inane Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 This whole defending yourself from the government rationale is frankly bizarre. There are a lot of things I don't trust about government, but me having a gun isn't going to do sweet fark all about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 If one really wants to get into mass murder, then explosives or poison yield a much better return for the effort .. take out a whole cities water system without too much effort .. American mass murderer's lack imagination .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Light Racicot Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 Because according to this forum, despite not owning a gun, I'm a selfish criminal apologist gun-nut teabagger.. merely recognizing what common sense dictates, the inanity of blaming an object for it's ill uses and then making the heinous error of applying that to the many gun owners who don't break the law with them to effectively strip them of their rights of defence with a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamboni_14 Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 Ever been to a rural area without a car? Kinda hard to find buses or subways there. Also, I don't recall any US Amendment for the "right to bear cars". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 original post was pointing out how there isn't really a "need" for a gun. They didn't mention anything about the constitution. But we'll play that game.. nope there is no amendment. So let's ban all the cars.. NOW! Again, no need... all they do is waste money, kill people who misuse them (or others near people who misuse them) and make people become more lazy. yes I have lived in a rural area for 2 years. But we'll go with your argument... ok, so a person needs a car in rural areas to get from town to town. But wait, if you didn't have cars to go from town to town then you'd need a local bus company to take you from town to town... oops, no need for a car again. Or maybe the rail is more invested in and a train runs outside of town to take you to the next town. Think of the jobs that would be created if cars were banned to serve these rural areas! Bus depots to be built, manned and serviced. Train depots to be built, manned and serviced. More rail lines to be laid out across the country from town to town. you clearly missed my point as well... just because YOU don't agree with something, doesn't mean everyone should follow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamboni_14 Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 And ambulance attendants will use a horse and buggy? .. cops on horseback? .. six-shooters and Sharps 50 caliber rifles? .. streets littered with horse-buns? .. I can smell it all now .. P.S. .. I dinna think the oil lobby will let you get away with it, but you could try) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 Even Israel Is Fact-Checking the NRA Now ADAM CLARK ESTES DEC 23, 2012 http://www.theatlant...-nra-now/60292/ On Sunday morning, Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association, told the world that armed guards stopped school shootings in Israel. Israel begs to differ. "Israel had a whole lot of school shootings until they did one thing," LaPierre said sitting calmly on Meet the Press. "They said, 'We're going to stop it,' and they put armed security in every school, and they have not had a problem since then." Well Mr. Pierre, that would be awesome if it were true. But according to Yigal Palmor, spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, it's not. More specifically, the two situations are "fundamentally different," and Israel's actually tightened its gun control laws in recent years. "We didn't have a series of school shootings, and they had nothing to do with the issue at hand in the United States. We had to deal with terrorism," Palmor told the New York Daily News. "What removed the danger was not the armed guards but an overall anti-terror policy and anti-terror operations which brought street terrorism down to nearly zero over a number of years." Well this is awkward. It's kind of like the first time two days ago that LaPierre told the nation that we needed to put an armed guard in every American school to prevent more school shootings. This, despite the fact that there was an armed guard at Columbine High School in 1999, but 13 people died from gunshot wounds anyways. Within minutes, journalists pointed out myriad examples of other shootings where armed guards or bystanders failed to stop massacres as well as plenty of data about how ineffective the strategy would be. LaPierre's creative understanding of the truth isn't necessarily the issue here, though. LaPierre has failed to check his facts on quite a few other issues lately, and that's fine because plenty of good reporters did it for him after the fact. He's not doing anybody any favors by trying to rope other countries into this problem, though. In Palmor's words, "It would be better not to drag Israel into what is an internal American discussion." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossy Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 Why even respond to someone comparing guns to cars? The guy obviously has something wrong in his head to make that comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 Why even respond to someone comparing guns to cars? The guy obviously has something wrong in his head to make that comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 So the head of the NRA Wayne LaPierre (and what sort of 'Murican name is that anyway??? Does he like French fries instead of Freedom Fries?) says 'If it's crazy to call for armed security in school...call me crazy' Yup you are batcrap crazy Monsieur LaPierre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 No one wants to talk about this. Good post but too bad these forums have a habit of just not addressing the posts that add something to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Do you really think this is a good point to bring up in post 9/11 America? So what rights will Americans have to lose before they actually do anything about it? I read recently that three years worth of ammo have been sold for AR-15... maybe the right to bear arms is the one they value most? Sure as hell they don't give a damn about anything else. Protect yourselves from the guys up there...? America is the biggest prison state on the planet, with nearly two million people in state and federal prisons (and more in jails), there are more people jailed in US than in the rest of the developed world combined. Not important enough I guess. Maybe if they jailed white folks at the same rate as minorities? The whole nation is under surveillance by the state, and has been for years. When's the scheduled march on Washington to defend your rights? Oh right, never. NDAA passed before with the indefinite detention clause, and it just passed the Senate again... with the clause in tact. The government has killed American citizens without trial... No? Not going to fight the government with a trillion dollar annual budget? But what about your right to defend yourself from oppression? I don't think anyone wanted to talk about it because it's crystal clear to most that Americans are being stripped of their freedoms on a pretty frequent basis without so much as a peep. Americans aren't the freedom loving people they pretend to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 It's pretty classic end of reign behaviour. How the US and other western nations transition to its decline is the real question. Like I said, arming yourself to the teeth, fighting all these wars, draconian laws, etc...these are all symptoms of a failing experiment. It's laughably sad that people feel the need to arm themselves to defend against some nameless boogeyman, a faceless tyranny coming to steal their freedoms when the acts they undertake to protect themselves do nothing but exacerbate their own decline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimpcurtly Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 It's a common thing in life that a few idiots ruin it for the rest of us. Get used to it Americans....or get used to many more needless, senseless mass murders. It made me sick to my stomach to hear that Bushmaster sales skyrocketed after Sandy Hook. Unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Light Racicot Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 So what rights will Americans have to lose before they actually do anything about it? I read recently that three years worth of ammo have been sold for AR-15... maybe the right to bear arms is the one they value most? Sure as hell they don't give a damn about anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Holy **** three YEARS worth? Man these people are bat**** nuts...seems to me the better thing to do, after these incidents would be...I dunno...take ALL of the AR-15 ammo off the market...guess that never occurred to Wal-Mart though...who honestly could give a rat's ass as long as they get paid. Sickening...really really sickening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 This whole defending yourself from the government rationale is frankly bizarre. There are a lot of things I don't trust about government, but me having a gun isn't going to do sweet fark all about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electro Rock Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 I disagree. IMO, "selfish" is wanting desperately to hold on to something that no-one really needs, even though it is resulting in the death of innocent children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Who decides who needs what, a bunch of scemeing elites who are guarded by guns and who's children are guarded by guns at school? The fact is, like so many problems today, mass shootings were rare before the "liberal" social engineers started having an effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Who decides who needs what, a bunch of scemeing elites who are guarded by guns and who's children are guarded by guns at school? The fact is, like so many problems today, mass shootings were rare before the "liberal" social engineers started having an effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.