Defending the House with Guns!

Defending the House with Guns! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

joether -> Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 4:56:35 AM)
Yet another sad tragedy.... Yeap, bet that gun (and any others) were purchased for defending the house and the family from would-be attackers. The firearm legally purchased. Anyone want to say how well that 'defense system' protected them? That guy was a 'honest and law abiding citizen' with a firearm. Right up to the moment that he started shooting. So two adults and three teens are dead, because Minnesota (and the nation) has crappy firearm regulations! I can only speculate that the guy felt he was up against the wall. Couldn't live with events nor see his kids suffer due to his financial problems and actions. An example of the ugly side of capitalism in America! How many have to die, before we decide to take steps to rein in the bullshit from the gun lobby and the lunatic right?

Kirata -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 5:17:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether How many have to die, before we decide to take steps to rein in the bullshit from the gun lobby and the lunatic right? Yeah, horrible shotgun tragedy. Damn the lunatic right! If we had a ban on "assault" rifles and prohibitions on magazines holding more than ten rounds, this wouldn't have happened. K.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 5:24:14 AM)
My firearm protected me and mine once. Noone even had to get hurt. The group of young gentlemen decided that there was easier prey elsewhere. Maybe they went and robbed a gun hater.

joether -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 5:33:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether How many have to die, before we decide to take steps to rein in the bullshit from the gun lobby and the lunatic right? Yeah, horrible shotgun tragedy. Damn the lunatic right! If we had a ban on "assault" rifles and prohibitions on magazines holding more than ten rounds, this wouldn't have happened. No, if we treated those with firearms the same as we treat the ACTUALY "...Well Regulated Militia..."; this issue might not have taken place. Since police officers are routinely studies to see what things could make them break down. Financial stress-ers being one such area often studied. If that review board feels its warranted, they can order the police officer into therapy. Even take away any and all firearms. You want the protections of the 2nd? You get everything else that comes with it! Don't like it? Then you dont need the protections offered by the 2nd amendment. That either you understand this already, and hoping I wouldn't point it out; or your not studied enough to understand the underlying concepts being discussed here. That means your either intellectually dishonest or just plain ignorant. Which is it?

joether -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 5:35:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam My firearm protected me and mine once. Noone even had to get hurt. The group of young gentlemen decided that there was easier prey elsewhere. Maybe they went and robbed a gun hater. Nice story. Totally off the topic of the thread. But nice story none the less....

PeonForHer -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 5:36:00 AM)
Joe, you mustn't blame this on guns. Guns are lovely. [:)]

Kirata -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 5:40:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether That means your either intellectually dishonest or just plain ignorant. Which is it? On the evidence, it appears that you are both. A reasoner who unfairly presents too few choices and then implies that a choice must be made among this short menu of choices is using the false dilemma fallacy ~IEP K.

joether -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 5:47:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Joe, you mustn't blame this on guns. Guns are lovely. [:)] I'm not blaming guns. I'm blaming society whom thinks law enforcement should be tightly regulated, while Billy-Bob, the redneck moron with a shotgun can have all the protections that law enforcement get due to the 2nd amendment, without all the limitations and regulations that do go with it. Put another way; some people can not shout 'fire' in a crowded threater, but, those that have a corrupted viewpoint of the 1st are allowed. Does that sound fair? If you want the protections of the 2nd amendment; your held to the same regulations, duties, and rules of "A well regulated militia...." (i.e. police officers). As I pointed out, police officers are checked often to see, what, if any life stress-ers are creating a possible problem. Police Officers have families the same as anyone else. Some make bad financial decisions, just like anyone else. Police officers may know many things; but they are human the same as you and me. When 'up against a wall', the mind has a strange way of 'figuring' solutions that no sane person would arrive at. That is why there are internal reviews of the officer's behavior and status. To keep 'insane police officers' from rampaging through town and killing people! We have people whom have legally purchased a firearm; yet, how stable is the individual? How about four years down the road when any number of 'life's crap' decides to take its toll on the individual? Do we have any routine systems to check the individual with a firearm? Since many of recent mass shootings seem to have two qualities: 1 ) a person experience some heavy difficulties in life and 2 ) Easy access to a firearm.

Kirata -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 5:49:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether "A well regulated militia...." (i.e. police officers). Police officers are not militia, bozo. K.

joether -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 5:52:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether That means your either intellectually dishonest or just plain ignorant. Which is it? On the evidence, it appears you may be both. A reasoner who unfairly presents too few choices and then implies that a choice must be made among this short menu of choices is using the false dilemma fallacy ~IEP Lets put your BULLSHIT to the test on 'Facts' and 'Evidence': Tell me which of the following items are....NOT.....Factual and True from the Article: 1 ) A man shot and killed 3 teenagers and 1 mother before turning the gun on themselves 2 ) A shotgun was involved 3 ) This took place in the state of Minnesota 4 ) This was a recent event 5 ) The police conducted a 'welfare check' when they found the bodies 6 ) The man was suffering from harsh financial problems In order for your 'argument' to be true; *ALL SIX* would have to be untrue. Since they are all true, you Sir, are either Intellectually Dishonest or Ignorant. Which is it?

KenDckey -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 5:54:33 AM)
Joe I think you might be better off lobbying for a convention of the states and remove the 2nd amendment the proper way.

Kirata -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 6:00:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether In order for your 'argument' to be true; *ALL SIX* would have to be untrue. You're making shit up again. [:D] K.

joether -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 6:04:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether "A well regulated militia...." (i.e. police officers). Police officers are not militia, bozo. A well regulated militia (according to colonial history): 1 ) A direct chain of command system 2 ) Rules of conduct 3 ) Penalties for violation of #2 4 ) Rules regarding all aspects of duty Police officers have a chain of command. They must follow laws and regulations. If they do not, they get penalized for them. So 'yes', modern era police officers are the 18th century version of "A well regulated militia....". Back in the 18th century, most communities did not have a standing police force. How did law enforcement handle highwaymen? Pirates? Natives attacking? They called the militia! The militia was the police force when the local sheriff or 'administer of justice' could not handle the problem on their own. Large cities would be the first to have a standing police force in the 19th century (Boston being the first). Outside of that, militias were the 'backbone' of law enforcement if they needed help. When my hometown was formed, just two dozen families lived within. It had one 'law enforcement' official whom handled it and a few surrounding towns. In 2015, you would have me believe just one law man could keep my town safe from crime? YOUR AN IDIOT if you think that is possible. It takes a militia group to keep the town safe. We call them the police!

joether -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 6:07:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether In order for your 'argument' to be true; *ALL SIX* would have to be untrue. You're making shit up again. [:D] If I'm making shit up; it should be easy to produce evidence. Where is your evidence? [:D]

Hillwilliam -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 6:13:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam My firearm protected me and mine once. Noone even had to get hurt. The group of young gentlemen decided that there was easier prey elsewhere. Maybe they went and robbed a gun hater. Nice story. Totally off the topic of the thread. But nice story none the less.... The title of the thread is "Defending the house with guns" You were the one who decided to use a sensationalistic, one in a million story to try to justify it. My post is PRECISELY about "Defending the house with guns". If you do not wish posts like mine, then you should consider naming the topic honestly. Maybe "Joether's pearl clutching anti gun rant part 765" would be more appropriate.

bounty44 -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 6:13:54 AM)
listen comrade bird brain, when kirata mentioned "A reasoner who unfairly presents too few choices and then implies that a choice must be made among this short menu of choices is using the false dilemma fallacy" as concerns you, he is NOT talking about the "facts of the case" that you presented, he is talking about your deductions and the meager choices you seem to think flow from the case. and then to make matters worse for yourself, you attack him for not understanding. can you not just give it a rest? or maybe learn to read/think better?

Kirata -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 6:17:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether In order for your 'argument' to be true; *ALL SIX* would have to be untrue. You're making shit up again. [:D] If I'm making shit up; it should be easy to produce evidence. Where is your evidence? [:D] Right in front of you: Your claim that the validity of my position depends on irrelevant factors. To say you made that up may have been overly optimistic, perhaps you really believe it, but I thought it a kindness at the time to give your (already questionable) sanity the benefit of doubt. K.

bounty44 -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 6:20:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether "A well regulated militia...." (i.e. police officers). Police officers are not militia, bozo. A well regulated militia (according to colonial history): 1 ) A direct chain of command system 2 ) Rules of conduct 3 ) Penalties for violation of #2 4 ) Rules regarding all aspects of duty Police officers have a chain of command. They must follow laws and regulations. If they do not, they get penalized for them. So 'yes', modern era police officers are the 18th century version of "A well regulated militia....". Back in the 18th century, most communities did not have a standing police force. How did law enforcement handle highwaymen? Pirates? Natives attacking? They called the militia! The militia was the police force when the local sheriff or 'administer of justice' could not handle the problem on their own. Large cities would be the first to have a standing police force in the 19th century (Boston being the first). Outside of that, militias were the 'backbone' of law enforcement if they needed help. When my hometown was formed, just two dozen families lived within. It had one 'law enforcement' official whom handled it and a few surrounding towns. In 2015, you would have me believe just one law man could keep my town safe from crime? YOUR AN IDIOT if you think that is possible. It takes a militia group to keep the town safe. We call them the police! my freakin' goodness---that police departments share something in common with militia in terms of organizational/administrative structure, does not make them the militia referred to in the constitution. by your definition, the local elks club and the boy scouts are the militia too. I seriously think you need help.

Zonie63 -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 6:21:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Couldn't live with events nor see his kids suffer due to his financial problems and actions. An example of the ugly side of capitalism in America! How many have to die, before we decide to take steps to rein in the bullshit from the gun lobby and the lunatic right? Would this be a result of the gun lobby or the capitalist right? If financial problems triggered this, then perhaps the best solution would be to eliminate financial problems in society.

Kirata -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 7:09:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam If you do not wish posts like mine, then you should consider naming the topic honestly. Maybe "Joether's pearl clutching anti gun rant part 765" would be more appropriate. Joether has been trying to divert other topics into gun threads for a while now, but nobody was interested in being dragged through all his shit again. Rejected in those attempts, I guess starting one of his own is his way of fighting back. Hopefully it will proceed to the same result. K.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.711914E-02