Armed America

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Jordan

your argument holds no water.

IMO: That river never formed in any of your arguments

I believe I answered this ludicrous statement before.

I'm already 100% ahead of your game on this topic.

These commentaries really don't help your argument, especially since they're bullshit.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

WHEN YOU OUTLAW GUNS, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS.
Trite? Yes. Cliché? Yes. But it's still true.

With all due respect to you, Bruce, because I think you're great...that statement sticks in my craw because OF COURSE it's true. If you outlaw eye drops only outlaws will have eyedrops because anyone possessing eyedrops will be in violation of the law. I just never thought of that statement as really saying anything particularly profound, though many of the bumper stickers I've seen seem to profess that it is incredibly profound.

As for me, you can have my eyedrops when you pry them from my cold dead hands.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

These commentaries really don't help your argument,

At this point I'm considering buying a gun out of spite, simply because your continued argument is so annoying. A handgun goddamnit...

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by jinx

At this point I'm considering buying a gun out of spite, simply because your continued argument is so annoying. A handgun goddamnit...

Because you don't agree? Tell me more.

[Jordan]

Personal attacks? let's not resort to that in public, it would make us both look rather foolish.

If something has never happened to you, and it has happened once to me it seems to me as though I am indeed 100% ahead. Let's break it down into a simple points based system: One to nothing would be a 100% lead, two to one would be a 50% lead and so on. The situation I was in has never occured to you and here's hoping it never does.

Tell me, when these handgun wielding criminals are not deterred by these laws you propose, what then? Criminals don't care about laws, they willingly break them in order to gain whatever their objective is. This is what makes them criminals. I should lose my rights because someone else was violent, malicious or just plain negligent?

How about those people who actually use their rifles for hunting? People in the deep woods or Appalachians who use the meat they hunt to provide food for their subsistence? They should lose their ability to provide fresh meat? The government doesn't help them enough and some are just too proud to sign up for it. It's not a way oflife that i would choose but that's their choice, that's their way of life. Who are you to turn them into criminals by outlawing their guns and living that way?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Jordan

...
One to nothing would be a 100% lead,....

That's incorrect, but outside the scope of this discussion.

Originally Posted by Jordan

Tell me, when these handgun wielding criminals are not deterred by these laws you propose, what then?

I answered that - go back and read. I don't want to

Originally Posted by Jordan

Criminals don't care about laws, they willingly break them in order to gain whatever their objective is. This is what makes them criminals. I should lose my rights because someone else was violent, malicious or just plain negligent?

Yes, it happens all the time.

Originally Posted by Jordan

How about those people who actually use their rifles for hunting? ...

Again, read the thread. I have only spoken out against handguns.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by jinx

At this point I'm considering buying a gun out of spite, simply because your continued argument is so annoying. A handgun goddamnit...

BTW, you've hurt my feelings.

[jinx]

Well I'm sorry Spexx, I don't want you to hurt your feelings. But my god man, you've been arguing for page after page and aren't really saying anything (yes, I know I don't have to read, but I did, and now I'm commenting).
The right to own guns is guaranteed in the constitution, end of story. The need to own guns, however subjective, is clearly felt and has been well explained by several posters. Nucular weapons, future criminals, and fantasy worlds where guns don't exist do not belong in an intelligent conversation about gun rights.

If I felt the need to own a gun, to protect myself and my children, while my husband works long hours in a different state, why would you argue with me? Keep in mind that we don't have local police - just the state police about 1/2 hour away. Why do you think I should, hypothetically, give up my handgun?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by jinx

The right to own guns is guaranteed in the constitution, end of story.

I don't think it's the end of the story. The constitution has changed, and will change again. There was no guarantee for women's voting rights in the "original" constitution, now there is. Same with slavery, and alcohol has been ok, forbidden, and made ok again. We're pretty fickle with the constitution.

Originally Posted by jinx

Nucular weapons, future criminals, and fantasy worlds where guns don't exist do not belong in an intelligent conversation about gun rights.

If you can't imagine a better world, you'll never acheive it.

Originally Posted by jinx

If I felt the need to own a gun, to protect myself and my children, while my husband works long hours in a different state, why would you argue with me? Keep in mind that we don't have local police - just the state police about 1/2 hour away. Why do you think I should, hypothetically, give up my handgun?

You can use other means to protect yourselves, like alarms, barbed wire, whatever. Your having handguns available means that handguns are available to others, who can use them against you and yours. No handguns, less chance little Johnny gets accidentally shot by his friend, or purposely shot by his girlfriend's ex-boyfriend.

You can protect yourself with other weapons, including rifle and shotgun. I feel that a world with rifles and shotguns would be better than a world with handguns because they cannot be hidden as easily, and therefore cannot be used in crimes as easily.

There's two good (IMHO) reasons. There's more in the thread.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

If you can't imagine a better world, you'll never acheive it.

The difficulty is imagining better people to inhabit this world.

bit from Serenity
Reynolds-Y'all got on this boat for different reasons, but y'all come to the same place. So now I'm asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave.

Communism was another one of these wonderful ideas that forgot to consider people.
The gun folks envision a world where criminals are the ones who live in fear. They envision a world where individuals take responsibility for their own saftey. Your vision is in conflict with their vision.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

With all due respect to you, Bruce, because I think you're great...that statement sticks in my craw because OF COURSE it's true. If you outlaw eye drops only outlaws will have eyedrops because anyone possessing eyedrops will be in violation of the law. I just never thought of that statement as really saying anything particularly profound, though many of the bumper stickers I've seen seem to profess that it is incredibly profound.

As for me, you can have my eyedrops when you pry them from my cold dead hands.

Yeah, I know...that's why I mentioned trite and Cliché. I used it because it's a slogan everyone has seen and accepted or rejected.

Sure, it's like the old, the missing object is always found in the last place you look. Well duh, of course, why would you look in the next place if you've found it? But what I think it really says is, it'll be found far down the list of places you think it might be found.

Same with the original slogan in question. I think that it's a reminder the outlaws will still have them, so making a law depriving citizens doesn't do any good, rather than any one still having one is automatically a criminal.

Btw, anyone thinking I'm a rabid handgunner, no. What I'm rabid about is government, and other groups, restricting me. Telling me what I can do, can't do, own, can't own. Get out of my life!

[Aliantha]

Bloody anarchists! ( did I spell that correctly )

[xoxoxoBruce]

Hey, who are you calling a spider?

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by jinx

At this point I'm considering buying a gun out of spite, simply because your continued argument is so annoying. A handgun goddamnit...

You know what, if I would live in the good ol' US and A, I probably would do the same. Preferably an AK47 or a riot gun, the more deadly the better. Shoot first, ask questions later.

Because EVERY fucking moron has one. Live as the Romans live.

Having said that, I'm glad where I live I don't have to and I sincerely hope that it will never have get to that stage, just as these stupid liability cases, which fortunately doesn't seem to settle down here as well, thank God. I guess it's the price of civil indepence and I prepared to pay that.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

IMHO, people who use violence to resolve conflict do not meet the second part of this definition.

I think you misspelled "willingly allows themselves to be a victim."