Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A?

Since you are such careful reader of posts perhaps you can point out where I made the statement "it only happens here"? It should be easy for someone like you that so carefully reads posts and you wouldn't ever just make something like up would you?

 

This one size fits all Post actually fits none, some time when you actually want to discuss something come back and talk awhile.

 

I seems that you would say almost anything to denigrate gun ownership.

 

wrong ... the gun culture is a phenomenon that feeds off itself, the gun becomes the object and display of power. Which intern leads to the desire for more. They're sexy (see the story bout the AZ state **** who pointed her here pink one at the reporter), and yes people do give a fuck bout Barbie and her gun love. They worship and buy. Look at the statistics. People are sheeple. They are told what to think and like and believe and thats what they do. guns make the weak feel strong (kind of like the internet LOL) In the movies and media its guns, violence, etc, etc, as a culture we are conditioned from birth to this end. People arent born wanting a gun to shoot someone with, they are trained... to the tune of many thousands of deaths a year, extremely stupid actually but nobody ever said people were smart. especially in this country.

 

Actually you are the only one, because it is only you that ignored completely everything that came before my statement "is that better" so for your edification here is all that came before the statement "is that better" in the post:

 

I have read every one of your posts in this thread, some more then once. I even read that stupid "suppression" post of yours several times and it's not even part of this thread. Quite honestly this constant whining "Read my posts, Read my posts" is getting tiresome.

 

I haven't been keeping up with Obama's agenda of late, but I'm not giving up my guns regardless of how many laws are passed. They can kiss it.

 

I told you I would discuss with you anything you wanted but you wouldn't take me up on it, scared I guess.

But you lost your chance for that when you spit on my offer by calling me a liar.

Personally I wouldn't even be discussing this topic with you, if you hadn't hijacked the thread and then when I tried to leave you insulted me.

PS No matter how you try to spin it, what I have or have not discussed in other threads besides this one does not in any way discredit what I've said in this thread, that is unless you can show where I've contradicted myself, which you can not do.

In any case these are free speech forums and I have the right to participate or not in any thread or forum I choose with out you attacking me for it, which you have done many times.

 

Once again how do you determine who is a criminal so you can keep a gun out of his hand or who is going to turn to crime so you can prevent it?

 

Response:

Again: read the post. Try hard to consider the words and context of the entire paragraph. What it says is what it means. Hell, whatever you think it means is OK with me.

If that individual is threatening, i.e. attempting to harm my home, my property or my family, and is maimed or killed as the result, it is by his own choosing. Such an individual is hardly a member of the society I live in!

I did read ALL of your posts and did certainly realize you were “putting forward arguments…”. I just don’t think you’ve made a “case” except as I stated before “one of mindlessly repeating the same information again and again”.

NO ONE is “forcing” you to repeat anything. Is it simply impossible for you to grasp that anyone may actually disagree with you? Is there any possiblilty you're just plain wrong? Even just a little?

Examples of your twisting the words of others and misunderstanding much of what is written:

A) Quoting only a portion of sentences which removes the context of that sentence – at least once in the post I am now replying to;
B) Paraphrasing (and I use the term loosely) the words of other’s posts – again, at least once in the post I am now replying to;
C) Failing or refusing to consider the context of an entire paragraph and implying or feigning misunderstanding by asking a question which includes a paraphrase or added terminology – still again, at least once in the post I am now replying to.

All of these examples came from the same part of your post (killing, maiming… messed up yard…). If you need more you’ll just have to look – they’re not hard to find. Recently, many times in your responses to OWB's posts. If you can’t believe it, take a poll.

Understand the issues – think about them? Yeah, after all, I only live here.


atriot:

 

Greets have been interstate

So the arguement has gone back to the same old paradigm.. The ones that choose to kill.
Will outlawing guns stop them... What a joke.
Heroin is outlawed.. so there are no heroin users.?

I am away often so i cant keep up with the speed of this thread.

I usually dont come down on a particular poster. But Everything i have read of Old Water rings true...Ringing true is a term. age allows it, Thought empirical experience, but so does faultless reason.
Combined with a wisdom that comes from that.

For most
Life is but a walking shadow. That struts and frets his hour apon the stage
then is heard no more.
A tale told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury, signifyiong nothing.

THAT is what we fight

 

Quintus

Wow. That’s like a manifesto or something.

How many resident U.S. citizens have you actually spoken to in regard to the right-to-own issue? 50, 500? With the U.S. having a population of over 300 million, is your use of the term “many” an accurate one – relatively speaking.

We still agree that Americans do have the right to own guns and that guns are an effective tool for protecting one's health and property and for stopping crime, right?


atriot:

 

I personally don't own a gun and don't have an interest in one but even so I am NOT a fan of the government taking our rights away. Not cool man, not cool.

 

It's concerning for me that people think property needs to be protected.

 

Quitus

Response:

The reason “they” are criminals has nothing to do with a law-abiding American citizen’s right to own a gun.

The fact that “they” are criminals is ONE reason many Americans, including myself, own and maintain a certain proficiency with firearms of a variety other than what might be considered the ‘sporting’ type, i.e. those firearms commonly used for hunting or target shooting.

I freely admit knowing nothing about ADHD suffering Barbary apes. I will, however, accept your obvious knowledge of such as an explanation for your continual use of multiple posts in response to the single posts of others and for your belief that you are “forced” to continuously repeat yourself.

Glad you enjoyed, Blabus. And, hey, there’s no cover charge.

According to me, huh? You may not see it on CNN, FOXNEWS, BBC, etc., but should you access local news in any U.S. city of any size, you’ll find reports of the crimes I mention. Sadly, you may have to look at a police blotter – it’s so common in some places that it’s not even news. That is, until the perpetrator (if caught) claims he was victimized by society or the police.

Your “pro-gunners” label is in many cases a gross misnomer – many U.S. citizens in favor of our continued right to own and keep firearms without (further) regulation DO NOT own guns.

Use the “frightened” terminology as you wish – many of us are prepared, capable and willing to protect our lives, health, family and property – and, are frightened by very little. Do you actually think we’re sitting out under the trees at night, guarding our homes? Buwahahahaha.

I believe you grossly over-analyze the issue and over-state the “general attitude” of Americans. As an AMERICAN, living in the U.S. and working with and talking to Americans every day, I also firmly believe that most law abiding Americans just want to be left alone, to provide for their families, and to be safe from violence. In a nation of over 300 million, “many” (being a relative term) could constitute much less than 1% of the population. How many U.S. residents (citizens) have you actually discussed the gun rights issue with – 50, 100, 500?

As Americans, we are fully aware of how the system has worked in regard to other issues in the past, as will likely happen again: one set of regulations is enacted in response to a given problem – many times the result of knee-jerk reaction. When that fails to curtail the problem, another more rigid regulation is enacted. When that regulation also fails, then another, and another… That sort of ‘tiny steps’ progress has been the tactic of many successful movements -- both right- and left-wing.

We do agree on something – at least partially. If the use, or even the mere presence, of a firearm stops or prevents even one criminal act, then perhaps the would-be perpetrator of that act will think twice before, or be incapable of, attempting another.

I wonder if you do actually believe that you understand the issue (you do not) or, are you merely taking a contrarian stance to lengthen the thread, or maybe you just enjoy reading your own posts.

Just for the sake of fairness, tell us again, of the “root causes of crime” in the U.S. Please, no more “read my post”.


atriot:

 

:iagree:


buwahahahahaha


atriot:

 

I'm leavin' this thread for the cats -- maybe they'll cover it up.


atriot:

 

i'll give it 2 more pages
im a stubborn SOB

 

If you actually used what people say we wouldn't be complaining. What Roo, myself and others are saying is that you don't use what people say. It seems that what you use mostly is what you say is implied (something not actually said) by what is said and even when told over and over again that is not what was implied, you keep insisting; oh yes it is, talk about mind reading.

It seems your main reason for doing so is to change what was actually said into something you can use one of your "pat answers" to dispute, instead of addressing what was actually said, for which you have no "pat answer" and which might call for some actual thought on your part.

 

It's concerning for me that people think property needs to be protected?

I have to ask; what exactly do you find concerning?

Is it that people think, is it the idea of property, is it the idea of protecting property or is it the level that people are willing to go the protect that property?