"Some people just shouldn't have guns"
- Thread starter WyldOne
- Start date
After deciding who shouldn't have guns perhaps we can decide who is eligible to have matches, or a swimming pool. People have been killed using both, I'm sure.
Possession bans are inherently discriminatory too. Many laws against carrying guns, or requiring permits to purchase types of guns were first enacted to keep freed blacks from defending themselves from those who objected to their exercise of common rights.
States that instituted permit to purchase systems later, in the 1920s, say) were often responding to blacks migrating from the south and taking factory jobs in cities like Detroit and Chicago.
I am tired of a legalistic society telling me what kind of gun, knife, car, flashlight, dog, etc, I can own. If I do wrong with any of them then lets talk.
Possession bans are inherently discriminatory too. Many laws against carrying guns, or requiring permits to purchase types of guns were first enacted to keep freed blacks from defending themselves from those who objected to their exercise of common rights.
States that instituted permit to purchase systems later, in the 1920s, say) were often responding to blacks migrating from the south and taking factory jobs in cities like Detroit and Chicago.
I am tired of a legalistic society telling me what kind of gun, knife, car, flashlight, dog, etc, I can own. If I do wrong with any of them then lets talk.
Fred Hansen
New member
....Heavy Sigh..... Put me down in the Huck Phinn column. Quite honestly I am losing all of my patience. A person either believes that inanimate objects are imbued with the power to cause a person to kill, or they don't. Ironically those that do believe in the power of inanimate objects to make murderers of the meek don't know what "imbued" means. Go figure.
Wylde,
I am truly sorry that you are stuck in the Communewealth where practically no one has the ability to think critically. What a tiresome bore that must be. To be constantly awash in the dull witted style of thinking that your roomie seems to prefer would be intolerable for me.
Good luck.
Wylde,
I am truly sorry that you are stuck in the Communewealth where practically no one has the ability to think critically. What a tiresome bore that must be. To be constantly awash in the dull witted style of thinking that your roomie seems to prefer would be intolerable for me.
Good luck.
I agree that some people should not have guns, however something you said is key:
I know that many people gave you a hard time for:
" But, I do understand" the emotion "behind these gun control laws."
Two words added, one taken away and a very different meaning. I don't think you were trying to say that you were for the gun control laws. Most antis aren't meansprited, evil or (in their minds) against the Constitution, they're just uneducated on the subject. They allow their emotions to rule over logic and reason (funny since most, like my father, probably pride themselves on being such reasonable people
).
In this case it is impossible to legislate safety (as is so often the case). Until the person actually does something that lands them in jail and causes them to forfeit all their rights there isn't much we can do, at least until someone invents the machine that can see into people's souls.
I know that many people gave you a hard time for:
Having so many family members in the anti camp and once being borderline myself I can understand the emotion involved too. I think what you meant to say was:
" But, I do understand" the emotion "behind these gun control laws."
Two words added, one taken away and a very different meaning. I don't think you were trying to say that you were for the gun control laws. Most antis aren't meansprited, evil or (in their minds) against the Constitution, they're just uneducated on the subject. They allow their emotions to rule over logic and reason (funny since most, like my father, probably pride themselves on being such reasonable people
).My response to this is going to come across as incredibly selfish.
Mostly because, well, it is selfish. If I don't look out for my rights, who will?
Yes, there are people out there who should not have guns.
However, I am not one of them.
Why should my rights be forfeit, or infringed, or modified because there are those who would abuse them?
Why should the burden of proof be put on me?
Why should I be scrutinized, finger-printed, NIC'ed, cross-identified, and put into a database?
In essence, why should I (and any other responsible gun-owner) be punished because of the actions of a few?
In other words, why should I be punished for the actions of others?
It seems to me that such childish concepts as punishment of the masses for the actions of a few should have been left behind in grade school.
Mostly because, well, it is selfish. If I don't look out for my rights, who will?
Yes, there are people out there who should not have guns.
However, I am not one of them.
Why should my rights be forfeit, or infringed, or modified because there are those who would abuse them?
Why should the burden of proof be put on me?
Why should I be scrutinized, finger-printed, NIC'ed, cross-identified, and put into a database?
In essence, why should I (and any other responsible gun-owner) be punished because of the actions of a few?
In other words, why should I be punished for the actions of others?
It seems to me that such childish concepts as punishment of the masses for the actions of a few should have been left behind in grade school.
I wholeheartedly agree with all the comments made
Let me put a different spin on this. When did it become your responsibility to protect those two neighbors from themselves? In other words, aside from your human emotion that dictates your lack of desire to hear (or hear of) somebody getting killed, what gave (or gives) you the responsibility, or the authority to dictate that the lives of others are lived in a safe and padded world? Put more succinctly, the world is not a safe place and infringing the rights of others in order to try to make life safe enough for the dumbest among us, only hurts everybody else.
Let me put a different spin on this. When did it become your responsibility to protect those two neighbors from themselves? In other words, aside from your human emotion that dictates your lack of desire to hear (or hear of) somebody getting killed, what gave (or gives) you the responsibility, or the authority to dictate that the lives of others are lived in a safe and padded world? Put more succinctly, the world is not a safe place and infringing the rights of others in order to try to make life safe enough for the dumbest among us, only hurts everybody else.
ahhh, Thank you guys. I needed to hear all of this.
I'm not going to debate most of the points in this thread; primarily, because I didn't mean for this to be a debate. It was something that I was thinking that I knew was wrong--and I needed to hear "the other side". I know I contradicted myself sometimes, and I know other times I just didn't make sense; I have no honest explanation for that. I'm not a full-blown gun owner yet, and I still do have the occassional backslide into anti mentality. So I beg your forgiveness.
Also, my post was nowhere near complete. I started to type out the entire incident, detail for detail...Then deleted it. Most of the stuff that happened doesn't really matter, in the long run. It's the basic gist, and the emotion that resulted, that was the main point.
And btw, chaim--Thank you; that is what I meant. I don't support gun control laws, but I understand the emotion behind them. I wouldn't have been able to articulate that without your help!
I'm not going to debate most of the points in this thread; primarily, because I didn't mean for this to be a debate. It was something that I was thinking that I knew was wrong--and I needed to hear "the other side". I know I contradicted myself sometimes, and I know other times I just didn't make sense; I have no honest explanation for that. I'm not a full-blown gun owner yet, and I still do have the occassional backslide into anti mentality. So I beg your forgiveness.
Also, my post was nowhere near complete. I started to type out the entire incident, detail for detail...Then deleted it. Most of the stuff that happened doesn't really matter, in the long run. It's the basic gist, and the emotion that resulted, that was the main point.
And btw, chaim--Thank you; that is what I meant. I don't support gun control laws, but I understand the emotion behind them. I wouldn't have been able to articulate that without your help!
Bear Flare
New member
Wyld:
Seems to me you're making a lot of assumptions and inferrences about people that live a floor or 2 above you and whom you don't even know.
My dear lady, it just ain't up to you to decide who needs guns. I know people with terrible tempers who own lots of guns. So far, the only thing that has gone off half-cocked is thier bare hands.
The long and short of it is that it is not for you to decide. It ain't for Bush Jr. to decide. It ain't for Congress to decide. It's for that individual adult and that person alone to decide if they should "have guns".
Nobody else's beeswax. End of story.
Bear Flare
Seems to me you're making a lot of assumptions and inferrences about people that live a floor or 2 above you and whom you don't even know.
My dear lady, it just ain't up to you to decide who needs guns. I know people with terrible tempers who own lots of guns. So far, the only thing that has gone off half-cocked is thier bare hands.
The long and short of it is that it is not for you to decide. It ain't for Bush Jr. to decide. It ain't for Congress to decide. It's for that individual adult and that person alone to decide if they should "have guns".
Nobody else's beeswax. End of story.
Bear Flare
WO, you have my deepest admiration. The number of people who can seperate fact from opinion, and emotion from reason, is small. Those who deeply reflect on their own views, and can modify them as dictated by reality is infinitesmal. Those that can do so and communicate clearly and effectively is, in my experience, a universe of one. You.
<snaps to attention> SALUTE!
<snaps to attention> SALUTE!
O
olazul
Guest
We are making a big assumption here.
Perhaps they did have a gun?
How would your roomate feel if the person in an intolerable rage was a 250lb male lunatic on the other side of her door?
Regards,
Olazul
Perhaps they did have a gun?
How would your roomate feel if the person in an intolerable rage was a 250lb male lunatic on the other side of her door?
Regards,
Olazul
Mike Irwin
Staff
Some people shouldn't have guns. There's no doubt about that.
Then again, some people shouldn't have kids.
Some people shouldn't have pets.
Some people shouldn't have cars.
Some people shouldn't have any contact with the human race.
But it's not up to you, me, your roommate, or anyone else to PREjudge who gets these objects, especially not objects protected by the Constitution.
Then again, some people shouldn't have kids.
Some people shouldn't have pets.
Some people shouldn't have cars.
Some people shouldn't have any contact with the human race.
But it's not up to you, me, your roommate, or anyone else to PREjudge who gets these objects, especially not objects protected by the Constitution.
olazul,
Good point. Except, this is Boston. So, it's extremely unlikely that either of them would have a gun.
Um, the same, if not moreso. Even more intimidating. And I probably would have called the cops from my room, in a heartbeat.
Edited to add: It wouldn't change things if I added that they were both very drunk at the time, right? Upon review, it seems that I left that part out of my summary.
Good point. Except, this is Boston. So, it's extremely unlikely that either of them would have a gun.
Um, the same, if not moreso. Even more intimidating. And I probably would have called the cops from my room, in a heartbeat.
Edited to add: It wouldn't change things if I added that they were both very drunk at the time, right? Upon review, it seems that I left that part out of my summary.
johninaustin
New member
Murder weapons I have seen that really stand out (aside from the usual)
A shock absorber. (Really bad one)
a garden hose.
panty hose (Even badder one)
10" Normark fishing knife. (Messy)
boxcutter (the big curved blade type)
6"x24"block of wood
big needle file
lawnmower blade (off the mower)
lots of hammers
one of those hammer/hatchet/nail puller type camping tools
a mattock
30-30 Winchester (unloaded)
K-bar (three victims in one attack. Worst one I have ever seen.)
dog chain
motorcycle handlebars
.22 RG revolver (used in a very perverted way)
handle from a barbell set
It occurs to me when going down this list, all but four of the victims were women killed by men, and they were all "acquaintance" killings except for the shock absorber.
I still have nightmares from the shock absorber and the K-bar, and both are more than 15 years old.
It's not the weapon used that determines the murder, but the mindset of the person committing it. It may very well be the only reason the two neighbors didn't kill each other with a kitchen knife or mop bucket, is simply because neither woman thought of it at the time.
A shock absorber. (Really bad one)
a garden hose.
panty hose (Even badder one)
10" Normark fishing knife. (Messy)
boxcutter (the big curved blade type)
6"x24"block of wood
big needle file
lawnmower blade (off the mower)
lots of hammers
one of those hammer/hatchet/nail puller type camping tools
a mattock
30-30 Winchester (unloaded)
K-bar (three victims in one attack. Worst one I have ever seen.)
dog chain
motorcycle handlebars
.22 RG revolver (used in a very perverted way)
handle from a barbell set
It occurs to me when going down this list, all but four of the victims were women killed by men, and they were all "acquaintance" killings except for the shock absorber.
I still have nightmares from the shock absorber and the K-bar, and both are more than 15 years old.
It's not the weapon used that determines the murder, but the mindset of the person committing it. It may very well be the only reason the two neighbors didn't kill each other with a kitchen knife or mop bucket, is simply because neither woman thought of it at the time.
Yes, it doesn't have to be a gun.
I remember seeing a GI being at the wrong end of a large switchblade because he made the mistake a paying attention to a bull dike's very lovely friend. She was saying something about making sure he would not sing anything other than the high notes.
We unassed that NCO/EM club fast, just as the MPs were entering the parking lot.
The knife made a very effective standin for a firearm.
I learned a very important lesson: never get between a bull dike and her B....., well, her very attractive friend.
I remember seeing a GI being at the wrong end of a large switchblade because he made the mistake a paying attention to a bull dike's very lovely friend. She was saying something about making sure he would not sing anything other than the high notes.
We unassed that NCO/EM club fast, just as the MPs were entering the parking lot.
The knife made a very effective standin for a firearm.
I learned a very important lesson: never get between a bull dike and her B....., well, her very attractive friend.
spacemanspiff
New member
just like all the convicted felons that are not supposed to have access to firearms, right? try this...expect that everyone else is armed, but doesnt know that you are the good guy/gal. when you see evidence that the other person is NOT a good guy/gal, you should then be expecting that you are unprepared if the situation turns sour.
even law-abiding citizens get into verbal arguments and fights. even law abiding citizens say things they dont really mean in the heat of anger/emotion. not all of us can be calm, cool, and collective 24/7. those who are, are more human than human.
btw, is that really you in the link on your sig? i had a completely different mental image of what your face looked like.
guyhammond
New member
Whenever i hear the I/they shouldn't have a gun because, because of anger, I remind people that they get angry all the time, on the freeway, without playing bumper cars.
It works good for me.
It works good for me.