No. of Recommendations: 26
Let’s Have That Conversation About Guns

"For once I agree with liberals. It’s high time to have a conversation about guns. Let’s start with the problem that there are far too few guns on our streets.

Wait, we can’t have that conversation. In fact, we’re not supposed to have what people might commonly describe as a “conversation” at all. We’re supposed to shut-up and listen as liberals, barely masking their unseemly delight at the opportunity, try to pin the murder rampage of one degenerate creep on millions of law-abiding Americans who did nothing wrong. The conversation is then supposed to end with us waiving our fundamental right to self-defense."

http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2012/12/17/let...

Nailed it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Kurt Schlichter is awesome. If you want to see him voice his rants he's on Cam and Company (www.nranews.com) at the end of the show Thursday nights (from 23:45-23:55 Eastern time), or just catch the archives like I do if that's too late for you. If you're on Twitter and aren't following him (@kurtschlichter) you're missing out!

He's also a dog person, so we know he's good people!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
An armed society is a polite society.

Mike
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I don't see anyone talking about the common denominator of every perpetrator of these heinous crimes: they were all on psychotropic drugs at the time of the incident.

Can antidepressants cause violence?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=O...

Psychotropic Drugs and the Nature of Reality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJGrZx8QzKw
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
... try to pin the murder rampage of one degenerate creep on millions of law-abiding Americans who did nothing wrong.

One degenerate? One degenerate? Did I get that right?

Do you have one of those TV things, access to the internet, or a newspaper subscription? Where have you been for the last 15 years?

One degenerate? Seriously?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
... try to pin the murder rampage of one degenerate creep on millions of law-abiding Americans who did nothing wrong.

One degenerate? One degenerate? Did I get that right?

Do you have one of those TV things, access to the internet, or a newspaper subscription? Where have you been for the last 15 years?

One degenerate? Seriously?


Okay, a handful of degenerates. The fact is that we are still taking rights away from millions of law-abiding citizens because of an extraordinarily small number of people who do harm to others.

Even if you think it is fine to violate the rights of law-abiding citizens (which you obviously do), one would at least hope that doing so would be constrained to situations where the *benefits* clearly outweigh the *costs*. Is that the case here? Not a chance. Gun-control advocates (and government interventionists generally) never hold themselves to such a standard. They don't judge government programs on *results* but rather *intentions*.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Even if you think it is fine to violate the rights of law-abiding citizens (which you obviously do), one would at least hope that doing so would be constrained to situations where the *benefits* clearly outweigh the *costs*. Is that the case here? Not a chance. Gun-control advocates (and government interventionists generally) never hold themselves to such a standard. They don't judge government programs on *results* but rather *intentions*.


Whereas the gun lobby will not even permit the discussion. They got a senator to pass legislation to withhold funding that the CDC was using to study gun violence, then added an amendment to a bill forbidding the Center for Disease control to advocate any type of gun control. Yeah, left have discussion, right.

The gun rights folks object to any restriction what so ever. Shall we allow 50 caliber machine gun in the beds of pickup trucks? What about Teflon bullets designed to pierce police body armor? What about Rocket Propelled Grenades? I would not have to look very far to find people who would advocate that these should be allowed under the second amendment.

In carrying the argument to such an extreme, the gun rights faction now seems to be advocating terrorism in the name of defending against tyranny. There is a sensible middle ground, and while we cannot stop all gun violence, we can stop some of it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 22
There is a sensible middle ground, and while we cannot stop all gun violence, we can stop some of it. - beridian

-------------------

That is where we are right now IMO. Yet you make the above statement as if we are doing nothing right now and need to start. Kind of like mindset that says the rich need to start paying their fair share.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
There is a sensible middle ground, and while we cannot stop all gun violence, we can stop some of it. - beridian

-------------------

That is where we are right now IMO. Yet you make the above statement as if we are doing nothing right now and need to start. Kind of like mindset that says the rich need to start paying their fair share.


I actually agree that the rich need to start paying their fair share. We can accomplish this by giving them a tax cut.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 26
In carrying the argument to such an extreme, the gun rights faction now seems to be advocating terrorism in the name of defending against tyranny. There is a sensible middle ground, and while we cannot stop all gun violence, we can stop some of it.

Advocating terrorism in the name of defending against tyranny? It is ludicrous comments like this that makes it so absolutely annoying to discuss anything with liberals.

By the way, if someone believes in the concept of individual rights and that the most vital of these rights is the right to life and the right to defend yourself as you see fit, there is nothing to discuss. There is no need to "have a conversation" because sacrificing your rights is not up for negotiation or compromise.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
By the way, if someone believes in the concept of individual rights and that the most vital of these rights is the right to life and the right to defend yourself as you see fit, there is nothing to discuss.

There is no need for the phrase 'By the way...', because this is THE issue. If we believe in the right to self-defense, the gun CANNOT be part of the problem, because it is ESSENTIAL to self-defense. The problem, therefore, is the extent to which people need to be 'qualified' to be entitled to this right.

According to many on the left, no one should need the right of armed self-defense, because the Government can always protect us. Of course, that is a fantasy. To many on the right, everyone should have this right unless they are crazy, which brings us to the issue of how we treat the mentally ill. If Lanza should have been committed but wasn't, that is the proximate cause of the shooting, and different gun laws would have made no difference.

Many of the proposals for tighter gun restrictions ignore reality, but that is not surprising, because many people (at least 51%, I estimate) subscribe to the "Don't think, just do something that shows you care!" type of thought process.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
By all means let's have a conversation. Let's ask all criminals to please, please, please don't attack me or my family, or try to do serious damage to my property. If that fails, then just shoot them where they stand. It takes a gun to make a safe village.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
By all means let's have a conversation. Let's ask all criminals to please, please, please don't attack me or my family, or try to do serious damage to my property. If that fails, then just shoot them where they stand. It takes a gun to make a safe village.

No, no, no. Guns kill people. Especially extended mags. It's obvious that if we ban them all that unicorns will poop fat-free, nutritious Twinkies for all of us to enjoy!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Many of the proposals for tighter gun restrictions ignore reality, but that is not surprising, because many people (at least 51%, I estimate) subscribe to the "Don't think, just do something that shows you care!" type of thought process.
----------------------------------------------------
I caught a little of the Obama press conference. He's using this tragedy to rahm gun control through, he said something like "we're going to send out Joe Biden to talk to people interested in the topic (clamping down on guns) and he'll report back in a month or so", then he said something which showed how he was using the tragedy, he said, and i'm paraphrasing, "surely in a month we won't forget the unspeakable tragedy which happened in Connecticut". He wants as an emotional a response as possible, as knee-jerk a response as possible. He wants what Fast & Furious didn't deliver, and i don't think he cares one bit about what happened, only what he can milk it for, narcissists don't really care, and that's what he is.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 19
Here's some questions we can ask while we're having our "conversation":

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/159800/

Why do people who favor gun-control call people who disagree with them murderers or accomplices to murder? Is that constructive?

Would any of the various proposals have actually prevented the tragedy that is the supposed reason for them?

When you say you hope that this event will finally change the debate, do you really mean that you hope you can use emotionalism and blood-libel-bullying to get your way on political issues that were losers in the past?

If you’re a media member or politician, do you have armed security? Do you have a permit for a gun yourself? (I’m asking you Dianne Feinstein!) If so, what makes your life more valuable than other people’s?

Do you know the difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon? Do your public statements reflect that difference?

If guns cause murder, why have murder rates fallen as gun sales have skyrocketed?

Have you talked about “Fast and Furious?” Do you even know what it is? Do you care less when brown people die?

When you say that “we” need to change, how are you planning to change? Does your change involve any actual sacrifice on your part?


I've bolded some of these. In my conversations with libs on this topic I've found that they're having trouble keeping their balance, having to make their points while standing on a pile of childrens' bodies.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Advocating terrorism in the name of defending against tyranny? It is ludicrous comments like this that makes it so absolutely annoying to discuss anything with liberals.

Riiight, but you're all on board with "Obama's coming to take our guns!"

I wonder how many ways you can demonstrate your hypocrisy this year...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Advocating terrorism in the name of defending against tyranny? It is ludicrous comments like this that makes it so absolutely annoying to discuss anything with liberals.

Riiight, but you're all on board with "Obama's coming to take our guns!"

I wonder how many ways you can demonstrate your hypocrisy this year...

jwiest


What do you mean that I'm "all on board with 'Obama's coming to take our guns!'"?

If you are going to insult me for hypocrisy, at least make it clear *why* you are insulting me.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Just once I'd like to see one of these hoplophobes point out exactly where any of us said 0bama was going to "take" our guns. I've pointed out where he supports the Assault Weapons Ban, where he wanted to ban gun stores, where he wanted to ban concealed carry, where he sided with the "collective rights" side before the Heller decision came out, where he supports UN treaties that would undermine our Second Amendment... but what they accuse me of saying is never what I'm actually saying!

Naturally they do this so they don't have to defend the things I'm actually accusing Team 0bama of trying to do (which are clearly infringements on our right to keep and bear arms... if we can't obtain them we can't very well keep or bear them!)

So hoplophobes, where have I or MadCap or Tele or Dope or Lowstudent or anyone else said that 0bama was going to start confiscating guns from us? Surely you can cite it if we've done it! Until then kindly shut your pieholes on that crap.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Yes, let's have a conversation about guns and start with getting rid of 'gun free zones'.

http://boards.fool.com/guns-dont-kill-people-but-gun-free-zo...

decath
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What do you mean that I'm "all on board with 'Obama's coming to take our guns!'"?

You mean you haven't read the posts in your own hangout?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What do you mean that I'm "all on board with 'Obama's coming to take our guns!'"?

You mean you haven't read the posts in your own hangout?

jwiest


So you are pinning things that *I* never said or ever agreed with on *me*?

It figures.

By the way, be specific for a change. What was said and who said it? And why are you blaming *me* for it?

Liberals are absurd.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
if someone believes in the concept of individual rights and that the most vital of these rights is the right to life and the right to defend yourself as you see fit, there is nothing to discuss. There is no need to "have a conversation" because sacrificing your rights is not up for negotiation or compromise.

In your wettest of dreams perhaps, you could indeed wipe away all concerns that the rest of humanity has about *their* safety and security - you know, those annoying people who just don't see things your way no matter how much you whine about them. But in reality, a civil society needs to balance out the concerns of everybody, within constitutional constraints. And I'm sorry, but your gun-drenched culture that promotes hatred of the other half of America, and that doesn't even try to ensure that mentally ill people can't easily get military-grade assault weapons, is not exactly the safest place for me to raise my kid in. So yes, we will have a conversation about whether or not assault weapons are legitimate for self defense, and whether that consideration outweighs the danger they impose on everybody else.

Reasonable people agree that the interests of self-defense do not permit the owing of explosives, rocket launchers, and rocket propelled grenades under the 2nd Amendment. So obviously, there ARE limits 2nd Amendment "rights." And I'm sorry but we WILL have that conversation, whether you are part of it or not.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Liberals are absurd."
............................

Two part of their Packs.

1. "Useful Idiots" - per their Org Leadership

2. Elitists - Executing their "Mis-Direction" and "Mis-Information"

Marx/Engels, and "OWEbama's Favourite -> "Rules For Radicals"
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
if someone believes in the concept of individual rights and that the most vital of these rights is the right to life and the right to defend yourself as you see fit, there is nothing to discuss. There is no need to "have a conversation" because sacrificing your rights is not up for negotiation or compromise.

In your wettest of dreams perhaps, you could indeed wipe away all concerns that the rest of humanity has about *their* safety and security - you know, those annoying people who just don't see things your way no matter how much you whine about them. But in reality, a civil society needs to balance out the concerns of everybody, within constitutional constraints. And I'm sorry, but your gun-drenched culture that promotes hatred of the other half of America, and that doesn't even try to ensure that mentally ill people can't easily get military-grade assault weapons, is not exactly the safest place for me to raise my kid in. So yes, we will have a conversation about whether or not assault weapons are legitimate for self defense, and whether that consideration outweighs the danger they impose on everybody else.

Reasonable people agree that the interests of self-defense do not permit the owing of explosives, rocket launchers, and rocket propelled grenades under the 2nd Amendment. So obviously, there ARE limits 2nd Amendment "rights." And I'm sorry but we WILL have that conversation, whether you are part of it or not.


LOL. Within constitutional constraints? I'm glad you brought that up. Does "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" ring a bell?

And I *do* want to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill -- by having the mentally ill *committed* and off the streets.

The difference between libertarians -- which is what I am -- and liberals is that libertarians think people are innocent until proven guilty while liberals think people are guilty until proven innocent. *That* is the motivation behind all regulations. It is assumed that you are going to commit a crime without regulations to stop you.

Taking away the rights of law-abiding citizens is a recipe of tyranny. It doesn't matter whether the intention is positive. That is *always* how statists sell it to citizens, who become rightless serfs. I'm all for punishing lawbreakers. I just don't believe in taking away the rights of law-abiding citizens.

The sad thing about all this liberal nonsense is that no change to the gun control laws would have stopped Adam Lanza! Does this stop the liberal rants about how we absolutely need stricter gun control laws? Of course not! That would make too much sense!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
In your wettest of dreams perhaps, you could indeed wipe away all concerns that the rest of humanity has about *their* safety and security - you know, those annoying people who just don't see things your way no matter how much you whine about them. But in reality, a civil society needs to balance out the concerns of everybody, within constitutional constraints. And I'm sorry, but your gun-drenched culture that promotes hatred of the other half of America, and that doesn't even try to ensure that mentally ill people can't easily get military-grade assault weapons, is not exactly the safest place for me to raise my kid in. So yes, we will have a conversation about whether or not assault weapons are legitimate for self defense, and whether that consideration outweighs the danger they impose on everybody else.
________________________________________________-

The operative idiocy?
In your wettest of dreams perhaps, you could indeed wipe away all concerns that the rest of humanity has about *their* safety and security - you know, those annoying people who just don't see things your way no matter how much you whine about them.

I can't help it, I love people who make statements like this and have the total inability to see themselves.
It is friggin hilarious, thanks
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
So you are pinning things that *I* never said or ever agreed with on *me*?

Ah, the crux...how does it feel, when this is your main mode?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
j-w: "Ah, the crux...how does it feel, when this is your main mode? "


that's the libs main mode.

like there's a problem so how we going to tax you and regulate you to not solve the problem but make some of us feel good?

You're all touchy feely.......

and most of you are living in your parent's basements, on benefits and welfare, or just about to do it- surrounded by your neighbors taking all sorts of tax advantages and dodges, likely under the table income, and the like.

Sorry, I"ve had it with the 'libs'.....

There's a whole bunch of really stupid ones over at PA that make you wonder if the human race has any intelligence left.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
FV wrote: And I'm sorry but we WILL have that conversation, whether you are part of it or not.

Libtards = control freaks.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And I *do* want to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill -- by having the mentally ill *committed* and off the streets.

Who do you propose pays for this?

I do not want my liberty infringed upon by paying for someon else's mental illness.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Reasonable people agree that the interests of self-defense do not permit the owing of explosives, rocket launchers, and rocket propelled grenades under the 2nd Amendment. So obviously, there ARE limits 2nd Amendment "rights." And I'm sorry but we WILL have that conversation, whether you are part of it or not.

Given the fact that millions of Americans are buying up all the assault weapons they can get their hands on at the moment I'm pretty sure they're making a very loud statement on that topic... and disagreeing with you whole heartedly.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Who do you propose pays for this?

I do not want my liberty infringed upon by paying for someon else's mental illness.


Hey, 0bamacare's the law of the land! Surely paying for it isn't a concern! We're all government mandated insurance consumers now!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Reasonable people agree that the interests of self-defense do not permit the owing of explosives, rocket launchers, and rocket propelled grenades under the 2nd Amendment. So obviously, there ARE limits 2nd Amendment "rights." And I'm sorry but we WILL have that conversation, whether you are part of it or not.

Given the fact that millions of Americans are buying up all the assault weapons they can get their hands on at the moment I'm pretty sure they're making a very loud statement on that topic... and disagreeing with you whole heartedly.


Don't you love how FoolishVintner pretty much defines people who disagree with him/her/it as not being reasonable?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And I'm sorry but we WILL have that conversation, whether you are part of it or not.


Da Comrade!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"And I'm sorry but we WILL have that conversation, whether you are part of it or not."


---

YOu might not like it, but we will have that DISCUSSION

--------



The Sandy Hook school shooting has reignited the debate around violent video games, with even some of the games' designers claiming the 'ultraviolence has to stop.'

Gunman Adam Lanza, 20, was reportedly 'obsessed' with military shooters' game Call of Duty - which features assault weapons similar to the Bushmaster AR-15, one of three guns he used to slaughter his mother, Nancy, and 26 innocent children and school staff on Friday.

But even before the latest massacre, gamers were beginning to voice concerns that modern offerings were 'fetishizing violence' and that they would 'ultimately cause (the country) trouble.'

At this year's E3 – the Electronic Entertainment Expo, the industry's largest U.S. gathering – some attendees were stunned by the intensity of violence on display.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250811/Sandy-Hook-s...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook




LEt's talk about the things that might actually reduce these episodes, right?

Ban violent shoot 'em up videogames!


Stop HOllywood million firearm round extravaganzas with millions and millions of bullets sprayed in every Hollywood feature film....


t.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement