quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
In the US political system, a small fanatical minority can control a national policy. The NRA is a text book example uniting manufactures and gun owners around the Second Amendment whereas there's no such body or motivation to argue otherwise on behalf of the general population.

In the US political system, a small fanatical minority can wipe out precious constitutional rights. Groups such as handgun control and liberal democrats are text book examples herding their flocks of sheep over the cliff in quest of their utopian vision. Though there is a body with the motivation to argue otherwise on behalf of gun owners and the liberty and freedom loving general public. That organization is the NRA.


There, I fixed it for ya.

Hey, I'll take utopian vision over gun-toting anarchy any day of the week…...

Well then keep drinking the kool aid cause it's just around the corner. Nice place too, no one hates anyone or anything and spend their days singing songs and holding hands. Even the animals get along. I had a pic of it in a book somewhere a long time ago. I think it might have been the childrens bible.

quote:

".....if you take all the guns off the street you still will have a crime problem, whereas if you take the criminals off the street you cannot have a gun problem.”
Jeff Cooper

Was Pistorius a criminal before this incident? I didn't realize that about him.

If my memory serves me right, a couple of posters have mentioned that he has been in trouble for pulling a gun before. Now whether or not that makes him a criminal is up to you to decide.




ETA to add second comment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
Hey, I'll take utopian vision over gun-toting anarchy any day of the week…...

I would prefer gun-toting anarchy over tyranny

quote:

ORIGINAL:
Was Pistorius a criminal before this incident? I didn't realize that about him.

From what I understand reading previous posts on this thread, Pistorius was a hot head who unnecessarily discharged a firearm in a public place on 2 separate occasions.

Does unnecessarily discharging a firearm in South Africa carry a long prison term?? If not, how would the outcome have been different UNLESS as a result of unnecessarily discharging a firearm he had his rights to have firearms taken away? I thought you didn't believe removing guns had any effect on gun violence. Are you saying he should have been jailed for life for unnecessarily discharging a firearm - because that is the only way to keep him from using a gun UNLESS you take the gun away. So which is it - remove him from society indefinitely for misusing a gun OR remove his right to own a gun?

Personally, I'm not in favor of life sentences for anything but the most severe of crimes. How exactly do we take "all criminals off the street". Does that mean the 12 year old kid who shoplifts a package of candy gets life imprisonment. Are you saying put all gun owners in jail indefinitely because they could commit a crime with a gun in the future? I just don't understand take "all criminals off the street" as a societal strategy for dealing with crime. If we wait until someone has killed someone with a gun to take them off the street hasn't a death already occurred? How do we bring Pistorius's gf back to life? We would have had to have taken Pistorius off the street BEFORE and KEEP him off the street indefinitely. How does that work exactly? Life imprisonment for any type of gun violation (like discharging in a public place, carrying a concealed weapon when it isn't allowed, carrying an unregistered gun, not having your guns properly locked up at home, taking a gun somewhere where it isn't allowed, etc.) So we make even the most minor gun violation carry a life sentence? And somehow find the tax dollars to keep that many people behind bars for life.

Personally, wouldn't it be easier (and a hell of lot cheaper) to just not have allowed Pistorius to own a gun i.e., take his gun rights away? Remove the gun from his home?




ETA to remove an uneccesary adjective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
Hey, I'll take utopian vision over gun-toting anarchy any day of the week…...

I would prefer gun-toting anarchy over tyranny

quote:

ORIGINAL:
Was Pistorius a criminal before this incident? I didn't realize that about him.

From what I understand reading previous posts on this thread, Pistorius was a hot head who unnecessarily discharged a firearm in a public place on 2 separate occasions.

Does unnecessarily discharging a firearm in South Africa carry a long prison term?? If not, how would the outcome have been different UNLESS as a result of unnecessarily discharging a firearm he had his rights to have firearms taken away? I thought you didn't believe removing guns had any effect on gun violence. Are you saying he should have been jailed for life for unnecessarily discharging a firearm - because that is the only way to keep him from using a gun UNLESS you take the gun away. So which is it - remove him from society indefinitely for misusing a gun OR remove his right to own a gun?

Personally, I'm not in favor of life sentences for anything but the most severe of crimes. How exactly do we take "all criminals off the street". Does that mean the 12 year old kid who shoplifts a package of candy gets life imprisonment. Are you saying put all gun owners in jail indefinitely because they could commit a crime with a gun in the future? I just don't understand take "all criminals off the street" as a societal strategy for dealing with crime. If we wait until someone has killed someone with a gun to take them off the street hasn't a death already occurred? How do we bring Pistorius's gf back to life? We would have had to have taken Pistorius off the street BEFORE and KEEP him off the street indefinitely. How does that work exactly? Life imprisonment for any type of gun violation (like discharging in a public place, carrying a concealed weapon when it isn't allowed, carrying an unregistered gun, not having your guns properly locked up at home, taking a gun somewhere where it isn't allowed, etc.) So we make even the most minor gun violation carry a life sentence? And somehow find the tax dollars to keep that many people behind bars for life.

Personally, wouldn't it be easier (and a hell of lot cheaper) to just not have allowed Pistorius to own a gun i.e., take his gun rights away? Remove the gun from his home?




ETA to remove an uneccesary adjective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
Hey, I'll take utopian vision over gun-toting anarchy any day of the week…...

I would prefer gun-toting anarchy over tyranny

quote:

ORIGINAL:
Was Pistorius a criminal before this incident? I didn't realize that about him.

From what I understand reading previous posts on this thread, Pistorius was a hot head who unnecessarily discharged a firearm in a public place on 2 separate occasions.

Does unnecessarily discharging a firearm in South Africa carry a long prison term?? If not, how would the outcome have been different UNLESS as a result of unnecessarily discharging a firearm he had his rights to have firearms taken away? I thought you didn't believe removing guns had any effect on gun violence. Are you saying he should have been jailed for life for unnecessarily discharging a firearm - because that is the only way to keep him from using a gun UNLESS you take the gun away. So which is it - remove him from society indefinitely for misusing a gun OR remove his right to own a gun?

Personally, I'm not in favor of life sentences for anything but the most severe of crimes. How exactly do we take "all criminals off the street". Does that mean the 12 year old kid who shoplifts a package of candy gets life imprisonment. Are you saying put all gun owners in jail indefinitely because they could commit a crime with a gun in the future? I just don't understand take "all criminals off the street" as a societal strategy for dealing with crime. If we wait until someone has killed someone with a gun to take them off the street hasn't a death already occurred? How do we bring Pistorius's gf back to life? We would have had to have taken Pistorius off the street BEFORE and KEEP him off the street indefinitely. How does that work exactly? Life imprisonment for any type of gun violation (like discharging in a public place, carrying a concealed weapon when it isn't allowed, carrying an unregistered gun, not having your guns properly locked up at home, taking a gun somewhere where it isn't allowed, etc.) So we make even the most minor gun violation carry a life sentence? And somehow find the tax dollars to keep that many people behind bars for life.

Personally, wouldn't it be easier (and a hell of lot cheaper) to just not have allowed Pistorius to own a gun i.e., take his gun rights away? Remove the gun from his home?




ETA to remove an uneccesary adjective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

Oh good, lets play 20 questions with my signature line. Certainly it would difficult to take to its extreme so think of it this way. If that hot head murdering ass hole would have been locked up, he couldn't have shot anyone now could he ?? Jeff Cooper wrote that because he was critical of light sentences and early parole for violent offenders while the the best solution for violent crime that liberal democrats could come up with is going after everybody's gun.

Sure it would be easier (and a hell of lot cheaper) to just not have allowed Pistorius to own a gun i.e., take his gun rights away. Remove the gun from his home. But if he's out on the street, ya really think he wouldn't be able to get his hands on gun if he wanted one ?

Here in the US, the reality is that New York City style gun control across the entire nation would only restrict law abiding citizens and embolden criminals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

considering that Florida(669) and texas (805)had more shooting deaths in 2010 than the whole of NY(517) you could be wrong

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
So the idea is to just imprison people for life if they have committed any type of crime because that is the only way to prevent crime.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

well that is true, They do seem to like to kill first and make their cases up later. how civilised!

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
No charges have been brought against his firearm, no doubt because the authorities
are not smart enough to know the killing was it's idea and not his..

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
No charges have been brought against his firearm, no doubt because the authorities
are not smart enough to know the killing was it's idea and not his..

It cracks me up that gun fans think that this line is such a humdinger of an ace card in any gun debate. Whimsical and joky plays on the view that 'guns don't kill, people do'. 'By Crackey, that shuts up those anti-gun types, sharpish!' . . . You can just feel the sense of triumph that comes from whichever gun-toting plonker has played that card.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
No charges have been brought against his firearm, no doubt because the authorities
are not smart enough to know the killing was it's idea and not his..

It cracks me up that gun fans think that this line is such a humdinger of an ace card in any gun debate. Whimsical and joky plays on the view that 'guns don't kill, people do'. 'By Crackey, that shuts up those anti-gun types, sharpish!' . . . You can just feel the sense of triumph that comes from whichever gun-toting plonker has played that card.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Wrong again, I expect anyone to change sides, but it cracks me up to hear gunaphobes arguing that evil people do evil things because of inaimate objects.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Wrong again, I expect anyone to change sides, but it cracks me up to hear gunaphobes arguing that evil people do evil things because of inaimate objects.

But they *do*, Bama. They *really do*. I've said it over and again, and you and most other gun fans have ignored it: the means - the available tools - change the desires and therefore the outcomes. Why is it so difficult to grasp this? I have *felt* the urge to murder, before. I know the feeling. But all I had available to me at the time were my fists. I didn't murder. I threw a punch, broke something, then felt instantly regretful. Do you not see? I only regretted a broken bone. I did *not* regret a life extinguished. Jesus Christ, isn't that clear?

If it's easy, and sexy, and kinda impressive and glamorous, to kill in a certain way . . . then you'll find that people *will* be more likely to kill in that certain way. It's quick and easy to kill with a gun. It's not if you have to break down a door and be up close to the person you're killing, say, with a knife. Thousands of soldiers have attested to this - machine-gunners and snipers versus commandos with their daggers, for instance.

It really, really is complete and unmitigated crap that if a gun wasn't available the killer will always kill in some other way. Only someone with the silliest, most brainless understanding of motives, and motives to murder in particular, could accept that as truth. I mean, really. It's surely time to move past this kind of hogwash.

quote:

Speak for yourself but an inanimate object lacks the willpower to make me do anything.

quote:

People don't murder because they can they murder because they are depraved enough that for them it's ok.