Guns will protect you from tsunamis.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I only want the guns I have, which are not many... just don't want any damn restrictions on my rights to them now or in the future.

I, on the other hand, want the guns I want, not just what I have now.

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Quoted out of context, tw. You really are pathetic.

Quoted exactly in the context as originally posted. Hyperlinked for all to see the context: 12-28-2006, 05:59 PM. Since you cannot admit to a definition of gun control, then you resort to Rush Limbaugh tactics? Posting insults is not a logical defense. MaggieL - you advocated the objectives of gun control:

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I do maintain *legal* gun ownership means less violent crime.

Legal gun ownership does *not* include

-- concealed carry without a permit in jurisdictions where a permit is required,

-- use of a firearm in comission of a felony,or posession of firearms by those not legally qualiied to posess them: convicted felons, those to whom firearms are prohibited as a condition of their probation

-- handgun posession by anyone under 21.

MaggieL - that is gun control. No way around it. You advocated gun control.

"You really are pathetic" is how Urbane Guerrilla defends his rewritten history. Do you really want to be associated Urbane Guerrilla intelligence? Get a grip MaggieL. You have just advocated the objectives of gun control on 12-28-2006, 05:59 PM .

Why do you so fear the phrase 'gun control'? Has Rush Limbaugh propaganda made you fear the expression rather than admit to what responsible gun ownership is about? MaggieL has advocated 'gun control', cannot logically deny it, and now resorts to personal insult? Urbane Guerrilla tactics are alive and well.

[tw]

Originally Posted by wolf

Crime control, not gun control, tw.

Crime control, according to MaggieL, is more guns, carry permits, etc. MaggieL says that more guns on the street means less crime. UG calls it a fully loaded automatic weapon over every mantle. That was defined as Crime Control.

Gun control is restructions on guns such as

-- concealed carry without a permit in jurisdictions where a permit is required,

-- use of a firearm in comission of a felony,or posession of firearms by those not legally qualiied to posess them: convicted felons, those to whom firearms are prohibited as a condition of their probation

-- handgun posession by anyone under 21.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Oh, is that your judgement? :-)

Eh, it was representing your judgement not the morality of making judgements. My bad.

But you insist I leave them at home?

If you're well trained I could really give a rat's ass but perferably not. I'm not losing sleep over it by any means.

I would suggest actually enforcing the laws against ag assault, armed robbery and related offenses. Instead of the revolving door currently operated by most urban areas.

Well at least we agree on something...

I'd also be in favor of legalizing all drugs and allowing Darwin to sort things out. But my sense is that that proposal is *way* ouside the current Overton window.

Ah, we have two things in common now. I like drugs because it seperates the ones who can handle them and the ones that can't.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

Crime control, according to MaggieL...

You're never quite so full of shit as when you're holding forth on your special private version of "according to MaggieL". And that's no small achievement, considering your baseline state of nine pounds in a five pound bag. :-)

I'm confident that you wouldn't know "responsible gun ownership" if it bit you on the ass. Have you ever owned a gun? When did they make you stop?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

No way around it. You advocated gun control.

Let's take it a step a a time, perhaps you'll be able to follow:

I identified what legal gun ownership is.
I pointed out that those willing to violate gun laws are also likely willing to violate other laws. (This is the core of the "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" principle.)

Now then: where do you see my advocacy of those laws here? Be specific. (Don't struggle, that's quicksand you're standing in.)

Perhaps this example will help you understand: I respect the gun laws of New Jersey. I do not carry in New Jersey on the rare occasions when I absolutely cannot avoid going there. I beleive that people who are violating New Jersey's gun laws are likely to be criminals in other ways too.

But I abhor New Jersey's gun laws, and would support efforts to change them.

Are you really incapable of making a distinction between
knowing a law,
respecting a law, and
advocating a law?

They really are quite different things.

[Aliantha]

To advocate gun control does not mean you advocate the laws regarding them as you have pointed out Maggie.

I'm pretty sure - since it's in black and white in your above post as a quote - that what tw said is that you do in fact advocate gun control. That is, you agree that there should be gun control. Of course we are all very well aware of your stance on the matter and what you consider to be acceptable use and ownership of guns and therefore you would only advocate laws which coincide with your own personal opinion on what is right on this issue.

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

You're never quite so full of shit as when you're holding forth on your special private version of "according to MaggieL".

As you can see from MaggieL's repeated emotional tirades, she is caught by her own short hairs. She has advocated gun control. Her only objection is details of how some states do it. But even MaggieL - so voraciously promoting hate of gun laws for a political agenda, indeed, does advocate gun control.

But then one need only review her own post that details what gun control should address on: 12-28-2006, 05:59 PM . That is MaggieL recommending classic gun control. Somehow that is not gun control because State of New Jersey does not permit concealed weapons? Bull. MaggieL has advocated gun control. She has posted in direct opposition to NRA decrees. Why do you know she is having trouble denying it? She starts using words such as "shit", "pathetic", and "rant". Sorry MaggieL. You have been caught with your pants down. We have you by the short hairs. Your own post of 12-28-2006, 05:59 PM advocates gun control - no matter how many insult used to deny it.

[Griff]

Disneyland. Fuck, man, this is better than Disneyland.

Pass the popcorn its gonna be a long night.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I'm pretty sure - since it's in black and white in your above post as a quote - that what tw said is that you do in fact advocate gun control.

Nope. Read it again, and try not to make things up out of wishful thinking.

I actually said "Legal gun ownership means less crime".

This because tw claimed I said "*all* gun ownership means less crime"...which I certainly did not say. He (and you, now) are waving around this quote of me enumerating some clauses of the Federal law on firearms posession, and claiming that somehow that means I support the law, and therefore support "gun control". A red herring; he lied about what I said and now he thinks if he screams louldly enough people will beleive him.

Well, maybe he's right; you seem to have been hooked. :-)

I can obey a law without supporting it (see the New Jersey example in my previous post). We have words for people who refuse to obey laws they dont like. One of them is "criminal". Another is "anarchist".

Gun ownership by criminals doesn't reduce crime. Without endorsing gun prohibition for ex-felons who have served their time, I can easily recognize that contempt for gun laws is often found in those with contempt for *all* law. It happens to be illegal for convicted felons to posess firearms. That does not entail an endorsement of the gun laws they happen to be violating.

But I do support laws against ag assault, burglary, robbery and sexual assault, etc. If someone illegally posesses a firearm, but does not commit another crime, I personally don't much care. It's no harm, no foul; Malum prohibitum but not malum in se.

But those who commit violent crimes with guns are most often also in violation of gun laws. And it's those violent criminals (who are very often gun law violators as well) who were the original subject of discussion. Their gun ownership does nothing to reduce crime, even if it were not inherently illegal itself.

None of this translates into an endorsement of any particular gun law...and most especially not the most odious gun laws of liberal disaster areas like California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland and DC.

If you're unable or unwilling to follow that, I can't make it any plainer. If you're unable to avoid logical fallacies while juggling predicates, I can understand why you seem to be indulging in what I could most charitably describe as "blurry thinking".

[Aliantha]

How bout you read my post again Maggie.

tw is accusing you of advocating gun control not being an advocate for gun laws.

My post was to try and get you to respond to his actual post and not what you wish he was posting.

I responded to one of the points he is arguing with you because you don't seem to be able to read it for what it is.

I'm guessing no one else bothered to try and point it out because when people do so all you do is insult them. Much as you will do once again to me I'm sure.

Anyway, blind freddy can see what's going on here, so I'll leave you to fumble through your own folly.

Just to be clear:
I am ok with, no more than, a three day background check.
Violent felons being unable to own guns.
That is it.
No restrictions on gun types, amount of ammo (nor tracking or lists of owners for guns and after purchase), no carry restrictions for those legal to own.

[Undertoad]

Just to add to the fun, making the rounds is this story of use of an AK-47 in home defense.

Alleged home intruder killed after homeowner shoots him with AK-47

ATLAS TOWNSHIP, Mich. Prosecutors in Genesee County will evaluate whether to file charges after a man was fatally shot while allegedly terrorizing a couple in their home.

Police say a 51-year-old Sterling Heights man came to the Atlas Township home of his ex-wife last weekend. He reportedly sprayed the back of the home with bullets, threw a whiskey bottle through a window and broke into the home.

The homeowner then fatally shot the man with an AK-47 assault rifle.

The Genesee County Sheriff's Department says the 9-1-1 tape recorded the caller saying he was going to have to shoot the man firing shots at the house.

Dude was careful and lucid enough to tell 911 he may have to use deadly force because deadly force was at hand. He apparently waited for the right moment when the threat was actually breaking in. The AK applied that deadly force with precision and devastation. It was one of the best possible tools for the job.

This story is not pro or anti gun control, obviously, as it was a gun that put the people at risk in the first place. It simply offers one possible narrative for how a powerful semi-automatic "assault rifle" can be used to defend a home. For anyone who says "I don't see how an assault weapon is needed for home defense", if you were trained in its use and knew what you were doing, perhaps you would in fact choose it.

[Undertoad]

http://www.mlive.com/news/fljournal/...850.xml&coll=5

more of the story

"This guy went wild," Pickell said about Ftoyan Novakov, 51, of Sterling Heights, who was shot after he fired at least two bullets into the man's house, broke in and stalked up the stairs toward the man and Novakov's ex-wife. "Our investigation shows the homeowner was defending himself."

Undersheriff James Gage and Lt. Kevin Shanlian said the incident began about 10:25 p.m. when the homeowner, a 41-year-old man, called 911 from his house on Irish Road near Baldwin Road and reported shots were being fired into the house.

He and his girlfriend, Novakov's 42-year-old ex-wife from Macomb Township, retreated to an upstairs bedroom as Novakov threw a whiskey bottle through a window and climbed into the house.

Investigators found that Novakov was armed with a 9 mm handgun with a laser sight.

Gage said a 911 operator could hear the sound of gunshots as the homeowner reported what was happening. The homeowner also said that he was a hunter, and that he had a rifle and needed to defend himself and his girlfriend.

She and the homeowner were in the bedroom trying to hide and protect themselves when Novakov came in, Gage said.

The homeowner then fired his rifle, killing Novakov.

This was ideal approach, clearly the guy was trained. They took position in the remotest section of the house, got behind the bed and waited until the last possible time to shoot, acting totally in defense and giving every opportunity for the shooting not to happen.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Big snip~ It happens to be illegal for convicted felons to posess firearms. ~big snip

I want to expand this thought. It is also a Federal offense for convicted felons to TRY to buy a gun. Thousands are refused, by background checks, every year. Although it's a violation of Federal law, the number of people prosecuted for this felony is, ZERO.

Don't talk to me about new gun laws until you show me you really want to solve the problem by enforcing the thousands already on the books.