RE: Nobody wants to take your guns.

RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (Full Version)

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

Message

ifmaz -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/18/2015 3:52:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I admit to finding the position of some of the pro-gun people perplexing. On the one hand the pro-gun lobby insists that they need to their guns to secure themselves, families and property. Possession of a weapon apparently cures them of their insecurities, they tell us. Yet, OTOH, some of our resident gun nuts are in a permanent state of apoplexy over imagined threats to "take their guns away". Not even the 2nd Amendment enshrined in the Constitution, or the peculiar pro-gun interpretation placed upon the 2nd by SCOTUS seems to assuage their fears and neuroses. The NRA is forever advising gun owners of nefarious plots to "take your guns away". It appears that nothing will ever cure their fears and neuroses. The obvious conclusion is that gun ownership doesn't confer the security upon gunowners that they claim it does. What part of the following is imagined? quote: Clinton made the comments during a campaign stop in Keene, N.H., when an attendee asked about Australia’s 1996 and 2003 buy-back programs that collected roughly 700,000 banned semi-automatic rifles and other firearms. “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged,” Clinton responded. Surely one would not imply a politician such as Mrs. Clinton is only garnering a sympathetic vote while having zero intention of implementing said statement. Should Mrs. Clinton be elected and uphold her promises, prepare for civil disobedience similar to Washington (regarding i594 legislation, which has been essentially nullified) and Connecticut (regarding registration of AR15s and so-called "high capacity" magazines). Interesting that Mrs Clinton would ignore the existing infrastructure courtesy of the Brady Bill and opt instead to pursue confiscation of legally obtained firearms.

LadyPact -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/18/2015 4:09:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Ok so the pics are fake/old/next door neighbor[;)]...the shit you post here in the dungeon is pretty hawt. The pic is old. It's been my main profile pic for over seven years now. The joke that I usually tell is it's a pic of the actress that I hire to play my role at parties. Of course, these days, the actress needs color by Clairol to keep the grey out of her head. [;)] It's not that I don't appreciate the compliment. I do. It's just that it isn't about that. That type of thinking is a fallacy. The same one that gets folks thinking that only pretty, young women get sexually assaulted and we know that's not true. Every time these gun debates come up, I think folks lose sight of just who the folks are who make up the crime statistics. That's why I said when Hilary gives up her 'personal protection,' I'll give up mine.

BamaD -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/18/2015 6:05:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I admit to finding the position of some of the pro-gun people perplexing. On the one hand the pro-gun lobby insists that they need to their guns to secure themselves, families and property. Possession of a weapon apparently cures them of their insecurities, they tell us. Yet, OTOH, some of our resident gun nuts are in a permanent state of apoplexy over imagined threats to "take their guns away". Not even the 2nd Amendment enshrined in the Constitution, or the peculiar pro-gun interpretation placed upon the 2nd by SCOTUS seems to assuage their fears and neuroses. The NRA is forever advising gun owners of nefarious plots to "take your guns away". It appears that nothing will ever cure their fears and neuroses. The obvious conclusion is that gun ownership doesn't confer the security upon gunowners that they claim it does. What part of the following is imagined? quote: Clinton made the comments during a campaign stop in Keene, N.H., when an attendee asked about Australia’s 1996 and 2003 buy-back programs that collected roughly 700,000 banned semi-automatic rifles and other firearms. “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged,” Clinton responded. Surely one would not imply a politician such as Mrs. Clinton is only garnering a sympathetic vote while having zero intention of implementing said statement. Should Mrs. Clinton be elected and uphold her promises, prepare for civil disobedience similar to Washington (regarding i594 legislation, which has been essentially nullified) and Connecticut (regarding registration of AR15s and so-called "high capacity" magazines). Interesting that Mrs Clinton would ignore the existing infrastructure courtesy of the Brady Bill and opt instead to pursue confiscation of legally obtained firearms. The background data would be used to tell them who had made purchases to allow them to force the buybacks. Yes I know that the law says they can't keep the information but Clinton (Bill) admitted to keeping it for 6 months. On top of that dealers are required to permenately keep records of all sales.

BamaD -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/18/2015 6:08:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Ok so the pics are fake/old/next door neighbor[;)]...the shit you post here in the dungeon is pretty hawt. The pic is old. It's been my main profile pic for over seven years now. The joke that I usually tell is it's a pic of the actress that I hire to play my role at parties. Of course, these days, the actress needs color by Clairol to keep the grey out of her head. [;)] It's not that I don't appreciate the compliment. I do. It's just that it isn't about that. That type of thinking is a fallacy. The same one that gets folks thinking that only pretty, young women get sexually assaulted and we know that's not true. Every time these gun debates come up, I think folks lose sight of just who the folks are who make up the crime statistics. That's why I said when Hilary gives up her 'personal protection,' I'll give up mine. Maybe this wording would help. Before they start taking our guns they should disband the Secret Services protection branch.

Kirata -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/18/2015 6:30:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Thank you for telling us that this was a piece by: D. Watkins is the author of "The Beast Side: Living and Dying While Black in America." He has been published in Salon, New York Times, The Guardian and other publications, and he is a frequent contributor on NPR, CNN, and elsewhere. He holds a master's in education from Johns Hopkins University and an MFA in creative writing from the University of Baltimore and teaches writing at Coppin State University. He was the winner of Baltimore magazine's "Best Writer" award in 2015. It is always helpful to know who said what,dontcha thimk? Not really. I think we know all we need to know about him.... Gun praisers are just like the people who were in favor of slavery back in the day–– the elite, lazy and ignorant who weren’t being beaten, raped or in the field doing the work, so they were perfectly okay with involuntary servitude, which is a problem and why I think gun owners need to feel more––they need a taste of the other side. So if you love guns, if they make you feel safe, if you hold and cuddle with them at night, then you need to be shot. K.

thompsonx -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/18/2015 6:43:21 PM)
It is always helpful to know who said what,dontcha thimk? Not really. I think we know all we need to know about him.... Opinions vary.

joether -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/18/2015 6:43:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Tell dear ol' Hilary to give up her Secret Service protection. Maybe then, I'll give a rat's ass about what she says about people giving up their weapons that they use for self defense. She couldn't give up the protection even if she wanted. Do you just open your mouth to change feet? That was not lp's point so why go there?[8\|] Next I would call your attention to rocafella being appointed vp and he declined s/s protection in favor of his own personal security team. No, she was attacking Miss Clinton for the Secret Service protection she gets for two reasons: 1 ) Wife of a former US President 2 ) Candidate for President of the United States. She can tell them to leave her alone, but they'll still be close by. Since they have to follow the laws on the books. One of those laws involves Secret Service protection. When you run for president, you'll understand this stuff....

joether -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/18/2015 6:51:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Ok so the pics are fake/old/next door neighbor[;)]...the shit you post here in the dungeon is pretty hawt. The pic is old. It's been my main profile pic for over seven years now. The joke that I usually tell is it's a pic of the actress that I hire to play my role at parties. Of course, these days, the actress needs color by Clairol to keep the grey out of her head. [;)] It's not that I don't appreciate the compliment. I do. It's just that it isn't about that. That type of thinking is a fallacy. The same one that gets folks thinking that only pretty, young women get sexually assaulted and we know that's not true. Every time these gun debates come up, I think folks lose sight of just who the folks are who make up the crime statistics. That's why I said when Hilary gives up her 'personal protection,' I'll give up mine. Maybe this wording would help. Before they start taking our guns they should disband the Secret Services protection branch. Do you....REALLY....not understand why the Secret Service protects people running for the Office of the President? Here is a little educational lesson!

thompsonx -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/18/2015 6:52:26 PM)
ORIGINAL: joether ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Tell dear ol' Hilary to give up her Secret Service protection. Maybe then, I'll give a rat's ass about what she says about people giving up their weapons that they use for self defense. She couldn't give up the protection even if she wanted. Do you just open your mouth to change feet? That was not lp's point so why go there?[8\|] Next I would call your attention to rocafella being appointed vp and he declined s/s protection in favor of his own personal security team. No, she was attacking Miss Clinton for the Secret Service protection she gets for two reasons: 1 ) Wife of a former US President 2 ) Candidate for President of the United States. For the intellectually challanged that means that clinton doesn't need a gun because she has body guards. If she gave up her body guards do you think she would carry a gun? In lp's case she does not have body guards so she must carry a gun to protect herself from a stalker who has made threats and sabotaged her car. That you think clinton could not dismiss her s/s guards as easily as rocafella is positively silly She can tell them to leave her alone, but they'll still be close by. Since they have to follow the laws on the books. Please do a little research. Rocafella told the s/s to hit the road that he had professional security people and did not need a bunch of amatures. Tell us how they refused and stuck by him 24/7.

BamaD -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/18/2015 7:16:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Ok so the pics are fake/old/next door neighbor[;)]...the shit you post here in the dungeon is pretty hawt. The pic is old. It's been my main profile pic for over seven years now. The joke that I usually tell is it's a pic of the actress that I hire to play my role at parties. Of course, these days, the actress needs color by Clairol to keep the grey out of her head. [;)] It's not that I don't appreciate the compliment. I do. It's just that it isn't about that. That type of thinking is a fallacy. The same one that gets folks thinking that only pretty, young women get sexually assaulted and we know that's not true. Every time these gun debates come up, I think folks lose sight of just who the folks are who make up the crime statistics. That's why I said when Hilary gives up her 'personal protection,' I'll give up mine. Maybe this wording would help. Before they start taking our guns they should disband the Secret Services protection branch. Do you....REALLY....not understand why the Secret Service protects people running for the Office of the President? Here is a little educational lesson! Of course I know why. You have read about the Kennedy assasination, I remember it. I never said that they should disband protection, though clearly you wish to pretend I did. I think doing so would be almost as vile as Clintons manditory buyback plan, at least it doesn't violate the Constitution. Finally she was not attacking Clinton for who she was married to or what she is running for but pointing out that she likes having armed guards for her but she wants to deprive the rest of us of the right to defend ourselves.

thompsonx -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/18/2015 8:14:18 PM)
Before they start taking our guns they should disband the Secret Services protection branch. If they did the whole thing you could put your printer to work.[;)]

MrRodgers -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/18/2015 8:53:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz In the words of my grandmother, a life-long democrat and in reference to Mrs. Clinton, "that bitch scares the crap out of me". With the 4th Amendment all but dead and the government targeting the 2nd, which Amendment do you think will be targeted next? I'm betting the 10th. "The 10th amend. is about the most dead-letter amend. in the constitution now." Judge Robert Bork during his confirmation hearings...that failed.

MrRodgers -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/18/2015 9:15:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: SirDave501 And you've had to defend yourself with a gun exactly how many times? (military & police service exempted) If your answer is less than once then your argument is moot. While I'm no anti-gun nut be any means, your argument is a little like saying "I need a car with 1,000 HP in case I ever find myself at the local drag strip." We have the dubious right to keep and bear arms. But if you're going to defend that right you need a better argument than "I might, maybe need it to defend myself, someday". I admit to finding the position of some of the pro-gun people perplexing. On the one hand the pro-gun lobby insists that they need to their guns to secure themselves, families and property. Possession of a weapon apparently cures them of their insecurities, they tell us. Yet, OTOH, some of our resident gun nuts are in a permanent state of apoplexy over imagined threats to "take their guns away". Not even the 2nd Amendment enshrined in the Constitution, or the peculiar pro-gun interpretation placed upon the 2nd by SCOTUS seems to assuage their fears and neuroses. The NRA is forever advising gun owners of nefarious plots to "take your guns away". It appears that nothing will ever cure their fears and neuroses. The obvious conclusion is that gun ownership doesn't confer the security upon gunowners that they claim it does. when you can demonstrate to us that a magical 'kum by ah' model society truly exists with no fighting, coersion or force of any kind please let all the paranoid gun nuts know. The problem with antigun people is that they think because others protect them with guns, guns are not needed. This would be a good post to reflect upon 'society.' You know, the one that has a gun culture...the US. There was a time when orthodox Muslims...hung old women. Why, because they were old women and it was after all...their culture. So now we know that say Norway had better arm themselves because all of law enforcement had to discharge their weapons twice, that's two times...all year last year. I think Denmark and Sweden are not far behind that too. I wonder if it's because of their...gun culture. Time to arm yourselves people...everywhere.

Kirata -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/18/2015 9:21:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx It is always helpful to know who said what,dontcha thimk? Not really. I think we know all we need to know about him.... Opinions vary. Birds of a feather, bozo. Smears and lies are still smears and lies. K.

LadyPact -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/19/2015 1:57:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether No, she was attacking Miss Clinton for the Secret Service protection she gets for two reasons: Let's be real clear here. I'm not attacking anyone. Personally, I think it would be dumb as hell for Hilary to dismiss her secret service protection without hiring a private firm to do the job. We inhabit this spinning rock with some amazingly unbalanced people and she'd have to be living in another world to think she wasn't the target of somebody's obsession. I'll admit that I don't like her much as a politician but I wouldn't want her to stop breathing before her time because of some nutjob. What I am doing (and I'm probably being about as effective as p^ssing in the wind) is to hopefully get you guys thinking about why people own their guns. Instead of Monday morning quarterbacking after a mass shooting happens and the so-called big solution is to disarm people, why don't you start talking and listening to people who can't protect themselves with a sling shot? Not everybody comes to the same conclusion. I agonized over whether or not I would actually point and shoot. I'd rather do that than have MP and my off-spring having to attend my funeral.

Musicmystery -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/19/2015 5:37:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Except Hillary So vote for Sanders in the primary.

thompsonx -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/19/2015 7:18:51 AM)
ORIGINAL: Kirata ORIGINAL: thompsonx It is always helpful to know who said what,dontcha thimk? Not really. I think we know all we need to know about him.... Opinions vary. Birds of a feather, bozo. Name calling is always easier than research for some. Smears and lies are still smears and lies. I did not see any smears or lies in his article just hyperbola and moronic equivalencies.

thompsonx -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/19/2015 7:20:19 AM)
Not everybody comes to the same conclusion. I agonized over whether or not I would actually point and shoot. I'd rather do that than have MP and my off-spring having to attend my funeral. I think being judged by twelve is better than being carried by six.

cloudboy -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/19/2015 2:31:09 PM)
Rather than attack "the right" maybe we could attach more responsibility to it: strict liability for unjustifiable homicides and deadly assaults. This would clean up a lot of the gun distribution mess and lax ownership issues.

PeonForHer -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/19/2015 2:31:20 PM)
quote: What I am doing (and I'm probably being about as effective as p^ssing in the wind) is to hopefully get you guys thinking about why people own their guns. Instead of Monday morning quarterbacking after a mass shooting happens and the so-called big solution is to disarm people, why don't you start talking and listening to people who can't protect themselves with a sling shot? It's like this for me, LP: Yes, I would like it for you to have a gun in order to defend yourself against, for instance, some fruitcake, brain-dead, neurotic stalker who clearly hasn't grown up beyond his early teen years and has no understanding of what it means to examine himself and what he is thinking and doing in order to stop being an obsessive nutcase. However, I would prefer it if neither of you were to have firearms and, more to the point, you, particularly, were to be absolutely certain that firearms were never even to enter into the equation. In short: obviously, I'd prefer you not to be up against a fucking headbanger at all - but, failing that, at worst, an unarmed fucking headbanger.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625