He doesn't like GUNS.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

completely off topic here... just wanted to let you know in advance. i plan to quote this post the next time the 14th amendment is mentioned in an illegal immigration thread.

Completely off topic - that post relates to the second amendment. Why would you quote it in regards to the 14th?

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

I'll be honest with you. I really don't care.

my point entirely to rob

how many honest debates about this topic have you seen by those who don't have guns?

I don't know whether you are a nut or not. What I have seen is people trying to equate guns with all kinds of household objects as though there is some kind of legitimate equivalence when obviously there is not. Weapons are not just another household tool and I have had enough of people who insist that they are. I respect a gun owner who respects his weaponry and respects life. I have little truck with a gun owner who thinks a gun is just a handy dandy household tool and that taking life is fun.

who said that?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

my point entirely to rob

There are at least two sides in a debate, Charles.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Completely off topic - that post relates to the second amendment. Why would you quote it in regards to the 14th?

'many won't even acknowledge the context or intent behind the amendment initially. How are you supposed to have an honest debate if one side won't even acknowledge the premise?'

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

There are at least two sides in a debate, Charles.

you might do well to remember that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

'many won't even acknowledge the context or intent behind the amendment initially. How are you supposed to have an honest debate if one side won't even acknowledge the premise?'

You snipped off the first part...

you might do well to remember that.

You might do better if you didn't try to set yourself up as a victim all the time.

[Peikko 1,575]

I have owned guns in the past but do not own one now. I do, however, fully support every Americans right to own guns. I feel that the 2nd amendment guarantees that right and would oppose any federal legislation to restrict that right.

Even taking this as a stand alone statement it's deeply flawed. You quite patently do not support the right for every American to own guns, and certainly not to have them on their person in all circumstances. Well, unless you are a gun nut, then I guess you might believe that the police and judicial system is unnecessary and all citizens should be taking care of their own business when it comes to criminality and he who shoots fastest wins? Or that a property owner has no right to determine who enters their property with guns and who doesn't? It's a complete mine field if you simply support the right in a blanket fashion and totally nonsensical.

Slightly off on a tangent, I wonder how many of the 'gun nuts' as; apposed to the responsible gun owners, fancy themselves as a gunslinger?

Edited March 31, 2011 by Madame Cleo

[james&olya 1,121]

some people do consider you a gun nut for having just one firearm. as for banana clips, what do you consider to be one? by piercing i assume you mean armor piercing? and just what is an assault rifle? this maybe?

In my area it is popular for adolescent boys to play with 'air-soft' guns. These also look very much like this. Appearance is not the issue. Magazine size might be, anything that adds to the ability to rapidly kill or maim many 'targets' in a very short period of time is the issue, in my opinion.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I wonder how many of the 'gun nuts' as; apposed to the responsible gun owners, fancy themselves as a gunslinger?

Edited March 31, 2011 by fishdude

[Peikko 1,575]

my point entirely to rob

who said that?

What said taking life is fun? Well, I doubt anyone would actually say it in those words Charles, except perhaps Paul who rather fancies the idea of settling arguments with dueling but the way people talk about 'taking out' any criminal that comes within their line of fire (purely theoretically of course) there is always a certain relish that accompanies those statements that most definitely points to the fact that these people have absolutely no concept of what taking a life means, however flawed that life might appear to be in that split second of decision making. In point of fact, I personally believe that everyone who owns a gun and keeps it in the home for the purpose of self defense should undergo similar training to police gun training and have a similarly firm grasp on the law. However, that's me, you know a silly librul with silly librul ideas

Edited March 31, 2011 by Madame Cleo

[SMOKE 1,426]

You snipped off the first part...

yes i did. the first part is irrelevant to when i choose to use it.

its: bang bang shoot'em up. its my right & you don't have to like it. vs. my vag hurts. i want everything my way.

carry on

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

yes i did. the first part is irrelevant to when i choose to use it.

its: bang bang shoot'em up. its my right & you don't have to like it. vs. my vag hurts. i want everything my way.

carry on

Okay then....

[james&olya 1,121]

about about "collective punishment" for starters? one's constitutional right to own is restricted in some municipalities, even though they've done nothing against the law to warrant that.

Where in the second amendment does it define how one loses his 'right' to own guns or any 'arms'? It doesn't. What it does do is begin by referring to a "well regulated militia"!! The nature and scope of those regulations are not defined in the constitution. Do the mentally ill and severely retarded share this constitutional 'right' to own whatever guns they please? They have committed no crimes to warrant taking away any of their constitutional rights!

It IS the right of governmental bodies to define these regulations in whatever manner they see fit. All they need is the b@lls to actually take on the NRA nut-cases and do what the majority of the population have repeatedly indicated they favor in polls taken on this issue!

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I don't know whether you are a nut or not. What I have seen is people trying to equate guns with all kinds of household objects as though there is some kind of legitimate equivalence when obviously there is not. Weapons are not just another household tool and I have had enough of people who insist that they are. I respect a gun owner who respects his weaponry and respects life. I have little truck with a gun owner who thinks a gun is just a handy dandy household tool and that taking life is fun.

Alright, take two. My statement was to try and define my position so you could make up your mind if I am a nut or not. I didn't continue on with the rest of your post. To continue, while there may or may not be an equivalency between a gun and various other household objects it depends on how those objects are used. A gun can be a deadly weapon, no doubt. A car or a knife could also be a deadly weapon. In both cases it depends on how those various objects are used. A car parked in a garage is not a deadly weapon while one driven by a drunk is. A gun sitting on a table is not a deadly weapon while when it is when in the hands of someone intent on killing someone it is. The object isn't the problem, how it is used is the problem. Before you say that a gun is always a deadly weapon I would point out that when I owned a gun it was for sport. I never had any intention of killing with it unless you consider shooting a paper target to be killing. So in my case a gun was not a deadly weapon.

[Peikko 1,575]

Alright, take two. My statement was to try and define my position so you could make up your mind if I am a nut or not. I didn't continue on with the rest of your post. To continue, while there may or may not be an equivalency between a gun and various other household objects it depends on how those objects are used. A gun can be a deadly weapon, no doubt. A car or a knife could also be a deadly weapon. In both cases it depends on how those various objects are used. A car parked in a garage is not a deadly weapon while one driven by a drunk is. A gun sitting on a table is not a deadly weapon while when it is when in the hands of someone intent on killing someone it is. The object isn't the problem, how it is used is the problem. Before you say that a gun is always a deadly weapon I would point out that when I owned a gun it was for sport. I never had any intention of killing with it unless you consider shooting a paper target to be killing. So in my case a gun was not a deadly weapon.

There is no equivalency between weaponry and household objects. Weapons are weapons, knives are knives, hammers are hammers, cars are cars. This fallacious argument that anything can and is used to kill people is specious and designed to deflect away from the fact that weapons have a specific and unique purpose. If that was not true, why on earth would owning a weapon be something that you would want to protect constitutionally? You may as well protect the right to own a plastic bag constitutionally if all household items are equal. Therefore, I am tempted to place you in the nut category.