263 replies to this topic

[luv2increase]

And Joe the Plumber, with his background, credentials and the direction his life was taking pre-Obama, showed no sign of breaking the 100k mark, much less the 250k mark.

See right here you don't even know what Joe said to Obama. He told Obama he was going to take over the plumbing business as in he was going to be the new owner. How is that no signs of breaking the 100k mark. I think you just think of Joe as "Joe the Average Plumber", yet he was "Joe the Soon-to-Be Plumbing Business Owner".


I tell ya what, some people....

[sUper GeNius]

What a stupid poll.

The 2nd amendment was put in place for people to protect themselves from the government. For the government to put any restriction on that... minus for criminals, the insane, etc... is exactly in violation of the letter and the spirit of the law.

Do you believe one is personally responsible for his own and his family's protection from criminal elements?

Can you make this question more vague and open to interpretation? What the hell are you even asking?

Individuals should be allowed guns for use in the home.
Guns should be allowed for use inside the home and for concealed carry.
Guns should be banned

Is this a joke? Who uses their gun INSIDE their home? What could possibly be the purpose of that? Do you have any idea what guns are used for or why people have them? Do you even know what a gun is?

Have you ever heard of home defense? Google it. It's one of the NRA's prerequisite courses for defense outside the home. Do you have any idea what the landmark Heller case was all about? Is your post a complete joke? I certainly find it hilarious.

[Moonbeam]

Is this a joke? Who uses their gun INSIDE their home? What could possibly be the purpose of that?

You're joking now, right?

I have used a gun inside my house, the purpose was to save myself.

People who want to ban guns want to take away people's right to defend themselves. I think that is very deathist.

Cold dead fingers, right?! High-five!

[RighteousReason]

Oh ok

[suspire]

And Joe the Plumber, with his background, credentials and the direction his life was taking pre-Obama, showed no sign of breaking the 100k mark, much less the 250k mark.

See right here you don't even know what Joe said to Obama. He told Obama he was going to take over the plumbing business as in he was going to be the new owner. How is that no signs of breaking the 100k mark. I think you just think of Joe as "Joe the Average Plumber", yet he was "Joe the Soon-to-Be Plumbing Business Owner".


I tell ya what, some people....

I am trying to figure out: Are you seriously this uninformed or is it just your way of trying to goad me? No. Seriously, it is an honest question, because I can't figure it out. It is like you've been taken from Central Casting or you belong in a Saturday Night Live parody skit, so I am wondering if you're just pretending to be incredibly ignorant?

In any case, you do realize, right, that the whole "Joe the Plumber was about to buy a business" has been thoroughly debunked? That he himself admitted he was not even close to making 250,000 and didn't expect to anytime soon?

Regardless, election season is over and while I found it necessary to engage you during that time for fear that somehow your misinformation would take hold in the undecided voter, I no longer feel that obligation and I don't think I can be bothered to waste precious time with whatever madness or misinformation you come up with on a day to day basis. Good luck to you, because I'm pretty much done engaging you.

[niner]

Anyone capable, with enough mental health, should be allowed to have a gun. Anyone should be allowed to protect himself and his liberty (as long as it doesn't hurt others' liberty) with whatever means necessary.

That's the problem. How do you prevent your liberty from hurting mine?

[niner]

Woo-hoo! Obama has helped gun shop owners by increasing their sales! Man, they should vote for a second term for him; he's already great for the economy and for gun store owners!

Obama's boost to the economy is a lot more broad-based than just gun stores. He's also helping the manufacturers of canned goods, barbed wire, panic rooms, and, umm, dehydrated pork rinds.

[niner]

FM, I can't vote in this poll until you define "gun". Do you mean a cheap-ass handgun, or do you mean a decent home defense weapon like a shotgun. World of difference. BTW, should I be locking the front door at night? I've never really felt a need to.

[Shepard]

From John Lott's blog:

http://www.npr.org/t...P...&m=96566792

I haven't listened to all of it as I don't have a strong opinion either way, but it might interest some.

[inawe]

To invoke the 2nd amendment to justify individual gun ownership is complete bullcrap.
If most people are in favor of gun ownership, so be it. It should be decided on it's own merits.
It's true that guns (by themselves) don't kill people. People (mainly with guns) kill people. Whether it is wise to have a lot of guns around
depends on the society. When I stayed in Switzerland I learned every man had an automatic rifle at home. They have military training 3
weeks a year. That's a very disciplined society with relatively low income gap (GINI=33) and so the murder rate is low.
We are not as disciplined in the US and the income gap is much larger (GINI=45). Murder rate in the US is very high. Those are the things
that should be taken into account.
I don't know if having a gun for defense works as a deterrent. I don't go to the shooting range very often. It aggravates my tinnitus. On the
other hand, criminals do train, it's part of their profession.

[sUper GeNius]

Anyone capable, with enough mental health, should be allowed to have a gun. Anyone should be allowed to protect himself and his liberty (as long as it doesn't hurt others' liberty) with whatever means necessary.

That's the problem. How do you prevent your liberty from hurting mine?

How would your liberty be affected by my choice to defend myself? Are you making the implication that guns getting into the hands of the mentally ill affects your liberty? If so, keep this in mind. Fifty percent of guns deaths in this country are suicides. Although I don't have statistics of the number of gang-bangers killing one another, I suspect it's a large percentage of the rest. An additional fact. A gun wielded by a civilian is involved in about one million acts of self-defense or property defense each year.

[sUper GeNius]

To invoke the 2nd amendment to justify individual gun ownership is complete bullcrap.

Than the same could be said of Freedom of Speech and every other amendment in the Bill of Rights. As justice Scalia wrote in his majority opinion, the second amendment cannot simply be declared extinct. The Bill of Rights was written to protect the rights of the minority from the whims of the majority. As such, so majority can vote to hinder or remove my freedom of speech. Nor can a majority vote away my freedom to bear arms.

An aside, Barack Obama, a constitutional scholar, believes that the Second Amendment provides for an *individual* right to bear arms.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 12 November 2008 - 08:03 PM.

[sUper GeNius]

FM, I can't vote in this poll until you define "gun". Do you mean a cheap-ass handgun, or do you mean a decent home defense weapon like a shotgun. World of difference. BTW, should I be locking the front door at night? I've never really felt a need to.

How does the price of the handgun enter into it? As far as locking your door, like other methods of self-defense, that is your choice. OTOH, it is your responsibility to decide whether or not to lock it, no one else's, not the police nor the government's.

[sUper GeNius]

Woo-hoo! Obama has helped gun shop owners by increasing their sales! Man, they should vote for a second term for him; he's already great for the economy and for gun store owners!

Obama's boost to the economy is a lot more broad-based than just gun stores. He's also helping the manufacturers of canned goods, barbed wire, panic rooms, and, umm, dehydrated pork rinds.

Clinton negotiated an "assault rifle" ban in the 90's. End result? Millions of so-called assault weapons were purchased before the ban took place. The same is going on now.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 12 November 2008 - 08:05 PM.

[biknut]

Here in Texas we have very liberal gun laws. I strongly support gun rights, although I have never owned a gun. My belief is that states with liberal gun laws are safer the than states with a lot of gun restrictions, but I don't really know if it's true or not.

Last year Texas modified our version of the Castle Law to include traveling in vehicles. If September 07 an amendment was passed that clarified what travel means. Travel now is defined as going anywhere in a vehicle, even to the grocery store. The gun is required to be concealed at all times. You are allowed to carry the gun on your person, when going to and from your house and car, or place of employment if you own the business. This applys to any person legally allowed to own a gun, and no permit is permit required. If however you do travel to the grocery store with your gun in the car, you would not be allowed to take the gun out of your car, and take it in the store with you without a permit.

I don't know how our murder rate compares to other citys but in 2007 the least homicidal big city in America (population over 250,000) was Plano, Texas, which had only four murders in 2006, a rate of 1.6 murders per 100,000 residents. Plano is right next to my little land locked suburb of Farmers Branch (26,000 pop). In 2006 we had 1 murder.

The conclusion I draw is that having all these guns around isn't really causing a lot of extra murders.

[Brainbox]

The conclusion I draw is that having all these guns around isn't really causing a lot of extra murders.

Then why do you support gun rights? They seem to be pretty useless then.
Does anyone think that it actively prevents murders? Why would there be any conceptual difference between personal gun rights and the global initiative to reduce nukes?

[suspire]

Here in Texas we have very liberal gun laws. I strongly support gun rights, although I have never owned a gun. My belief is that states with liberal gun laws are safer the than states with a lot of gun restrictions, but I don't really know if it's true or not.

Last year Texas modified our version of the Castle Law to include traveling in vehicles. If September 07 an amendment was passed that clarified what travel means. Travel now is defined as going anywhere in a vehicle, even to the grocery store. The gun is required to be concealed at all times. You are allowed to carry the gun on your person, when going to and from your house and car, or place of employment if you own the business. This applys to any person legally allowed to own a gun, and no permit is permit required. If however you do travel to the grocery store with your gun in the car, you would not be allowed to take the gun out of your car, and take it in the store with you without a permit.

I don't know how our murder rate compares to other citys but in 2007 the least homicidal big city in America (population over 250,000) was Plano, Texas, which had only four murders in 2006, a rate of 1.6 murders per 100,000 residents. Plano is right next to my little land locked suburb of Farmers Branch (26,000 pop). In 2006 we had 1 murder.

The conclusion I draw is that having all these guns around isn't really causing a lot of extra murders.

I used to live in Dallas. I know Plano well. Plano is a wealthy suburb and well policed, all in all, so using Plano as an example for low murders, despite high gun ownership is like using Park Slope in Brooklyn as a similar example: well policed, wealthy areas of a certain demographic, especially with enclaves and walled in communities have no bearing or relevance when trying to gather data; they are anomalies.

[cyborgdreamer]

Okay, maybe I'm a bit of a radical but I think the second amendment is out of date. The point of the amendment was for the public to have the force necessary to stand up to the government. In the times of the founding fathers, it was feasible for an armed public to form a millitia and over throw a corrupt government. Nowadays however, we can’t exactly give the public access to nuclear weapons, so this reasoning doesn't work.

I think guns should be strictly limited to safe, recreational uses (collecting guns, shooting targets, etc.). You could implement this by legalizing guns but only allowing licensed shooting ranges to carry ammo. Using guns for self-defence is immoral because you're likely to kill or at least maim the attacker, and it's irrational because, statisically, you're more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than an intruder. So, you’re basically trading actual safety for a false sense of security.

As long as the attacker him/herself doesn't have a gun (which would be the case if there was strict and well enforced gun control), a good security system and some pepper spray are all you need for self-defence.

[eternaltraveler]

Using guns for self-defence is immoral because you're likely to kill or at least maim the attacker,

.... ummm Good? If someone breaks into my house and threatens my family they better expect to be killed or maimed.

statisically, you're more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than an intruder.

assuming you have no training you are correct

As long as the attacker him/herself doesn't have a gun (which would be the case if there was strict and well enforced gun control), a good security system and some pepper spray are all you need for self-defence.

It is extremely naive to think an alarm that calls the police who won't arrive for 20 minutes at best and pepper spray are anywhere near as effective as a gun. If I was female I would carry a gun at all times because as a male, you're right, an attacker would probably only want my property, as a female the attacker probably wants you.

[Moonbeam]

Does anyone think that it actively prevents murders? Why would there be any conceptual difference between personal gun rights and the global initiative to reduce nukes?

A gun prevented my murder. The second question is so obvious I don't even know how to answer it.

Using guns for self-defence is immoral because you're likely to kill or at least maim the attacker,

What? That would be the point. You think it's immoral to defend yourself? Your decision, I guess, but I you shouldn't decide that for other people.

and it's irrational because, statisically, you're more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than an intruder. So, you’re basically trading actual safety for a false sense of security.

Again I refer you to the above. You wouldn't say that if you had ever used a gun to defend yourself. People who shoot themselves usually mean to do it (their right, in my opinion.) If you let a kid get a hold of it, you should be prosecuted.

[sUper GeNius]

Okay, maybe I'm a bit of a radical but I think the second amendment is out of date. The point of the amendment was for the public to have the force necessary to stand up to the government. In the times of the founding fathers, it was feasible for an armed public to form a millitia and over throw a corrupt government. Nowadays however, we can’t exactly give the public access to nuclear weapons, so this reasoning doesn't work.

I think guns should be strictly limited to safe, recreational uses (collecting guns, shooting targets, etc.). You could implement this by legalizing guns but only allowing licensed shooting ranges to carry ammo. Using guns for self-defence is immoral because you're likely to kill or at least maim the attacker, and it's irrational because, statisically, you're more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than an intruder. So, you’re basically trading actual safety for a false sense of security.

As long as the attacker him/herself doesn't have a gun (which would be the case if there was strict and well enforced gun control), a good security system and some pepper spray are all you need for self-defence.

An outdated amendment is still an amendment. There's only one way to change the constitution, a vote be the states. It's like that for a reason. A person may legally use deadly force ONLY when confronted by deadly force. That IS why I also carry pepper spray, for those situation that I don't fear for my life.

As far as your statistics about someone shooting themselves, you are actually correct. Fifty percent of all gun deaths in the US are suicides.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 13 November 2008 - 01:08 AM.

[sUper GeNius]

The conclusion I draw is that having all these guns around isn't really causing a lot of extra murders.

Then why do you support gun rights? They seem to be pretty useless then.
Does anyone think that it actively prevents murders? Why would there be any conceptual difference between personal gun rights and the global initiative to reduce nukes?

The ability to kill a handful of people at a time. The ability to kill millions at a time, poisoning the earth for generations. Nah, no difference.

[Shepard]

Using guns for self-defence is immoral because you're likely to kill or at least maim the attacker, and it's irrational because, statisically, you're more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than an intruder.

I don't have a gun, but I have plenty of swords. Which do you think the intruder would prefer in the close quarters of a home?

[biknut]

Using guns for self-defence is immoral because you're likely to kill or at least maim the attacker, and it's irrational because, statisically, you're more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than an intruder.

I don't have a gun, but I have plenty of swords. Which do you think the intruder would prefer in the close quarters of a home?

The chances of surviving a gun shot are a lot better than surviving getting run through or cut with a sword. Arrrr.

[eternaltraveler]

Using guns for self-defence is immoral because you're likely to kill or at least maim the attacker, and it's irrational because, statisically, you're more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than an intruder.

I don't have a gun, but I have plenty of swords. Which do you think the intruder would prefer in the close quarters of a home?

i have a gun that shoots swords

http://uncyclopedia....t_Shoots_Swords

[cyborgdreamer]

A person may legally use deadly force ONLY when confronted by deadly force.

What if you can protect yourself from deadly force without using deadly force. Isn't that the more ethical choice?

The ability to kill a handful of people at a time. The ability to kill millions at a time, poisoning the earth for generations. Nah, no difference.

See, the difference is only in degree. We should limit people's ability to kill eachother as much as possible as long as it doesn't interfere with their lives.

[sUper GeNius]

What if you can protect yourself from deadly force without using deadly force. Isn't that the more ethical choice?

Of course. But until that is possible and practical for me, a traditional firearm it will be.

See, the difference is only in degree. We should limit people's ability to kill eachother as much as possible as long as it doesn't interfere with their lives.

Much stickier affair. Who gives up their weapon first? You or me? How do I know you don't have one stashed? Seriously, far more people have been killed before the advent of nuclear weapons than after.

Perhaps in some far far farr off world in the future there will be no need for weapons, but until then (I think a new species will need to take our place before that will happen) a weaponless society of humans is no more than a fantasy.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 13 November 2008 - 04:38 AM.

[sUper GeNius]

Using guns for self-defence is immoral because you're likely to kill or at least maim the attacker, and it's irrational because, statisically, you're more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than an intruder.

I don't have a gun, but I have plenty of swords. Which do you think the intruder would prefer in the close quarters of a home?

The chances of surviving a gun shot are a lot better than surviving getting run through or cut with a sword. Arrrr.

I'll let you use two swords if you let me use my Remington 870. Deal?

[Shepard]

I'll let you use two swords if you let me use my Remington 870. Deal?

Damn shotguns always ruining my fun.

[suspire]

Using guns for self-defence is immoral because you're likely to kill or at least maim the attacker, and it's irrational because, statisically, you're more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than an intruder.

I don't have a gun, but I have plenty of swords. Which do you think the intruder would prefer in the close quarters of a home?

Swords are the new guns.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms Swords (especially Highlander-style katanas, dude!), shall not be infringed."

Edited by suspire, 13 November 2008 - 04:30 AM.