The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 4021 - 4040 of total 5888 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:10pm PT
Shooting and guns are part of the fabric of this country. They even have shooting in the Olympics.

MY GUNS have not shot anyone in quite some time. Ive never been involved with any illegal shootings or mass murders.
For his forst 4 years in office, Obama hardly made a peep about gun control. Even when asked during the debates, NOT MUCH was said on any of it. But let a horrific incident take place, and they climb on those bodies to USE as a political ploy to A) make weaponry harder to obtain by LEGAL citizens and B) to drum up PARTY support. obama uses that same line over and over to elicit emotions while he plays folks like a fiddle. That to me is one of the biggest problems in America now, not guns. Where was his outlash during the OTHER mass shootings? Why does he not mention in recent speeches that in fact, homicides are falling? Nooooo, just more rhetoric with behind the scene intentions as a driver. And THAT is PATHETIC.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:12pm PT
Oh, yeah, Ron's back with his "fabric of this country" and "my guns haven't killed anyone" bullsh#t.

I wonder if he is ever going to admit NOBODY needs to buy 2 guns a week or that the requirement for owning killing machines should be a bit more than "non felon" status.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:15pm PT
Also that it would be OK if some of them were his own children, since the statistical triviality factor renders all other factors irrelevant.

That's a straw man argument, and you know it.

As a nation, we cannot decide policy based upon this or that individual's experiences. Those individual experiences serve as data points in a very, very large and complicated pragmatic equation. In fact, we get outraged when we hear of a particular person's experience/priorities (such as those of a congressman) trumping national policy.

Of course I would be heartbroken if my child were murdered, and I am sorry for the loss of murder-affected families. But grief and sympathy in individual cases is not a sufficient condition for changing national policy. They are important data points. And I don't trivialize "important." But I do say that we put our efforts and money where they have statistical significance. And 565 kids being murdered in a nation of 1/3 of a billion people is not statistically significant. It's sad. It's tragic. But it is NOT statistically significant.

Now, if you could solve the problem by doing virtually nothing, such as burping once, then the cost/benefit analysis would be slam-dunk, and you'd do it without a second thought.

But this problem is NOT solved by burping once. It demands a major shift in national policy and a very large expenditure of resources. Indeed, our congress-critters are expending significant national resources on this issue right now, and that's before we even have policy! And in this case, the cost/benefit analysis is NOT slam-dunk.

This is a matter of statistical perspective and pragmatics, NOT some grand, moral view. My whole point has been that for you to maintain the grand, moral high ground, you'd have to be a lot more consistent about devoting the national will and resources to a lot more preventable causes of child death than gun-murder. There's nothing that makes "murder" something special here. As long as a child death is preventable, you have to consider how/IF to prevent it. And that comes down to pragmatic considerations of statistical data.

The sort of sound-bite thinking going on in this thread is a case study in why we can't elect a decent president (or even congress-critters, for that matter). We are so quick to paint with the "stupid brush" people that simply interpret the facts differently. And we are so quick to straw-man positions that we find threatening or disagreeable. So, elections come down to who has the best verbal drive-by-shootings, and the debates consist of interruptions and bashing rather than a thoughtful, charitable consideration of what motivates conflicting perspectives.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:18pm PT
Hey wes,, do you throw yur "magazines" away after they run out of bullets??



Yeah,, talk about NON sense,, and THAT politician is one forming gun laws.. Might as well get an one legged , blind accordian player to lay out the new rules about climbing.


HOW STUPID can a person be to publically say "when the magazines run out of bullets -they will be useless"???????


And that gets natl soundbites??



edit: it is NO ONES business if some legal law abiding tax payer wants to buy four guns in a week. Not you , not me. WHY would you give a rip how many guns an individual has anyhow? One can only shoot one weapon at a time and can carry only so many as well. So what if someone likes to collect guns. People callect all manner of things. Stamps for instance- Just as inane as about 98% of the other guns that harm NO ONE.

mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:20pm PT
Indeed, our congress-critters are expending significant national resources on this issue right now,

Only because gun nuts are refusing to compromise on ANYTHING.

And we are so quick to straw-man positions that we find threatening or disagreeable.

You mean like suggesting that smoking near children is worse than holding them at gun point?


Hey Ron, wtf are you talking about? Lay off the glue man.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:23pm PT
Does it make sense to sell killing machines capable of slaughtering dozens of people in minutes to ANY non felon, as long as they pass the cursory Brady check?

apparently so

oh not to the vast majority of NRA members and most Americans

but yes it makes sense to our Federal level congresspeople whose campaigns are NRA contributed


and this "personal responsibility" thing?

that just does seem to work, does it?

mass murderers do not give a damn about personal responsibility now do they
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:30pm PT
Ah, yes, but why would a gun shop take any personal responsibility to make sure their products are being sold to responsible parties and risk their profits?


because guns don't kill people, people kill people, and because gun corporations are people who kill people=?...wait...
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:32pm PT
because guns don't kill people, people kill people, and because gun corporations are people who kill people

NICE!
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:36pm PT
So to those who would trash the 2nd amendment ---would you also trash the First, and others? How about the 4th? Gonna "trim" that one too? Consider batshyt crazies like fienstien, or bloomerburg. And I HOPE you all see how the 2nd ties in with other ammendments.

The Makers of the Constitution saw far into the future. They warned us specifically that govt would get out of control and would have to be stopped and re-built. They knew that back then and they were 100% right. Is the GOVT acting in the best interests finnancing both sides of war in the ME? Does ANYONE HERE agree with what has gone on there for the last thirty years? I sure as hell dont, and i dont want those same bafoons gaining ANY more power over me than they already have. thats NOT how the sytem was meant to be.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:39pm PT
Read this slowly, over and over and over if you have to, until you "get it"


Legislation restricting gun sales DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to infringe on your RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.


ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.


The Makers of the Constitution saw far into the future.

Yes, they were smart... smart enough to ensure the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

NOT the right to purchase a couple guns a week when you feel like it with minimal inconvenience.
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Social climber
SLO, Ca
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:41pm PT
There was a good segment on Democracy Now re the NRA. Some guy was saying even the gun manufacturers have to toe the line and that the NRA almost put Smith & Wesson out of business for implementing some voluntary controls!

What a bizarre organization, I can't believe that people who advocate for easy criminal access to guns and armed guards and bullet proof glass in elementary schools have a national presence. I hope Bloomberg crushes them when he's done being mayor of NYC.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:50pm PT
do you THINK for one second, that more legislation-redundant for the most will have any bearing on those ill sickos outside the law? What they are really fighting for is a fed registry, which through cyber sections in the NDAA 2013 debocle- they already have by access of computers for any reason they deem worthy.

Its no business of mine to know what any law abiding citizen has in guns, under wear or how many shoes they own. My record is squeaky clean so its none ones business what i own either. The freedoms you give up today, will be increased upon down a short road. My Uncles,, Grandparents, great great grandparents and cousins , brothers and self did not serve the country only to have what we served FOR taken away.





edit: Meanwhile in CONN,, the gun stores are being swamped upon by citizens of CONN to buy ,,,,GUNS, Guns of ALL TYPES. And i can only imagine a surge of lost revenues when the GUN MAKERS in that state leave for greener pastures. I hope they consider Nevada.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:59pm PT
do you THINK for one second, that more legislation-redundant for the most will have any bearing on those ill sickos outside the law?

Well, moran, since most guns used in crimes are obtained through straw purchases... YES.

Who needs 2 guns a week?

Why NOT check the mental health and past purchases of someone before selling them a killing machine?



Oh, right, because the government is going to take over... blahblahblah.

Jesus Christ! Thank god gun nuts are out numbered.

Your right to KEEP AND BEAR arms will remain intact. There WILL be stricter regulations regarding gun sales and the types of guns you can own. Deal with it.



the gun stores are being swamped upon by citizens of CONN to buy ,,,,GUNS, Guns of ALL TYPES.

At inflated prices no doubt. And the gun nuts accuse others of being mindless sheep. Hahahaaa. Fuking idiots!



More idiotic ramblings of clueless gun nuts...

"When you clamp down where basically everything is restricted, it feels like you're infringing on Second Amendment rights," Shari Reilly, a Connecticut gun owner, told NBC News. She said she depends on the larger magazines to protect her family.

Basically everything? Really? Idiot.

Well, thank god FEELINGS don't make the laws honey.

"I don't train for someone who is breaking into my house. If I miss, am I stuck because you limit me to seven rounds or 10 rounds?" she added.

Uh, says above you depend on larger magazines to protect your family. Then you say you don't train for someone who is breaking into your house? Did you pass elementary school?

Listen, if you can't stop an intruder with 7 rounds, you'd be better off just calling the police anyway.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 4, 2013 - 02:10pm PT
There is legislation being introduced in many a state that will make a semi auto shotgun illegal.. Utter bullshyt UNTIL someone decides to use one of those and they too will be labeled "killing machines"..

And for the record wes,, 223 claiber guns are meant to WOUND, not kill. So the correct term would be wounding machines.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 4, 2013 - 02:14pm PT
There is legislation being introduced in many a state that will make a semi auto shotgun illegal..

Dear Mr. Gun Nut... did you not say it should be left up to the states to make their own laws? Or did you mean just the laws you agree with?

If/when it is passed, its constitutionality can be challenged... if you are not familiar with the procedure, I suggest you take a high school level civics class.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 4, 2013 - 02:19pm PT
NO state may make laws contradictory to the Constitution. All those amendments are IMPORTANT to retain any freedom what so ever. Imagine the USA without the 2nd, 4th, 1st and 10th? We wouldnt be typing this here. ALL decisions would be left to the FED cluster f*ck we call our govt. Sounds cooooool eh?
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 4, 2013 - 02:21pm PT
Imagine the USA without the 2nd, 4th, 1st and 10th?

Why imagine something that ain't never going to happen? I might as well imagine a man in the sky who sent his only son to die for the sins I didn't commit 2000 years ago.


Maybe you can only hear it from your own people... from the Fux at Faux...

Gun control is completely consistent with the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. And President Obama is on target with the great American tradition of proposing gun control laws for Congressional approval as well as by issuing executive orders on gun control.

The only opinion that matters here is the Supreme Court’s opinion. And the high court has ruled, several times, that the president, the Congress, state and local government all have the power to regulate guns. The Court reaffirmed this interpretation as recently as 2008 in the landmark case, District of Columbia vs. Heller.

Even conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia acknowledged this in his opinion to Heller. He wrote that the Second Amendment is “not unlimited” and is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

To be crystal clear: President Obama has the legal authority to enact gun safety measures through executive order. That is not a matter of opinion. It is a statement of fact. And there is historical precedent.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/16/what-everybody-needs-to-know-about-our-constitution-and-gun-control/#ixzz2PWJwgy2H


ALL decisions would be left to the FED cluster f*ck we call our govt. Sounds cooooool eh?

No. Sounds like uninformed, paranoid gibberish.
hillrat

Trad climber
reno, nv
Apr 4, 2013 - 02:48pm PT
Remember folks, those same wonderful foks who want to restrict guns today could be screaming for regulations on climbing tomorrow. It,s just a matter of how many people engage in such risky behavior, and what the public sentiment feels should be a reasonable restriction to protect us and/or the environment from those pesky bullets and bolts that are becoming so pervasive in our ultra-modern society. Remember when cell-phones in your car were legal?
Geez, next they,ll be regulating gay marriage!
hillrat

Trad climber
reno, nv
Apr 4, 2013 - 02:55pm PT
Seriously, at what point exactly DO you start shooting at the govt? I mean, I work for the state- am I at risk? ,cause ya know, bans seem stupid and ineffective to me, but universal backgrounds seem fair. Do I need to carry a gun to defend myself from my govt, or from those who see me AS the govt? Maybe I don,t need one at all- perhaps pepper spray would be sufficient to combat the drug-crazed ex,s kid who already attacked me once and later stole her guns, or his buddy i put in jail for burglary, who showed up at my house after being released...
Maybe a good dose of situational awareness is all I need?
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 4, 2013 - 03:07pm PT
Seriously, at what point exactly DO you start shooting at the govt?

Obviously not a serious question.




I mean, I work for the state- am I at risk?

Yes! But more from GUN NUTS who think you are coming after their guns.

Do I need to carry a gun to defend myself from my govt, or from those who see me AS the govt?

See above.

perhaps pepper spray would be sufficient to combat the drug-crazed ex,s kid who already attacked me once and later stole her guns, or his buddy i put in jail for burglary, who showed up at my house after being released...
Maybe a good dose of situational awareness is all I need?

I'd say stick with the gun for personal protection and hope you don't have to use it. I'd also suggest not making threats towards government officials/employees and/or members of the general public and you WILL BE JUST FINE.


And "they" are not going to ban climbing any more than they are going to ban motorcycle jumping.
Messages 4021 - 4040 of total 5888 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews