He doesn't like GUNS.

[The_Dude 1,142]

wait a minute here. this guy from chicago posts a video on youtube whinning about a country & western song & you think he is looking for an intellectual debate.

LOL, ever read the comments on Youtube videos? Even the most serious ones generally deteriorate after a few posts into "Justing Bieber is Gay!!!!!11", or something like that

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

wait a minute here. this guy from chicago posts a video on youtube whinning about a country & western song & you think he is looking for an intellectual debate.

The song and it's attendent video are stupid, the issues pertaining to guns and gun crime are real. The one isn't a natural springboard to the other.

[SMOKE 1,426]

The song and it's attendent video are stupid, the issues pertaining to guns and gun crime are real. The one isn't a natural springboard to the other.

no stop. the song is entertainment, thats all it is. this guy is an anti gun nut that wants everything his way...middle ground my a$$. do you seriously think whoever this country singer is has or will look on youtube for a rebuttal? its not a debate. its a song meant to entertain.

Edited March 29, 2011 by SMOKE

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

no stop. the song is entertainment, thats all it is. this guy is an anti gun nut that wants everything his way...middle ground my a$$. do you seriously think whoever this country singer is has or will look on youtube for a rebuttal? its not a debate. its a song meant to entertain.

No I don't - hence my earlier comment.

'Entertainment' is subjective - obviously the guy in the OP video didn't find it entertaining. If someone came up with a song about a video about say... child abuse... I dare say there are a few people who wouldn't find it particularly funny.

Plenty of people, for example, found this offensive.

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

I can't see the video because it's blocked. But, Charles, stop being disingenuous about this. You know that is a blatant falsehood. People who dont' want assault rifles aren't mounting a campaing to take away your guns. They are looking for a safer society. I think it's pretty bad that Iowa is running emergency drills to prepare for situations with gun wingnuts.

is it?

[SMOKE 1,426]

No I don't - hence my earlier comment.

'Entertainment' is subjective - obviously the guy in the OP video didn't find it entertaining. If someone came up with a song about a video about say... child abuse... I dare say there are a few people who wouldn't find it particularly funny.

seek treatment FD. a guy in the woods shooting guns & an anti gun nut complaining about it rolls into a child abuse comparison. no i didn't watch your video. i'm sure it was quite relevent to the discussion.

Edited March 29, 2011 by SMOKE

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Oh it was - but it's probably better you didn't watch it. You'd probably misinterpret that too.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Oh it was - but it's probably better you didn't watch it. You'd probably misinterpret that too.

most likely

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I thought YOU didn't CARE

I don't care what anti-gunners think. It is irrelevent.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I don't care what anti-gunners think. It is irrelevent.

Yes, the anti-Arsenal supporters are irrelevant!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't care what anti-gunners think. It is irrelevent.

Indeed - so much so that you have to say so. Twice.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I can't see the video because it's blocked. But, Charles, stop being disingenuous about this. You know that is a blatant falsehood. People who dont' want assault rifles aren't mounting a campaing to take away your guns. They are looking for a safer society. I think it's pretty bad that Iowa is running emergency drills to prepare for situations with gun wingnuts.

If you mean by "they don't want assault rifles" you mean that they do not want to own one themselves, then you are correct. If you mean that they "only" want to take away our assault rifles then YES, they do want to take away a lot of my guns.

Too bad they can't eh?

Pay attention. The NEXT Supreme court ruling will be on 18-20 year olds buying handguns...but not really. What it is REALLY about is the arbitrary restriction of rights on law abiding ADULTS. That means...no bans on rifles based on arbitrary appearance features either. The NRA is not going to challenge the assault rifle ban head-on. Why should they? Too narrow in scope for one thing. Better to take a broad based approach. Currently adult 18 year olds can buy rifles but not handguns. Why? They have a right to do so. They are adults in every legal manner. So...if it is determined that the restriction on the right is simply an arbitrary "just because" and arbitrary "just because's" are ruled unconstitutional, what do you think that does to bans on flash hiders and pistol grip stocks?

One by one, little by little, we will establish our rights and protect them. We have already determined we DO have an individual right to own guns and that the right DOES apply to cities and states. The next decision will end assault rifle bans for good.

Indeed - so much so that you have to say so. Twice.

Not to people that understand things the first time.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not to people that understand things the first time.

So what YOU are saying is, you CARE.

[james&olya 1,121]

If you mean by "they don't want assault rifles" you mean that they do not want to own one themselves, then you are correct. If you mean that they "only" want to take away our assault rifles then YES, they do want to take away a lot of my guns.

Too bad they can't eh?

Pay attention. The NEXT Supreme court ruling will be on 18-20 year olds buying handguns...but not really. What it is REALLY about is the arbitrary restriction of rights on law abiding ADULTS. That means...no bans on rifles based on arbitrary appearance features either. The NRA is not going to challenge the assault rifle ban head-on. Why should they? Too narrow in scope for one thing. Better to take a broad based approach. Currently adult 18 year olds can buy rifles but not handguns. Why? They have a right to do so. They are adults in every legal manner. So...if it is determined that the restriction on the right is simply an arbitrary "just because" and arbitrary "just because's" are ruled unconstitutional, what do you think that does to bans on flash hiders and pistol grip stocks?

One by one, little by little, we will establish our rights and protect them. We have already determined we DO have an individual right to own guns and that the right DOES apply to cities and states. The next decision will end assault rifle bans for good.

Not to people that understand things the first time.

Gary, I don't have any problem with you or most people I know owning whatever guns you wish. But don't you see a problem developing eventually as the size and lethality of the weapons increase while the restrictions on ownership decrease? Will you be OK with everybody being allowed RPG's for example? What about vehicle mounted heavy machine guns? These are not ridiculous examples. Years ago many assumed that assault rifles and 'machine guns' would always have restrictions. It is impossible to effectively turn back the clock on weapon ownership so I don't think there is much chance that European style gun control will ever come here in the foreseeable future. But do we have to have ever increasing lethality in the weapons that are being allowed? When does it become too much?

[The_Dude 1,142]

If you mean by "they don't want assault rifles" you mean that they do not want to own one themselves, then you are correct. If you mean that they "only" want to take away our assault rifles then YES, they do want to take away a lot of my guns.

Too bad they can't eh?

Pay attention. The NEXT Supreme court ruling will be on 18-20 year olds buying handguns...but not really. What it is REALLY about is the arbitrary restriction of rights on law abiding ADULTS. That means...no bans on rifles based on arbitrary appearance features either. The NRA is not going to challenge the assault rifle ban head-on. Why should they? Too narrow in scope for one thing. Better to take a broad based approach. Currently adult 18 year olds can buy rifles but not handguns. Why? They have a right to do so. They are adults in every legal manner. So...if it is determined that the restriction on the right is simply an arbitrary "just because" and arbitrary "just because's" are ruled unconstitutional, what do you think that does to bans on flash hiders and pistol grip stocks?

One by one, little by little, we will establish our rights and protect them. We have already determined we DO have an individual right to own guns and that the right DOES apply to cities and states. The next decision will end assault rifle bans for good.

Not to people that understand things the first time.

Gary, your tenuous grasp of this topic is shocking to say the least. What is even worse is that you don't even grasp the context and original intent of the second amendment. Sad really.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Rob & Mel