tuscl

OT: RE: anti-gun posts

mjx01
Aspiring Global Hound
Friday, December 14, 2012 5:28 PM
I found the following article to be very insightful regarding gun bans and though I'd share in response to the anti-gun posts.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/20…

In a nut shell, murders and criminals don't follow the rules. They target schools and other "gun-free" zone because they know the people there are unarmed and unable to defend themselves.

35 comments

  • Ermita_Nights
    •
    12 years ago
    Gun free zones work better if they are enforced, for example by a doorman. Just calling it a gun-free zone doesn't make it so.
  • crazyjoe
    •
    12 years ago
    The anti gun people need to shut up and realize without guns they wouldnt have the freedoms they do. That's exactly right mix
  • JuiceBox69
    •
    12 years ago
    I agree with crazyjoe
  • jackslash
    •
    12 years ago
    Good article. I liked the William Burroughs quote:

    After a shooting spree," author William Burroughs once said, "they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it." Burroughs continued: "I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military."

  • JuiceBox69
    •
    12 years ago
    Lol
  • Clubber
    •
    12 years ago
    Suppose there were a few teachers, parents, custodians, whoever, in that school that were armed. Any bets if the results would still have been the same? One thing that would have been the same, the scumbag that started it would still be dead!
  • Dougster
    •
    12 years ago
    You nailed it clubber.
  • Dougster
    •
    12 years ago
    Further along the line of gun politics. They say the shooter was 20 so couldn't legally own a gun anyways. Apparently the gun were registered to the mother, but that is a very unusual collection, IMO, for a female kindergraten teacher.
  • JuiceBox69
    •
    12 years ago
    Yep yep
  • bang69
    •
    12 years ago
    my heart goes to thoes that were involved in the shooting up north. BUT AINT MF'N SOB GONA GET MY GUNS
  • Alucard
    •
    12 years ago
    I'm in agreement with Mayor Bloomberg.
  • Alucard
    •
    12 years ago
    A bill by Senator Feinstein is coming.
  • Dougster
    •
    12 years ago
    ^^^ dream on, wanker!
  • Alucard
    •
    12 years ago
    The National conversation and debate will begin soon. Will be interesting to see where the President takes it, where Congress takes it and where the Public takes it.
  • Dougster
    •
    12 years ago
    Nowhere, dumbass, but you keep right on dreaming.
  • Alucard
    •
    12 years ago
    I believe there will be changes made. It is incredibly tragic that 20 children had to be shot multiple times for the Country and the Government to start this debate and conversation.
  • Dougster
    •
    12 years ago
    @alutard: dude, you're a retard so it doesn't really matter what you believe now does it?
  • Alucard
    •
    12 years ago
    We need the middle of the continuum to speak out most. The EXTREME fringes will only try to shout down true dialog on this complex issue.
  • Dougster
    •
    12 years ago
    Complex issues? Dude your mind is so simple you don't even get that can't respect a whore and pay her to suck your dick at the same time. See if you can work that simple one out first then maybe we go for complex.
  • txtittyfan
    •
    12 years ago
    Restricting gun ownership is not the answer. The constitution provides for gun ownership for a reason.

    The problem lies in responsible gun ownership and lax enforcement/penalties for improper gun usage.

    The recent shooting was from the son of an avid gun collecter, who by her own admission had previously expressed concern about her sons instability and mental well being.

    The big question IMO is why she did not have trigger locks on her guns and take precautions to make them less accesible to her son? That is responsible gu n ownership.
  • Alucard
    •
    12 years ago
    The Constitution's 2nd Amendment was formulated in the context of the 1780's World. I don't believe that context is entirely applicable in 2012. But that interpretation often falls to the courts if the US Code has is not clear. There is NO simple answer.

    Those who vehemently believe that the 2nd Amendment was added to prevent the fledgling US National Government in the 1780's from becoming a dictatorship, have a problem in 2012. If the government wants to come and get you and your friends, WELL the government will bring to bear MORE and BIGGER firepower than you could EVER hope to bring to a fight. In the late 1700's you might have had a chance.
  • motorhead
    •
    12 years ago
    I'm anything but a gun totin' NRA guy...

    But we've made pot illegal
    Drugs illegal
    Prostitution illegal
    Tried making booze illegal
    Driving over the speed limit illegal

    Look how well that's worked out

    Just sayin'

  • deogol
    •
    12 years ago
    We need better mental healthcare options. Look at whats been going on: some dude thinks he is in a batman movie, two kids on prozac, the crazy eye look of the congress woman shooter - taking my gun because someone else was crazy is stupid - about the level of treating people like third graders because "well, so and so screwed around so no one is getting cookies" bullshit.

    If the Dems try more assault weapons banning and shit, I will personally join forces who want to see them thrown out of office. A bunch of stupidity of liberals ready to aid criminals in rape, home invasions, gang violence (that's why you need a big clip these days - cat burglars are in movies, its gangs of fucks these days), people getting mugged and old people robbed. Fuck that.

    This is a mental health problem - one that has been ignored since the seventies when they closed down all them hospitals.

  • Alucard
    •
    11 years ago
    "But we've made pot illegal
    Drugs illegal
    Prostitution illegal
    Tried making booze illegal
    Driving over the speed limit illegal

    Look how well that's worked out

    Just sayin'"

    motorhead it just seems we're a country of persons who like to disobey laws that we don't like or find inconvenient.

    Just sayin!!
  • Dougster
    •
    11 years ago
    alutard: "motorhead it just seems we're a country of persons who like to disobey laws that we don't like or find inconvenient. "

    Like when you disobey laws regarding prostitution, Hmmmm?
  • georgmicrodong
    •
    11 years ago
    Oh but breaking *those* laws is OK because...um...because they're *stupid*!
  • Alucard
    •
    11 years ago
    ^^^ The usual pompous and Know-it-All suspects have jumped in! LOL
  • Dougster
    •
    11 years ago
    Sorry, alutard, but if you are going to be so blatantly hypocritical, and hope nobody will notice, you are wrong. And if you don't like us pointing out your hypocrisy that is just too damn bad!
  • georgmicrodong
    •
    11 years ago
    So Alucard, it's OK for *you* to break prostitution laws, but other folks don't deserve to exercise discretion over other laws? And anyone who points out the contradiction in that position is "pompous"? Is that an accurate summation of your position?
  • Alucard
    •
    11 years ago
    ^^^ And you don't break them gmd? WHO are you trying to fool? LMAO!

    It is curious that you two assholes are SO obsessed with me.

    I'm finished with this thread as you two have become BORING!!!
  • tumblingdice
    •
    11 years ago
    Why do I envision Alucrude answering these posts wearing nothing but a shower cap,bathrobe and slippers,while waiting for the paper boy?
  • DoctorPhil
    •
    11 years ago

    can’t find a way out of that rat maze your mind is can you alucard? that’s because you are INSANE.
  • Dougster
    •
    11 years ago
    Run, alutard! Run! LMFAO!
  • georgmicrodong
    •
    11 years ago
    Of course I break them, Alucard. But I'm consistent. I break the ones that harm no one else, in full knowledge of the consequences and fully ready to accept them (with the help of a good lawyer, of course). In addition, I don't condemn others for doing the same thing I do, when they choose to ignore a different set of laws that meet the same criteria.

    Can you say the same? Or is your position more along the lines of "me too, you bad"?

  • georgmicrodong
    •
    11 years ago
    Of course I break them, Alucard. But I'm consistent. I break the ones that harm no one else, in full knowledge of the consequences and fully ready to accept them (with the help of a good lawyer, of course). In addition, I don't condemn others for doing the same thing I do, when they choose to ignore a different set of laws that meet the same criteria.

    Can you say the same? Or is your position more along the lines of "me good, you bad"?

You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion