Dustydurban
Well-Known Member
FUD is all you know how to shoot Mr.Polite
WTF Is Wrong With America And Gun Control?
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
- Status
lwien
Well-Known Member
Huh? What I said was, in regards to why anyone would need an AR-15, "Surely it's not self-defense in the home because in that situation, nothing beats a shotgun. Just the sound of racking it would scare the beejezus out of most people." Plus, you don't have to aim a shotgun at close range.
I never implied that racking a shotgun would scare a school shooter. The mindset of someone robbing your house versus the mindset of someone who's only desire is to kill kids is a bit different, don't ya think?
Liberal dribble? Nope. Just a bit of common sense.
Last edited:
lwien
Well-Known Member
I never heard Joe Biden's speech. I just based what I said on what I know but out of curiosity I just did a bit of goggling on "best weapon for home defense" and just about every site, not all but most that came up, the shotgun was rated number one.
And as far as the racking sound, if I was robbing a house and someone behind a closed door said that they have a gun, I might think twice. If someone behind that door said that they have a shotgun and then racked it to prove their point, I'd be outta there.
But hey, it's just my opinion, for what its worth.
But I am curious. Being that you labeled what I said as liberal dribble, do you really believe that no conservatives would agree with what I just said or do you think that all conservatives think exactly like you do because for me, I know that not all liberals think exactly like me.
And as far as the racking sound, if I was robbing a house and someone behind a closed door said that they have a gun, I might think twice. If someone behind that door said that they have a shotgun and then racked it to prove their point, I'd be outta there.
But hey, it's just my opinion, for what its worth.
But I am curious. Being that you labeled what I said as liberal dribble, do you really believe that no conservatives would agree with what I just said or do you think that all conservatives think exactly like you do because for me, I know that not all liberals think exactly like me.
Last edited:
Newcastle
Stoned!
The best weapon has been argued for a long time. A lot of people say shotgun but what I said was true. Think about the racking sound....it might work if someone is not armed but we are straying from the question. Who needs an AR? Well if I hear you rack a shot gun I do! My final response is yes most will because you dont really have a grasp on fire arms and the second Amendment. I hope that was a good response as I drink in the evening. 
I apologize to @CarolKing if I was offensive and @Stu point taken.
I apologize to @CarolKing if I was offensive and @Stu point taken.Fair point. And if we we were to address BIG numbers it would be about the giant Pink Elephant staggering around the room.
While I agree we need to do a much better job on enforcing existing laws and implement some changes to boot? Any thing we Do pass will be first and foremost a "make people fell safer and that we did our job" kinda law. Shoe bomb removal laws anyone?
Dustydurban
Well-Known Member
The NRA?
Their members are are the American public
SO that's what is wrong with America?
Pretzel Logic?
florduh
Well-Known Member
The NRA exists to support the gun INDUSTRY. Not you. They want more guns in America. That is their sole goal. We already have more than enough guns in this country. Guns outnumber people. And the result? We are the only big boy country where multiple children get murdered every other week, in school.
Please tell me this is a joke.
lwien
Well-Known Member
And that quote was from someone who labeled my post as "liberal dribble". Talk about calling the kettle black.
ps: I'm sorry Stu. I just couldn't resist.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Planned Parenthood EXISTS to support the abortion industry. In fact, it is so large it could be considered one in the same as it directly profits from performing them. Unless, of course, it exists to support the right given by the penumbra of the Constitution and the Supreme Court of keeping the government out of personal decisions.
We can go through the same path on the NRA, except that it is not the industry. To most of the NRA's members who freely give donations, membership fees and other support, it is about the specifically enumerated rights of the Second Amendment.
Edit:
Thank you @lwien for giving me a chance to link this back to the forum's overall purpose. "Liberal dribble" indeed.
Last edited:
Dustydurban
Well-Known Member
"The NRA exists to support the gun INDUSTRY. Not you. They want more guns in America. That is their solegoal".
I guess you are the NRA spokesperson
Nice try
FUD is all that is
I guess you are the NRA spokesperson
Nice try
FUD is all that is
florduh
Well-Known Member
Reality is all that is.
The NRA absolutely exists to support gun manufacturers. They want as many guns as possible in the hands of Americans. That is why they oppose basically every gun control measure, regardless of how benign they are.
It's also why they support dipshit plans like arming grade school teachers. To them, more guns solves every problem. That's stupid.
Dustydurban
Well-Known Member
We here, FC members, are part of one the IMO most misunderstood groups on the planet(cannabis people)
Let us not act like those who demonize us by doing that to others through misunderstanding
There are no easy answers
I mean what do you do when even the cop on duty won't help?
to all
Let us not act like those who demonize us by doing that to others through misunderstanding
There are no easy answers
I mean what do you do when even the cop on duty won't help?
to all
florduh
Well-Known Member
No it doesn't. That is bullshit. Almost all of what Planned Parenthood does specifically tries to PREVENT abortions through birth control, family planning, and emergency contraception. In addition they provide critical medical services such as cancer screening. The fact you simply buy that most of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions is insane to me.
On the other hand, the NRA is largely funded by gun manufacturers, not individuals. They work for the gun manufacturers... not you.
Who is demonizing? Don't be dramatic. And there is an easy answer. We've run this experiment. Civilized countries with stricter gun control laws don't have school shootings every other week. The answer is easy. We just won't do it.
Dustydurban
Well-Known Member
What countries are you refering to my enlightened friend?
and who is being dramatic every other week
Oh and how many shootings in Gun controlled Chi town last week?
They have strict gun laws
Pass another law ya that will work
Ya thats so easy
and who is being dramatic every other week
Oh and how many shootings in Gun controlled Chi town last week?
They have strict gun laws
Pass another law ya that will work
Ya thats so easy
florduh
Well-Known Member
Every other English speaking country, for starters.
Sorry, but that tired NRA talking point doesn't work anymore. Gun control in Illinois doesn't work when you can drive a few hours to another State and easily buy guns at a fucking store.
Can you explain to me why we are the only Big Boy country with several mass shootings every month? I say it is because of our lax gun laws. What is your alternative hypothesis?
Newcastle
Stoned!
And that quote was from someone who labeled my post as "liberal dribble". Talk about calling the kettle black.
ps: I'm sorry Stu. I just couldn't resist.
Its only liberal dribble if you think 10 fingers and toes and a heart beat is fairy dust.
Dustydurban
Well-Known Member
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
I didn't say abortions is most of what Planned Parenthood does, I said they are so large so as to be almost all of the U.S. abortion industry. Are you saying Planned Parenthood does not support itself?
Of the about 893,000 abortions in the U.S. last year (2017), Planned Parenthood performed about 328,348 of them. Having over a 1/3 of the multi-million dollar a year industry certainly gives it a leg up on discovering its reason for being. But, I admit I was wrong when I said they were "most" of the industry. They are just the largest profiteer in it.
HOWEVER, the point is not to argue abortion. (At least from me.) The point is that, if we arbitrarily assign an value on a civil right of zero to those who want to keep and bear arms, why can't people on the other side of the political spectrum assign zero value to the civil right of keeping the government out of our personal, reproductive decisions? It is easy to come to a solution when you think the other side has no point.
The majority of NRA spending is for newsletters, event organizing (shooting sport), and gun training and safety courses. The revenue, in 2016, was $163.5 million from dues, $171 million from donations, $69 million from program fees (entry to events or classes) and $30 million from all that sweet, sweet blood money investment. Even if we were to assume ALL of the donation category was from gun manufacturers (Which, it is not. There are lists of large non-industry contributors out there but I'm not going to go through and total up those donations.) we have the majority of the revenue from individual sources.
lwien
Well-Known Member
Yes, Chicago has strict gun laws but it's also known that most all of the guns come into Chicago from areas that don't have strict gun control. One has to ask that if strict gun laws existed in those areas where Chicago is getting their guns from, would it have an affect on gun crime? It sure as hell had a MAJOR affect in Australia, eh? But we're not Australia so that's never gonna happen.
I was just watching Chris Wallace on Fox News interviewing Rick Scott who has an A+ rating from the NRA but considering what he is proposing, I doubt that he'll be able to maintain that rating. When Wallace asked Scott why he didn't also include the banning of AR-15 type weapons in his proposal, rather than answer the question, he answered with "...because I'm doing all these other things". What Wallace SHOULD have followed-up with is, "Why in the hell can't you do both."
I asked two questions before and while some of you have responded, I still didn't get an answer so I'll ask it again:.......What is the rationale for owning a semi-auto with high-cap mags that fires at the velocity that an AR can fire at? The AR is designed to do one thing. Kill as many people as quickly as you can. Why should that be legal for civilians to own?
Last edited:
florduh
Well-Known Member
So you can't provide a hypothesis for why we are the only civilized country with biweekly school massacres, huh?
And I've weathered hurricanes just fine without an AR-15. Not an argument.
Dustydurban
Well-Known Member
I know what you guys are going to say already but:
The gun is only as deadly as the person pulling the trigger.
In and of it self it is not
cyclic rate of fire doesn't matter
War machine language is a non starter
People are not being shot daily etc
Why is anything legal?
I don't know too rhetorical
So shoot me I surrender
The gun is only as deadly as the person pulling the trigger.
In and of it self it is not
cyclic rate of fire doesn't matter
War machine language is a non starter
People are not being shot daily etc
Why is anything legal?
I don't know too rhetorical
So shoot me I surrender
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
I have to answer for my freedoms? I must convince others I deserve liberty?
That's not my understanding of how it works. But, how about self defense?
For a quote on the matter that will change no one's mind:
Hamilton #28
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.
The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny. But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!
The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny. But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!
- Status