How To Scare The Shit Out Of Many American Gun Advocates: (Page 4)

StuckInTheSixties:

LiptonCambell says:
"I can't think of anything else at the moment, but I'm pretty sure thats that."

Okay. We've both been careful with the wording here. Let's get to some specific examples, and see how they stand up:

You would allow firearms of any sort for all adults, regardless of their legal status (for adults only) :

~~ on airliners
~~ into stadiums and arenas, theatres during events such as sports and concerts
~~ into government buildings and offices, city halls, police stations, courtrooms, etc.

LiptonCambell says:
"Life can be hard for some convicts- dangerous, even."

I have no idea how that statement fits into this discussion. It doesn't address, in any way that I can see, issues pertaining to firearms. Perhaps you can elaborate with specifics ...

LiptonCambell says:
"As for the insane, I'm pretty sure that if they're released, it means they are not harmful to themselves or others..."

I doubt that. I'm sure that some people, having been confined for mental issues, are of no danger to themselves or others upon release. I'm also sure that some people, upon release, are present significant danger to themselves and others. In general, it would appear that you'd advocate erring on the side of allowing firearms, and being "pretty sure" they won't be harmful. I'd take a more cautious approach. If they've shown an inclination in the past toward violence, I think the onus should be on them to show substantial indications that they're not a danger to society.

LiptonCambell says:
"And I'm stating that, despite your insistence that you won't, I and no doubt many others feel it will be one of those unintended consequences."

That's a wholly different issue than what you originally touched upon, which was SPECIFICALLY an assessment of ME, not of unintended consequences affecting all. You said (my emphasis added in CAPS) :

~~ Funny how YOU cry foul when people misrepresent YOUR opinion in extremes ... but YOU instantly jump to that when talking to others.

As to your opinion that you and "many others feel it will be one of those unintended consequences" :

That's not unreasonable. But that principle would apply to any societal regulations pertaining to any and all aspects of society. The only way to avoid any possible "unintended consequences" of any regulations is to not have regulations of any sort, IE: anarchy. Perhaps I'm wrong here, but you appear to be equating a social system that has ANY regulations with totalitarianism.

LiptonCambell says:
"For example- what is your opinion on the concealed carry laws? Should someone be allowed to carry a concealed weapon?"

I have mixed feelings about those sorts of laws. I certainly think government should be able to restrict firearm possession (concealed or not) in a myriad of circumstances, such as those that I listed near the top of this post. I also think that governments should be allowed to restrict concealed firearms for all kinds of people, such as felons, those on probation, those with a history of serious criminal activity, those with documented mental problems, etc.

slasian: unless the attitude of the human race changes banning or controlling the gun market contributes no more than a rats ass. I am Sure people have been using stone to kill before the iron age and I am sure they have been using knifes and swards. The problem is not on the toy its on the player.

StuckInTheSixties:


10¢ platitudes ...

slasian: Oky Mr 'I am smart' written all over his beard what is the gun low in Brazil?

JUSTINappropriateMan: lol did anyone even touch the forum topic lol. Ok first Id say that quite frankly most of the so called "gun advocates" in this country, although being one myself regretfully wish to say, are not that smart and those that speak the loudest usually have the least to say. I would also regretfully say that you would probably get 10x the amount of answers to that question from gun advocates if the question were asked by say Charlton Heston than coming from the usual left wing anti gun lobbyist. Its most of the time the same reaction you'd get from a cop confronting a drug addict about his addiction rather than if another addict was to talk addiction with him. Its such a confrontational issue that most come to the discussion already wielding their shields. In other words your getting the typical answers to a typical question. Quite frankly there is no answer to your question because if there was a simple solution it would have already been implemented. Its all boiling down to a matter of pride. Who wants to admit I really don't know and odds are we probably can't, to someone whose pointing a finger at you while asking and not willing to work with you after you do admit your lack of answer to them. Anyone with an ounce of pride is going to defuse your intent to stump and humiliate with a dance around answer. When a Gay gun advocate with sas decides to tackle the issue It may just be solved. Only then may we stand a chance at getting answers to the tough questions.

slasian: Just because some one has a dick it doesn't mean he will rape. Toys are only toys how you play them its all in your head. The smart way is to change your attitude the rest is synthetic solution. The way you think makes you who you are not the way you arm your self. Knifes do kill, even a sharp pen kills. Which is more natural and logical; to educate or ban?

All the history of the world is written on the adventures and the searches to find the hidden. Hide guns and the sell will go to the azure sky's zenith.

BellasBoy: Wish I was as smart as Luridity. Glad I didn't smoke as much dope as SITS

BellasBoy: I am a middle aged, white, Christian, politically conservative male, raised in the south. The liberal hate machine of the mainstream press. and most of Hollywood. paint me as a narrowminded, intolerant bigot who supports nutjob militias and fully automatic weapons for all. Talk about intolerance. Anyway JUSTINappropriateman mentioned a gay gun advocate. There is one, her name is Tammy Bruce. She used to be president of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW. She's awesome.

StuckInTheSixties:

godboldleslie says:
"Glad I didn't smoke as much dope as SITS"

I don't smoke dope. Obviously, given your wording, you're admitting you do. That insult kind of backfired on you, didn't it?

godboldleslie says:
"The liberal hate machine of the mainstream press. and most of Hollywood. paint me as a narrowminded, intolerant bigot who supports nutjob militias and fully automatic weapons for all."

The irony of your statement was obviously lost on you. So let's turn that statement around ...

Narrowminded intolerant bigots paint the mainstream press as a liberal hate machine. Talk about intolerance ...

davidk14: .

Sits,

So by Leslie stating he is a middle aged, white, Christian, politically conservative male, he is a narrow minded intolerant bigot?

.

StuckInTheSixties:

Perhaps he is, perhaps he isn't. But I didn't say that, nor did I imply that, did I?

Perhaps you can't see the irony in his statement, either. So let me explain it:

His statement made a point, while failing to acknowledge that the "logic" he applied to make that point could be used to make exactly the opposite point.

Hence the irony.

And in pointing that out, I didn't use the words "white," "Christian," nor "politically conservative."

My reply to his statement was not passing judgments on any political point of view, as you obviously imply by including that part of his text that I specifically DIDN'T include.

My reply to his statement was to point out the obvious failure of his "logic."

It dovetailed neatly with the irony of his jumping to the incorrect conclusion that I smoke dope, and using that to criticize me, while in the same sentence admitting that HE smokes dope.

Double-barrel fail.

Kuntry89: Im a gun advocate im not gonna even reply alot to this....you take our guns they arnt gonna give up their guns....just to let you know i've lived on both sides of the law...let people have their guns....it at least scares SOME criminals off

JUSTINappropriateMan: Blow guns are illegal in my state But real guns are legal explain that reasoning

Kuntry89: a blow gun can fuck somebody up....depending on what your blowing.....ima just leave that alone all together

JUSTINappropriateMan: only if you poison them heavy caliber don't get the velocity like the lil needle ones and they are to small to do much damage unless you hit someone in a seriously vital spot but you could say that for a lot of things

JUSTINappropriateMan: I could do the same damage with a pellet gun

sebtheanimal: Guns vs no guns - the conversation in irrelevant. Take away people's 'actual' means of defense and find out what happens next. Oh, wait, it has happened many times before and someone still does not get it.

LiptonCambell: Lol it seems like people are going in circles 60's.....how about this;

Explain, clearly, what changes you wish to make, and why you believe that no further restrictions will follow(assuming you don't believe more restrictions will follow)

sebtheanimal: Changes around here do not rely on somebodys wish. Any restriction, as well intentioned as it may be, is by its nature doomed when levied upon a free people. This has a lesser meaning today, to be sure, because everybody has been promised everything, by their elected leaders, as if from thin air.

Kuntry89: dont touch my fckin gun.........ill shoot you with it first.....

JUSTINappropriateMan: Guns are just about one of the safest collection investments too! Most collections you can sell for half what you paid if you're lucky. Guns as long as you maintain them properly will always get you 2/3 at the least.

StuckInTheSixties:

Lipton says:
"Explain, clearly, what changes you wish to make ..."

The change I'd like to see is a mandate for documentation of the "chain of ownership" of all firearms, similar to that which is standard for ownership of autos. The main difference would be that with autos, registration of ownership is generally required yearly. I would only require that be done at any time a firearm changes ownership. Like autos, changes in address would be required. However, unlike autos, I would restrict public access to these records. I would, however, restrict that access only to names and addresses of owners.

Lipton says:
"... and why you believe that no further restrictions will follow(assuming you don't believe more restrictions will follow) "

I have never stated that I "believe that no further restrictions will follow(assuming you don't believe more restrictions will follow)," nor anything resembling that. If you think I have, please copy and paste my words here.

Taken at face value, taken literally, it's kind of an absurd statement. Why would anyone ever assume that if any sort of law or mandate could somehow preclude any others in the future? Times change. Politics change. Laws change.

I assume that you must be alluding to a belief of your own that any sort of restriction (pertaining to firearms, or otherwise) would automatically precipitate "further restrictions."

StuckInTheSixties: seb says:
"Any restriction, as well intentioned as it may be, is by its nature doomed when levied upon a free people."

So ... are restrictions upon .. oh, let's say MURDER ... "doomed," or are societies that would restrict murder not "free"?

Do you think that "any restriction" means that people aren't "free"?

Are you an anarchist?

JUSTINappropriateMan: I wouldn't have any problem doing what you say as a gun owner Sixties. Just like I don't have a problem with registering ammo because I'm not committing crimes with them. I do have opposition to the control of which guns and how much though.(I say that with a degree of rational thought that some restrictions are acceptable, people don't need anti air guns or squad machine guns) The talks of actually putting use by dates on ammo to prevent stockpiling is absurd though. I see that as a money pit for tax dollars.

slasian: StuckinTheSixities said:

"So ... are restrictions upon .. oh, let's say MURDER ... "doomed," or are societies that would restrict murder not "free"?

Do you think that "any restriction" means that people aren't "free"?

Are you an anarchist?"

I don't know what seb thinks about your question but we all know that there is deference between crime and restrictions.

Killing an innocent man with your gun is a crime. Not being able to defend your self with your gun because of a hypocrites' low is restriction.