brazil for wasting $3.3 million dollars?! And how does a government "buy back" guns that never belonged to it in the first place? Let me put it this way: If you were a criminal who uses a gun to rob people, and that's how you make your living, would you give up that gun for $33? When it may be making you thousands? When it may be protecting you from other criminals, or from resistance by those you rob? Just who the fuck is so stupid as to believe that the public stands to be made safer by this program? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TypicalFish 0 #143 July 16, 2004 PJ, I have to agree with you here, to think that "gun buybacks" have any kind of effect on gun violence is an exercise in futility..."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #144 July 16, 2004 QuoteI guess what I was looking for was a real discussion as to why you need to have an assault weapon Because I can't be judged for it until and unless I hurt someone with it. Same reason you can have a chainsaw, kitchen knife, or even a bulldozer in your back yard. I don't have to justify my exercise of my right. You don't have the power to say that my right stands to be taken away unless I can "justify" my use of it. QuoteIf the case can be made, logically, intelligently, without hysteria, then I am all for it. (My own personal viewpoint is that no matter what you ban, people will always find a way to kill each other). I would for once just like to hear a justification beyond "because a 200 year old document says so"... Why would we offer a reason besides "because a 200 year old document says so" when that's all we need? Why don't you try making the case for why we should not be able to have assault weapons... and while you're at it, we're going to need a comprehensive definition of "assault weapon." You're the one saying our right to have them is questionable; you're the one who has to make the case for taking them away. QuoteAnd you are right, this is America, you don't need to have a reason to do anything, I would just like to hear it. My reasons? They're fascinating. They're fun. They're good for defense, whether you live in a suburb or out in the sticks on 200 acres. They can be used in times of civil unrest, and even in war. (Think "Red Dawn" but more realistic.) A big reason is, "Why the fuck shouldn't I, since I'm not a criminal and I don't go around hurting people?" --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #145 July 16, 2004 QuotePJ, I have to agree with you here, to think that "gun buybacks" have any kind of effect on gun violence is an exercise in futility... THEN EXPLAIN WHY THEY ARE SO POPULAR WITH THE ANTI GUN CROWD. My theory is that intellectual honesty is DEAD in the anti-gun crowd. They are ruled by hysteria, so facts and logic mean NOTHING to them. That's how they can get behind the doublethink necessary to spend MILLIONS OF MOTHERFUCKING DOLLARS ON THESE BOONDOGGLES! You should be outraged, like any gun owner, any time this sort of SCAM is payed for with your tax dollars. What is it about the anti-gun mind that cannot grasp that criminals will not willingly give up their weapons, even for a hundred bucks?! TF, do you not see now, why gun owners call everything anti-gunners say into question?! WE CONSIDER THE SOURCE. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Keith 0 #146 July 16, 2004 QuoteUm . . . you might wanna take a look at the rights that the Republicans currently in charge have taken away. Puuuulease Paul. Why on earth would they wanna face reality???Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TypicalFish 0 #147 July 16, 2004 Quote and while you're at it, we're going to need a comprehensive definition of "assault weapon." I agree with this completely. I think the current standard is misleading and arbitrary. QuoteYou're the one saying our right to have them is questionable; This is a democracy/republic, I think EVERYTHING is open for debate among the involved parties. The only real reason that I would give would be that the need for 1000 PJ's (who are responsible, safety conscious gun owners) to be able to enjoy their (however they are defined) assault weapons for their fun and fascination is outweighed by the one kook who will use the capabilities of that weapon to inflict massive damage on innnocent men, women, and children. It's the same reason you can't go into a hardware store and buy dynamite. Is this enough of a reason? I am not sure, but I would love to hear the open debate instead of the shrill screaming from both sides."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #148 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteUm . . . you might wanna take a look at the rights that the Republicans currently in charge have taken away. Puuuulease Paul. Why on earth would they wanna face reality??? Oh, go back to sleep, willya? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TypicalFish 0 #149 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuotePJ, I have to agree with you here, to think that "gun buybacks" have any kind of effect on gun violence is an exercise in futility... THEN EXPLAIN WHY THEY ARE SO POPULAR WITH THE ANTI GUN CROWD. HYSTERIA. PARTY LINE. Plain and simple. QuoteMy theory is that intellectual honesty is DEAD in the anti-gun crowd. They are ruled by hysteria, so facts and logic mean NOTHING to them. That's how they can get behind the doublethink necessary to spend MILLIONS OF MOTHERFUCKING DOLLARS ON THESE BOONDOGGLES! You should be outraged, like any gun owner, any time this sort of SCAM is payed for with your tax dollars. What is it about the anti-gun mind that cannot grasp that criminals will not willingly give up their weapons, even for a hundred bucks?! TF, do you not see now, why gun owners call everything anti-gunners say into question?! WE CONSIDER THE SOURCE. - Quite frankly, I agree with you here, but I think you could say the same thing about the "pro-gun" crowd... That was why I thought your previous post about rationality (on both sides) made such a good point."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #150 July 16, 2004 QuoteThe only real reason that I would give would be that the need for 1000 PJ's (who are responsible, safety conscious gun owners) to be able to enjoy their (however they are defined) assault weapons for their fun and fascination is outweighed by the one kook who will use the capabilities of that weapon to inflict massive damage on innnocent men, women, and children. Holy shit, if this is your rationale for being able to take away "assault weapons" why the hell don't you think it could be used to take away ANYTHING ELSE you might wish to own, beginning with automobiles, aircraft, chainsaws, nailguns, hammers, machetes, swords (combat or ceremonial), gasoline, lighters... I mean jesus, man, you can use the "some maniac could abuse it" argument for A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G, and that's precisely why it's not valid!! I would love to hear an argument for banning something that does not include the shrill claim that the many must suffer loss of their rights in order to (unsuccessfully) prevent the psychotic from doing harm to innocents. The argument itself flies in the face of statistics, which generally (no matter what the subject) indicate that an infinitessimal percentage of uses of various items falls into the illegal or dangerous category. When tens of millions of guns around the country are used to fire BILLIONS of rounds of ammunition every single year, and only a few thousand are used to criminally harm other people, how can you justify letting the .00000001 (made up decimal) establish the rule by which you go confiscating the guns? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 6 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
TypicalFish 0 #134 July 16, 2004 Actually, it was the "Go Fuck Yourself" that teed me off. Though it sounds like fun. And if laws are not for the common good, what are they for? Or am I missing something?"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #135 July 16, 2004 QuoteDo you need a Whambulance? No, actually, it just felt kind of good. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #136 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuote"Matt's position..."? Isn't that usually, "on the floor, getting stepped on"? - I am not going to bother to dignify this with a reply. You asked me to define my position; for what I assumed was a reasonable, intelligent point that you were trying to make. Dude, it was a JOKE. LIGHTEN UP.[/I] --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #137 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote"Matt's position..."? Isn't that usually, "on the floor, getting stepped on"? - I am not going to bother to dignify this with a reply. You asked me to define my position; for what I assumed was a reasonable, intelligent point that you were trying to make. Dude, it was a JOKE. LIGHTEN UP.[/I] - I always get thrown off by the "tongue" one."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
burbleflyer 0 #138 July 16, 2004 QuoteActually, it was the "Go Fuck Yourself" that teed me off. Though it sounds like fun. And if laws are not for the common good, what are they for? Or am I missing something? This Republic was never about the common good. It was about individual freedom. Its not a democracy, its a Constitutional Republic. Its not about majority rules. Its about individual freedom. The Constitution IS written in stone. Its not up for interpretation. It is what it says it is. The "common good" thingy is communism. Pure and simple. Sorry to ruin your night. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #139 July 16, 2004 QuoteSorry to ruin your night. Sorry, bf, that's a power you just don't have. I am serious with my question; what are laws if not for the common good? Are you saying we should live in a lawless society?"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #140 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote"Matt's position..."? Isn't that usually, "on the floor, getting stepped on"? - Oh, and dont fool yourself. After they come for my guns, they're coming for yours MR Browning and Glock owner. Really? Drunk driving is illegal and they haven't come for my beer. I can't drive 90, but I can still go 65. I can't bang a 16 year old, but I am still fine with a college girl. I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument. It's a cop-out. How can you "not buy" something that can be clearly shown in historical data to actually be in effect?! We started out with no restrictions on guns. We got Dodge City, where they outlawed carry. We got NFA '34. We got GCA '68. We got AWB '94, and all the others in between. We used to be able to have machine guns, but not anymore (don't give me class III bullshit). We used to be able to carry when/where we wanted. Now we have D.C., NYC, L.A., Chicago, Detroit, Morton Grove... We now have the assault weapons cosmetic-features ban. You tell me where it stops. As far as your driving analogy is concerned. If we had started out at no speed limit, then 100mph, then 70mph, then 55mph, then 35mph, then you'd have an apt analogy. There is a clear and defined AGENDA to the incremental infringements on gun rights. Drunk driving laws address a specific problem that lowering the speed limit to a draconian low would not. What is addressed by forbidding rifles to have bayonet lugs, or a magazine capacity over 10 rounds? We can clearly establish the incrementalism, i.e. "slippery slope" of gun laws. That itself is reason to believe in the theory of it. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #141 July 16, 2004 Oh, I believe in the theory of it, I am saying that not ALL things are going to go down that slope. They may reach an equilibrium, in the spirit of your previous post. I guess what I was looking for was a real discussion as to why you need to have an assault weapon; if the case can be made, logically, intelligently, without hysteria, then I am all for it. (My own personal viewpoint is that no matter what you ban, people will always find a way to kill each other). I would for once just like to hear a justification beyond "because a 200 year old document says so"... And you are right, this is America, you don't need to have a reason to do anything, I would just like to hear it. ("You" in this case refers to the population at large; not just Jeffrey)"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #142 July 16, 2004 QuoteTake your Glock and Browning to the next buy back. Good night. LOmofoL!!!! Hey, I read in the paper yesterday that Brazil is planning to spend three million dollars on a "gun buyback" that they *gigglesnickerguffaw* hope will "keep firearms off the streets..." From the Miami Herald: QuoteGOVERNMENT PUSHING GUN BUYBACK PLAN Brasilia - Brazil plans to begin buying guns from private citizens in attempt to keep firearms off the streets of a country with one of the highest murder rates in the world. A spokeswoman for the Justice Ministry said the government budgeted 10 million reals ($3.3M) for the purchases Tuesday evening. The government hopes to take 80,000 guns off the street by the end of the year. Under the new program, the government will pay 300 reals ($100) per assault rifle, 200 reals per rifle and 100 reals per pistol. Citizens will be compensated for both registered and unregistered weapons. Those who turn in unregistered firearms will not be charged with illegal arms possession if they turn them in before Dec. 23, when tough new law takes effect. OMFG. Just what idiots are in government who think that gun buybacks are apt to get any guns from criminals who use them to hurt people?! They "HOPE" to take 80,000 guns off the streets. They'll be lucky to get EIGHTY guns. What excuse could they possibly have for such a misguided scheme given that these "buyback" programs have been DISMAL FAILURES EVERYWHERE THEY HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTED?! How do they plan to apologize to the people of Brazil for wasting $3.3 million dollars?! And how does a government "buy back" guns that never belonged to it in the first place? Let me put it this way: If you were a criminal who uses a gun to rob people, and that's how you make your living, would you give up that gun for $33? When it may be making you thousands? When it may be protecting you from other criminals, or from resistance by those you rob? Just who the fuck is so stupid as to believe that the public stands to be made safer by this program? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #143 July 16, 2004 PJ, I have to agree with you here, to think that "gun buybacks" have any kind of effect on gun violence is an exercise in futility..."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #144 July 16, 2004 QuoteI guess what I was looking for was a real discussion as to why you need to have an assault weapon Because I can't be judged for it until and unless I hurt someone with it. Same reason you can have a chainsaw, kitchen knife, or even a bulldozer in your back yard. I don't have to justify my exercise of my right. You don't have the power to say that my right stands to be taken away unless I can "justify" my use of it. QuoteIf the case can be made, logically, intelligently, without hysteria, then I am all for it. (My own personal viewpoint is that no matter what you ban, people will always find a way to kill each other). I would for once just like to hear a justification beyond "because a 200 year old document says so"... Why would we offer a reason besides "because a 200 year old document says so" when that's all we need? Why don't you try making the case for why we should not be able to have assault weapons... and while you're at it, we're going to need a comprehensive definition of "assault weapon." You're the one saying our right to have them is questionable; you're the one who has to make the case for taking them away. QuoteAnd you are right, this is America, you don't need to have a reason to do anything, I would just like to hear it. My reasons? They're fascinating. They're fun. They're good for defense, whether you live in a suburb or out in the sticks on 200 acres. They can be used in times of civil unrest, and even in war. (Think "Red Dawn" but more realistic.) A big reason is, "Why the fuck shouldn't I, since I'm not a criminal and I don't go around hurting people?" --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #145 July 16, 2004 QuotePJ, I have to agree with you here, to think that "gun buybacks" have any kind of effect on gun violence is an exercise in futility... THEN EXPLAIN WHY THEY ARE SO POPULAR WITH THE ANTI GUN CROWD. My theory is that intellectual honesty is DEAD in the anti-gun crowd. They are ruled by hysteria, so facts and logic mean NOTHING to them. That's how they can get behind the doublethink necessary to spend MILLIONS OF MOTHERFUCKING DOLLARS ON THESE BOONDOGGLES! You should be outraged, like any gun owner, any time this sort of SCAM is payed for with your tax dollars. What is it about the anti-gun mind that cannot grasp that criminals will not willingly give up their weapons, even for a hundred bucks?! TF, do you not see now, why gun owners call everything anti-gunners say into question?! WE CONSIDER THE SOURCE. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #146 July 16, 2004 QuoteUm . . . you might wanna take a look at the rights that the Republicans currently in charge have taken away. Puuuulease Paul. Why on earth would they wanna face reality???Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #147 July 16, 2004 Quote and while you're at it, we're going to need a comprehensive definition of "assault weapon." I agree with this completely. I think the current standard is misleading and arbitrary. QuoteYou're the one saying our right to have them is questionable; This is a democracy/republic, I think EVERYTHING is open for debate among the involved parties. The only real reason that I would give would be that the need for 1000 PJ's (who are responsible, safety conscious gun owners) to be able to enjoy their (however they are defined) assault weapons for their fun and fascination is outweighed by the one kook who will use the capabilities of that weapon to inflict massive damage on innnocent men, women, and children. It's the same reason you can't go into a hardware store and buy dynamite. Is this enough of a reason? I am not sure, but I would love to hear the open debate instead of the shrill screaming from both sides."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #148 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteUm . . . you might wanna take a look at the rights that the Republicans currently in charge have taken away. Puuuulease Paul. Why on earth would they wanna face reality??? Oh, go back to sleep, willya? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #149 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuotePJ, I have to agree with you here, to think that "gun buybacks" have any kind of effect on gun violence is an exercise in futility... THEN EXPLAIN WHY THEY ARE SO POPULAR WITH THE ANTI GUN CROWD. HYSTERIA. PARTY LINE. Plain and simple. QuoteMy theory is that intellectual honesty is DEAD in the anti-gun crowd. They are ruled by hysteria, so facts and logic mean NOTHING to them. That's how they can get behind the doublethink necessary to spend MILLIONS OF MOTHERFUCKING DOLLARS ON THESE BOONDOGGLES! You should be outraged, like any gun owner, any time this sort of SCAM is payed for with your tax dollars. What is it about the anti-gun mind that cannot grasp that criminals will not willingly give up their weapons, even for a hundred bucks?! TF, do you not see now, why gun owners call everything anti-gunners say into question?! WE CONSIDER THE SOURCE. - Quite frankly, I agree with you here, but I think you could say the same thing about the "pro-gun" crowd... That was why I thought your previous post about rationality (on both sides) made such a good point."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #150 July 16, 2004 QuoteThe only real reason that I would give would be that the need for 1000 PJ's (who are responsible, safety conscious gun owners) to be able to enjoy their (however they are defined) assault weapons for their fun and fascination is outweighed by the one kook who will use the capabilities of that weapon to inflict massive damage on innnocent men, women, and children. Holy shit, if this is your rationale for being able to take away "assault weapons" why the hell don't you think it could be used to take away ANYTHING ELSE you might wish to own, beginning with automobiles, aircraft, chainsaws, nailguns, hammers, machetes, swords (combat or ceremonial), gasoline, lighters... I mean jesus, man, you can use the "some maniac could abuse it" argument for A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G, and that's precisely why it's not valid!! I would love to hear an argument for banning something that does not include the shrill claim that the many must suffer loss of their rights in order to (unsuccessfully) prevent the psychotic from doing harm to innocents. The argument itself flies in the face of statistics, which generally (no matter what the subject) indicate that an infinitessimal percentage of uses of various items falls into the illegal or dangerous category. When tens of millions of guns around the country are used to fire BILLIONS of rounds of ammunition every single year, and only a few thousand are used to criminally harm other people, how can you justify letting the .00000001 (made up decimal) establish the rule by which you go confiscating the guns? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
