Topic: Do you own a firearm? - page 2. (Read 4439 times)

Yes, I would. More importantly, if I came upon a car wreck that YOU were involved in, I WOULD stop and render aid. It's what decent, civilized people do. Are you suggesting that you would not?

MY hostility? That's downright comical, dude. Look at your bizarre hysterical  arguments on this - you paint this idiotic scenario about how the government is going to make you a criminal by passing a law. No, the government does NOT make you a criminal by passing laws. YOU make yourself a criminal by CHOOSING not to abide by those laws. Like I said, even if the government did pass a law banning all handguns, you would not be a criminal unless you chose not to divest yourself of those guns. But in the REAL world, that's not going to happen. Yes, there are some who WANT it. But there are not NEARLY enough people who want it to EVER get it passed. It's not going to happen. But people like you and Cowboy use THAT as a silly excuse to oppose ANY reasonable regulation of guns or the sale and purchase of them. What's funny is that it has about the same chance of being passed as your hypothetical requirement to buy bell bottomed pants.

The only claim I made is that just posting some names and saying they're for/against gun control is not an argument. I did not state or even implied that MLK had no meaning and I can't even fathom how you reached that conclusion.

Also I did not resort to an ad hominem.

Good luck quoting me quoting anyone on that chart in this topic, and welcome to my ignore evil bastards list.

Good luck trying to claim that their actions, like MLK Jr. having an "an arsenal" of guns (according to Glenn Smiley) at his and his civil rights brethren's disposal, applying for a concealed carry permit (but being denied, thanks to Jim Crow), and then being assassinated after "embracing non-violence" (which may have meant eschewing even the protection of those around him who could otherwise have posted as countersnipers and stopped James Earl Ray) had no meaning. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-and-his-guns_b_810132.html

We didn't need MLK Jr. to be a martyr, we needed him to live a long life and fight to his natural death for the civil rights that are STILL being infringed today by white presidents like Barack Obama, and everyone below his rank.

The argument is about as valid as the propaganda image. It is an appeal to authority, and a poor one at that. It holds no value.

Good luck cherry picking some more (out of context) quotes of famous people and interpreting their stance on a current issue.

LOL "at least 1/6 of them is still alive", as if that's a real argument.

How about this? Every single one on the bottom row has non-"collateral damage" innocent blood on his hands and thought they were doing "the right thing".

The same cannot be said for the entire top row.

I'm siding with the people who think you shouldn't own a gun then. At least 1/6 of them is still alive. Everyone in the other group is dead.

Come on, stop the cherry picked propaganda and bring some real arguments.

Thank you for your post!

Well worth reprinting!

+100

Not at all.  Right now here in Canada we have politicians that are trying to ban handguns in Toronto.  Their logic is that no one needs a handgun who lives in the city, even though firearms offenses are on the decline.  

In Alberta last year the RCMP went into homes illegally after people were evacuated because of flooding, they said it was for public safety and they took peoples firearms from their homes.  People are still fighting to have their firearms returned.  They are now trying to pass into law that would allow them to confiscate any firearms in the event of a disaster/emergency.

There is a real movement taking place to remove firearms from people here.  Their end goal is to disarm every citizen and only have the police/military to have access to them.

Same here I'd like a 3D printed gun or I'd like to learn how to put one together and buy the parts separately.  I think that is a real good way to better understand a weapon if you plan you use it.

do you plan to keep you job for a very long time?  I can already see and hear the news stories now.  The IRS scandal x10 lol.

Not just knives. A saw is also considered to have a cutting edge. Scissors have cutting edges... Those common items fall into category 4 I guess. So if you're caught "open carrying" a saw in an urban area without trees one could argue there is no other intended purpose than to hurt someone, right?  There is no other use for a saw there, is there?

The same could even be said about scissors... If you're "open carrying" a pair of scissors at a cross road.... Well, there's no obvious purpose for the scissors. You must be a psycho murderer waiting for a victim!

Catch all rules are very open to interpretation and thus abuse. Do you trust your law enforcement and/or department of justice to make the right decision?

WOW! If I'm reading that correctly, thats a little over the top. So pretty much any knife with a sharp edge is considered a weapon to harm people.


Currently, no. I am in the process of taking my course to acquire my hunting license.  I would much rather eat meat that is free from all hormones and antibiotics that they use in factory farms.  Also, it's much cheaper overall.  Getting harder and harder to make it these days, especially with meat prices soaring.

I just use mine to shoot shit because it's fun.  No hunting.

That said, I have a Ruger 10/22, and a New England BA 0.410 Shotgun.

How much in this thread you use firearm for hunting?

I expect that. WTF kind of EMT decides to uphold their duty to respond based on bumper stickers? And if you are identified as a licensed responder it may be a crime to not render aid.

You'd let em bleed to death just because they're political opponents,umair? I think you've been hitting the Palin juice a little too hard this early.

Of course it would be a personal crisis, but not a national crisis. It would be terrible and I would be grief stricken, but unlike that liberal lawyer in California, I would blame the shooter, and not use the incident to promote the liberal agenda of disarming America.


Around 30,000 per year are shot to death. Most are suicides, and of the rest, most are gang killings. 30,000 out of a population of around 330,000,000. That means that 99.99909% of Americans will not be killed in a given year.

There is no gun crisis.

There is a gang crisis, but liberals are not interested.

There is also a suicide crisis, and liberals would solve that by licensing doctors to assist in the suicide.

Rose points out that around 1,000 women a year die at the hands of a man. That has been going on since we lived in caves, so girls ought to be taught in schools that if a boy hits them once, he will always hit them. He will not change, and he might eventually kill them, so tell the police and have him arrested. Three arrests for hitting a woman should get him life in prison, where he belongs.

If such men have no gun, they will use a knife or a club. Remember OJ simpson?

Just a thought...

Do any of you with American Enemy Obama bumper stickers on your cars expect Americans, those of us with Emergency Medical Training to actually stop at any car wreck in which you may be involved?

Just curious!

Many millions of us fought, and some died to protect peaceful, American citizens' freedom and Liberty FROM Government, and the Individual right of EACH American to possess and safely use our guns.

Were this NOT the case, we might have preferred to join the military of a "FREE" nation and leave the Collectivist slime to their own devices, unworthy of any defense.

Chris Christie's Bizarre Pro-Life Defense Of 10-Bullet Gun Magazine Bill Veto
By John Amato July 9, 2014
Chris Christie's bizarre reasons for vetoing the ten bullet gun magazine bill

I wrote about Joe Scarborough calling the New Jersey governor a chickensh*t because he refused to met with the Sandy Hook families after he vetoed a bill reducing the number of bullets that would be in a magazine, but first I wanted to highlight how he defended himself on the veto because it was so truly off the wall.

    Christie: I've heard the argument so are we saying that the 10 children on the clip they advocate for, that their lives are less valuable? If you take the logical conclusion of their argument, you go to zero because every life is valuable. And so why 10? Why not six? Why not two? Why not one? Why not zero? Why not just ban guns completely?

    So the logical conclusion of their argument is that you get to zero eventually so you know, I understand their argument. I feel extraordinary sympathy for them and the other families and all the families across America who are the victims of gun violence.

What they are saying is by reducing the number of bullets in a gun clip, you're giving maniacs less bullets and less firepower to massacre humans with, Chris. Every life saved is a victory. How he goes from 10 bullets in a magazine to zero is stunning to say the least. Why does anyone need fifteen round magazines is beyond me accept if you plan to be in a war. The lengths in which he ties himself up in knots to defend his veto is mind boggling.

UPDATE: Mark Barden, a parent of the Sandy Hook massacre was very upset that Christie refused to meet with him:

    Nearly a week after Gov. Chris Christie rejected a controversial gun control measureand then declined to meet with the parents of two children gunned down in Connecticut, the father of one slain first-grader described the governor’s reason for turning down a meeting with them as "unfortunate."

    Mark Barden, whose son Daniel, 7, was killed at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., said he was confused by the Republican governor’s comments on Monday in which he defended his decision to veto the bill intended to reduce the size of ammunition magazines from 15 rounds to 10.



http://crooksandliars.com/2014/07/joe-scarborough-calls-chris-christie