Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans? page 2

5861 posts

Flag Post

Hmm, I don’t know. Maybe we don’t need prevention of:

• School Shootings
• Accidental Shots in the Home
• Gang Brutality, and
• Hate Crimes (well, there aren’t many of those anymore) after all.

</sarcasm>

Those are why the “liberals” want your “pew-pew” toys (not just real steel firearms, anymore).

 
Flag Post

School Shootings

Where would you decide to go on your shooting spree at? A school where law abiding citizens don’t bring guns to protect themselves with, or a school where it’s very possible that there are people who will be able to defend themselves?

Accidental Shots in the Home

Surely we can’t educate people on how to safely use guns.

Gang Brutality

Gangsters don’t buy guns legally.

 
Flag Post

Where would you decide to go on your shooting spree at? A school where law abiding citizens don’t bring guns to protect themselves with, or a school where it’s very possible that there are people who will be able to defend themselves?

Yeah, I mean people never commit crimes on establishments that have armed security forces.

Surely we can’t educate people on how to safely use guns.

Easier and cheaper to reduce shooting accidents by not having guns.

Gangsters don’t buy guns legally.

Yet most illegal guns started out under legal ownership.

 
Flag Post

The bottomline for us is that we don’t trust anyone else with our safety and our lives. We trust ourselves. We need guns to protect our selves and our family.

I have the right to own a gun. Period.

If that is taken away, the guns will be used on the corrupt government who destroyed the constitution.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by WarMachine2009:

The bottomline for us is that we don’t trust anyone else with our safety and our lives. We trust ourselves. We need guns to protect our selves and our family.

I have the right to own a gun. Period.

If that is taken away, the guns will be used on the corrupt government who destroyed the constitution.

What is your proof that he is going to try to take them away so far you have only said that it is rumored and rumors are not facts. You also said he is going to try to change the Constitution I again ask for proof.

 
Flag Post

The bottomline for us is that we don’t trust anyone else with our safety and our lives. We trust ourselves. We need guns to protect our selves and our family.

So if I don’t trust all you conservatives with your guns, do I get to use a nuke to protect myself and my family from my imaginary fears?

 
Flag Post

Yeah, I mean people never commit crimes on establishments that have armed security forces.

I doubt they do as often, and I doubt they end up killing as many people as they would at a school.

Easier and cheaper to reduce shooting accidents by not having guns.

That’s not going to happen. If you really care about the victims of accidents, why don’t you take a more pragmatic approach?

Yet most illegal guns started out under legal ownership.

How do you know this?

So if I don’t trust all you conservatives with your guns, do I get to use a nuke to protect myself and my family from my imaginary fears?

No one is proposing that they should be able to point a loaded gun at anyone they choose to. That is essentially what you’d be doing with a bomb, as you would be only the push of a button away from killing people.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by SaintAjora:

The bottomline for us is that we don’t trust anyone else with our safety and our lives. We trust ourselves. We need guns to protect our selves and our family.

So if I don’t trust all you conservatives with your guns, do I get to use a nuke to protect myself and my family from my imaginary fears?

First of all, I think you have lost the argument. There is no comeback for the simple fact that I want to be in charge of protecting MY family. No one can see fault in that, except crazy democrats like yourself.

Second, ironic that the lib is quick to mention nuclear weapons, when the gun owner will never mention it. The nuke is a horrible weapon, and your mention of it is distasteful to me.

 
Flag Post

First of all, I think you have lost the argument.

It doesn’t really work that way.

There is no comeback for the simple fact that I want to be in charge of protecting MY family.

Actually, there is one. The one I used. You gun maniacs are a threat to me and my way of life, and I am entitled to stop it using lethal force if need be. According to your own logic.

Second, ironic that the lib is quick to mention nuclear weapons, when the gun owner will never mention it.

I know. When will gun owners stop hiding from the truth?

The nuke is a horrible weapon

Any weapon is a horrible weapon. They are made to kill for God’s sake.

your mention of it is distasteful to me.

Less then five minutes ago you posted a link to a porn / murder / shock value site. Don’t lecture me on being distasteful.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by WarMachine2009:
Originally posted by SaintAjora:

The bottomline for us is that we don’t trust anyone else with our safety and our lives. We trust ourselves. We need guns to protect our selves and our family.

So if I don’t trust all you conservatives with your guns, do I get to use a nuke to protect myself and my family from my imaginary fears?

First of all, I think you have lost the argument. There is no comeback for the simple fact that I want to be in charge of protecting MY family. No one can see fault in that, except crazy democrats like yourself.

Second, ironic that the lib is quick to mention nuclear weapons, when the gun owner will never mention it. The nuke is a horrible weapon, and your mention of it is distasteful to me.

You of all people should not say ANYTHING is distaste full when you are posting links to sites with people with stab wounds on it and implying that illegals should be thrown into a giant meat shredder.

Am I the only one that thinks that this guy believes every single thing that Glenn Beck and the rest of those nutters say.

 
Flag Post

Why do the libs want to take gun rights away from Americans?

They don’t, but let’s not let that stand in the way of a good whine.

Generally, Democrats favour gun control laws because guns are dangerous.

It is known that in his second term Obama plans to try to change American’s right to bear arms. He wants to change the constitution for christ’s sake!

Untrue, he has no such plans that I’ve seen reliable sources for. Besides, there’s nothing wrong with that anyway. The process by which the constitution can be changed is meant for precisely this purpose. If Obama was to work to change the constitution to eradicate the right to bear arms, and the process succeeded, then it would be entirely legal and constitutional. That’s what the amendment process is for.

Why are so many people, mostly libs and democrats, afraid of gun ownership?

Partly for the above mentioned fact that guns are dangerous, and partly because the people who are the loudest about claiming there is (or should be) an unrestricted right to own guns are among the ones I would trust least with that right. Gun nuts are crazy.

I am a responsible gun owner, I protect my guns, lock them up when not used, I do everything by the book of law, yet I still get harassed and talked down to by liberals who think I am a redneck hick because I own and shoot guns.

We have only your word for all of that, but let’s be clear. You’re not only defending your right to own a gun, you’re defending the right of anyone to own a gun. And anyone includes a large number of crazy and violent people. Can you vouch for every gun owner? I didn’t think so. You’re arguing for right of the nuttiest and most violent people to own guns too.

How is it these so called educated and worldly people be so stupid when it comes to this? I just don’t understand the exact nature of their hate towards gun owners.

Rhetoric of this kind works best in oral presentations, for future reference.
In general, when you have the phrase “I just don’t understand” in your sentence, you should look to yourself as the source of the problem first, before looking to other people.

Then you get the anti-hunters who attack gun owners.

No, they generally “attack” hunters.

Libs seem to assume that if you are a gun owner, you are a hunter. Not true.

Not true, you’re simply wrong here.

I have no less than three locks with separate keys to get to the point where you can re-assemble one of my guns to use. I have a digital lock on my gun safe’s, plus extra protection on my high caliber weapons. For christs sake the last key to get into the big safe is in itself IN a safe.

So any rhetoric from you about your guns being used for personal protection would be bullshit.

There is also this notion that gun owners are stupid people who enjoy violence.

Well you do seem to be fascinated with loud bangs and shooting holes in things, for some reason. Hardly an intellectual pursuit.

 
Flag Post

there are many dangerous combinations, idiots plus cars, idiots plus fertile appendages, idiots plus alcohol, idiots plus pot, idiots plus pornography ie Ted Bundy, idiots plus bleach, the list goes on, but it’s ridiculous to demonize firearms and naive to think that society would be safer without them, the idiots and criminals are still in the equation and it’s the innocent law abiding citizens that are left with wiffle bats

 
Flag Post

Cars, intoxicants, porn, guns.

Only one of these has the singular purpose to kill people.

 
Flag Post

Shooting sports are one of the fastest growing in America as well as being in the Olympics. Firearms do have legitimate purposes, killing being one of them. Deer overpopulation is a problem. The meat is no longer a necessity, but an enjoyed luxury as is the experience of hunting. Crime is also an unfortunate reality and criminals never bring knives to a gun fight, only the law-abiding citizen. The only people looking to buy guns to kill people are criminals. The law-abiding citizen hopes to never be faced with that situation. Again you seem to demonize the tool and not the criminal. One of the members of Oasis actually posted a blog a while ago complaining about “thugs with knives” in England, wanting to ban those also. England hasn’t banned them, but hypothetically if they did, where would it end?

 
Flag Post

The only people looking to buy guns to kill people are criminals.

So why not stop selling them?

 
Flag Post

Because crime won’t end just because guns are no longer legally sold.

 
Flag Post

Crime is also an unfortunate reality and criminals never bring knives to a gun fight, only the law-abiding citizen.

Precisely! If they expect that home owners will be armed with guns, they’ll bring a gun too. That leads to violent and fatal confrontations.

The only people looking to buy guns to kill people are criminals.

Anyone using the terms “for self defence” or “to defend my home” is doing precisely that, buying a gun to kill people with.

One of the members of Oasis actually posted a blog a while ago complaining about “thugs with knives” in England, wanting to ban those also. England hasn’t banned them, but hypothetically if they did, where would it end?

Carrying knives on the street is a criminal offence in the UK. And I would much rather that thugs carried knives than they carried guns. That he was complaining about thugs with knives instead of thugs with guns shows the vast difference between the UK and the US.

 
Flag Post

The fact remains that crime will always exist. I’d rather have a gun to protect myself. If you don’t like them, don’t buy one. But as for myself, I like to be prepared. And that’s completely OK and legal and does not invite crime. The “vast difference” you speak of is no difference at all since thugs on both sides had the intent to kill, showing no difference in intellectual superiority.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Redem:

Cars, intoxicants, porn, guns.

Only one of these has the singular purpose to kill people.

Which one is that?

 
Flag Post

Which one is that?

Porn.

I didn’t know you were that ignorant.

 
Flag Post

If you don’t like them, don’t buy one. But as for myself, I like to be prepared. And that’s completely OK and legal and does not invite crime.

And you do so at the tolerance of the rest of society. Keep that in mind.

The “vast difference” you speak of is no difference at all since thugs on both sides had the intent to kill, showing no difference in intellectual superiority.

But a vast difference in ability to follow through on their impulses.

 
Flag Post

Porn.
I didn’t know you were that ignorant.

None of them “has the singular purpose to kill people.”

 
Flag Post

None of them “has the singular purpose to kill people.”

Guns do. They’re weapons, designed to efficiently and brutally kill people.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NeilSenna:

…The murder rate here is almost 4 times lower than it is in the US. The percentage of murders involving a gun is 6.6%. In the US, the percentage of murders involving a gun is way over 50%… and a gun is used in over 70% of murders of those aged 13-35.

You can probably see where I’m coming from… stricter gun control would undoubtedly lead to less murders…

I’m not a big advocate for or against gun control, but I am pretty opposed to the misuse of statistics. Correlation doesn’t imply causation, especially when you have a limited sample of disparate subjects. There are countless factors in murder rates, and even the percentage of murders involving guns. When you make comparisons like this, it implies that gun ownership/gun law is the only variable involved, which is far from the truth.

It’s also improper to compare just the two countries like that, because there are counterexamples (like Switzerland, as has already been mentioned) that could just as easily be used to imply the exact opposite of your statement (that “stricter gun control would undoubtedly lead to less murders.”)

All in all, it’s really faulty logic to imply a causal relationship so abruptly the way you did, and frankly I’m pretty tired of seeing people mislead each other not only on the internet but in debates and news publications with (often dubious) statistics that are misused and abused.

 
Flag Post

Guns do.

No they don’t.

They’re weapons, designed to efficiently and brutally kill people.

No, they’re designed to be weapons.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=weapon
# S: (n) weapon, arm, weapon system (any instrument or instrumentality used in fighting or hunting) “he was licensed to carry a weapon”
# S: (n) weapon, artillery (a means of persuading or arguing) “he used all his conversational weapons”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon
A weapon is a tool used to apply or threaten to apply force for the purpose of hunting, attack, self-defense, or defense in combat.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/weapon
1. an instrument of attack or defense in combat or hunting, e.g. a gun, missile, or sword
2. an instrument or other means of harming or exerting control over another

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/weapon
1. any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.
2. anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire.

An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
A means used to defend against or defeat another: Logic was her weapon.