Conquer Club

Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

Postby Woodruff on Sun May 15, 2011 4:39 pm

Baron Von PWN wrote:I'm not saying it can't. I'm just suspicious that It would provide protection to the degree that gun owners would suffer from fewer crimes than non gun-owners.


I don't know about the fewer-crimes argument. Personally however, I view it as a peace-of-mind issue. You're correct that the presence of a weapon doesn't change the likelihood of a crime if no one is home to use it. However, if I'm not home, I'm not nearly as concerned about a robbery. Because while they'll steal my stuff and I'll be all kinds of pissed off and feeling violated and such...it's just stuff that largely can be replaced. But if my wife or I are at home, our lives could well be in danger, and the weapon then has the usefulness of ensuring that we're protected.

So I don't see it so much as stuff-protection but rather personal-protection.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

Postby pimpdave on Sun May 15, 2011 4:41 pm

Woodruff wrote:If you shoot a mugger in the legs as they're running away, be prepared to be successfully sued for everything you've got.


This was a necessary post and not just completely repeating what I had just said at all. Thanks for contributing!
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class pimpdave
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:15 am
Location: Anti Tea Party Death Squad Task Force Headquarters

Re: Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

Postby Phatscotty on Sun May 15, 2011 4:42 pm

Woodruff wrote:
Mr_Adams wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Mr_Adams wrote:You give them your wallet, then wip the gun out as they run away. POP.

This is actually one of the more intelligent gun protection ideas.. not that I truly agree with it, but it is closer to a correct response.
The REAL answer is to get the police, but in poorer neighborhood (and sometimes even wealthy ones) that can take a very long time.


that's why you SHOOT THEM. Not fatally, though. legs, or something. aim for the crotch area, if you are feeling vindictive :twisted:


If you shoot a mugger in the legs as they're running away, be prepared to be successfully sued for everything you've got.


there is no reason to shoot someone when they are running away (unless they are firing at you). If you shoot an unarmed person while they are running away, then you most likely did something stupid. This just happened here in MN least week.

I cant find a link but this 60 year old convenience store worker/owner shot a couple kids in the back. there are bets going around whether this guy is gonna catch a charge and he very well might. what we dont know is if the criminal shot first and then ran, took the mans wallet and told him he'd come visit his wife sometime next week cuz he has their address, there are always different reasons but it happens. I wonder what happened to that guy in TX who shot the dude while he was on the phone with 911.

I did find this one from TX http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPuM_XAo2BE
Last edited by Phatscotty on Sun May 15, 2011 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

Postby Night Strike on Sun May 15, 2011 4:46 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:Yes, which is why parents take the time to teach kids how to use a fork. However, even those brought up in hunting families too often don't take the time to teach or learn themselves proper gun safety.


Wow. Before anyone in my family (both immediate and extended) has been taught anything about hunting, they were first taught how to safely handle a gun. Your lines are just part of the lies city people try to spread to outlaw guns. ANY hunter even halfway worth their salt knows that the most important part of hunting with guns is safety, with the second most important being conservation. It's not the hunting families that have the gun issues.

Mr_Adams wrote:OMG, not this shit again. we covered this over a year ago, dave. he is NOT the founder of anything. The tea party is the remnant of the 2008 Ron Paul campaign, and we are here for him in larger numbers this time around.


Don't worry, that's the only line of attack pimpdave has against the Tea Party. We should probably pity his lack of intelligent arguments against those people.

Woodruff wrote:
Mr_Adams wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Mr_Adams wrote:You give them your wallet, then wip the gun out as they run away. POP.

This is actually one of the more intelligent gun protection ideas.. not that I truly agree with it, but it is closer to a correct response.
The REAL answer is to get the police, but in poorer neighborhood (and sometimes even wealthy ones) that can take a very long time.


that's why you SHOOT THEM. Not fatally, though. legs, or something. aim for the crotch area, if you are feeling vindictive :twisted:


If you shoot a mugger in the legs as they're running away, be prepared to be successfully sued for everything you've got.


Which is one of the reasons our society is so screwed up: the criminals get more protections than the victims. People can't even defend their own homes and property from people who are trying to take from them everything they own. It's preposterous!
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

Postby Woodruff on Sun May 15, 2011 4:49 pm

Night Strike wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Mr_Adams wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Mr_Adams wrote:You give them your wallet, then wip the gun out as they run away. POP.

This is actually one of the more intelligent gun protection ideas.. not that I truly agree with it, but it is closer to a correct response.
The REAL answer is to get the police, but in poorer neighborhood (and sometimes even wealthy ones) that can take a very long time.


that's why you SHOOT THEM. Not fatally, though. legs, or something. aim for the crotch area, if you are feeling vindictive :twisted:


If you shoot a mugger in the legs as they're running away, be prepared to be successfully sued for everything you've got.


Which is one of the reasons our society is so screwed up: the criminals get more protections than the victims. People can't even defend their own homes and property from people who are trying to take from them everything they own. It's preposterous!


What? Night Strike, I am stunned to see you say that. Honestly...that's a horrific thing for you to say. Shooting at someone when there is no very serious threat to your life or welfare is obscene. I don't care what they took...it's just stuff. And if they're running away from you, then you're no longer "defending" ANYTHING.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

Postby Night Strike on Sun May 15, 2011 5:02 pm

Woodruff wrote:
Night Strike wrote:Which is one of the reasons our society is so screwed up: the criminals get more protections than the victims. People can't even defend their own homes and property from people who are trying to take from them everything they own. It's preposterous!


What? Night Strike, I am stunned to see you say that. Honestly...that's a horrific thing for you to say. Shooting at someone when there is no very serious threat to your life or welfare is obscene. I don't care what they took...it's just stuff. And if they're running away from you, then you're no longer "defending" ANYTHING.


Why would you be surprised? It's another case of entitlements, except the kind that involves breaking the laws. Criminals think they are entitled to someone else's property that when they get attacked for attempting to steal that property, they think that they deserve to bring charges on the owner. Not allowing people to defend their PRIVATE property is an even bigger injustice than what you posted from the Indiana Supreme Court. Sorry, but my property is NOT available for anyone to come and take as they please. If they want something I own, they can go out and earn their own. I should have the right to defend my hard-earned property. We no longer have property rights if anybody can come in and take whatever they want to take without repercussions. So much for No Trespassing signs if the homeowners get prosecuted for self defense.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

Postby Woodruff on Sun May 15, 2011 5:22 pm

Night Strike wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Night Strike wrote:Which is one of the reasons our society is so screwed up: the criminals get more protections than the victims. People can't even defend their own homes and property from people who are trying to take from them everything they own. It's preposterous!


What? Night Strike, I am stunned to see you say that. Honestly...that's a horrific thing for you to say. Shooting at someone when there is no very serious threat to your life or welfare is obscene. I don't care what they took...it's just stuff. And if they're running away from you, then you're no longer "defending" ANYTHING.


Why would you be surprised? It's another case of entitlements, except the kind that involves breaking the laws. Criminals think they are entitled to someone else's property that when they get attacked for attempting to steal that property, they think that they deserve to bring charges on the owner. Not allowing people to defend their PRIVATE property is an even bigger injustice than what you posted from the Indiana Supreme Court. Sorry, but my property is NOT available for anyone to come and take as they please. If they want something I own, they can go out and earn their own. I should have the right to defend my hard-earned property. We no longer have property rights if anybody can come in and take whatever they want to take without repercussions. So much for No Trespassing signs if the homeowners get prosecuted for self defense.


No, you are absolutely wrong about this, Night Strike. Absolutely wrong. I'm not at all saying you shouldn't be able to "defend your stuff"...however, shooting someone AS THEY'RE RUNNING AWAY is vile, under almost all circumstances. Absolutely vile. And isn't actually defending anything at all.
Last edited by Woodruff on Sun May 15, 2011 5:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sun May 15, 2011 5:41 pm

Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Yes, which is why parents take the time to teach kids how to use a fork. However, even those brought up in hunting families too often don't take the time to teach or learn themselves proper gun safety.


Wow. Before anyone in my family (both immediate and extended) has been taught anything about hunting, they were first taught how to safely handle a gun. Your lines are just part of the lies city people try to spread to outlaw guns.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I SHOULD tell you exactly where I live, but anyway.. it is in rural PA, my husband has more than a few guns, my stepsons and son were all shooting, as were most of my neighbor kids (not the drugheads, thankfully) by the time they were 5...

I am speaking of the city "dudes" who we have to deal with every year, and some pretty specific incidents where people were shot.

Anway... gotta go to a rousing game of UNO.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

Postby HapSmo19 on Sun May 15, 2011 6:52 pm

Woodruff wrote:...shooting someone AS THEY'RE RUNNING AWAY is vile, under almost all circumstances. Absolutely vile. And isn't actually defending anything at all.


Not vile at all. It's called "getting your stuff back".
User avatar
Lieutenant HapSmo19
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Location: Willamette Valley

Re: Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

Postby Night Strike on Sun May 15, 2011 6:53 pm

Woodruff wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Night Strike wrote:Which is one of the reasons our society is so screwed up: the criminals get more protections than the victims. People can't even defend their own homes and property from people who are trying to take from them everything they own. It's preposterous!


What? Night Strike, I am stunned to see you say that. Honestly...that's a horrific thing for you to say. Shooting at someone when there is no very serious threat to your life or welfare is obscene. I don't care what they took...it's just stuff. And if they're running away from you, then you're no longer "defending" ANYTHING.


Why would you be surprised? It's another case of entitlements, except the kind that involves breaking the laws. Criminals think they are entitled to someone else's property that when they get attacked for attempting to steal that property, they think that they deserve to bring charges on the owner. Not allowing people to defend their PRIVATE property is an even bigger injustice than what you posted from the Indiana Supreme Court. Sorry, but my property is NOT available for anyone to come and take as they please. If they want something I own, they can go out and earn their own. I should have the right to defend my hard-earned property. We no longer have property rights if anybody can come in and take whatever they want to take without repercussions. So much for No Trespassing signs if the homeowners get prosecuted for self defense.


No, you are absolutely wrong about this, Night Strike. Absolutely wrong. I'm not at all saying you shouldn't be able to "defend your stuff"...however, shooting someone AS THEY'RE RUNNING AWAY is vile, under almost all circumstances. Absolutely vile. And isn't actually defending anything at all.


I'm not talking about tracking down someone and taking the law into your own hands, I'm talking about while they're on your property, making sure they don't get off your property with your stuff. There's a major difference there.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sun May 15, 2011 7:19 pm

Nightstrike... just to continue my earlier interrupted comment, I speak as someone who lives with guns, lives in a area where hunting is a way of life... and while I WISH what you said were true, it sadly is not.

I see the jerk-offs who think having the money to buy a gun means they suddenly get to be rambo, but with a lot less sense, are doing more harm to hunting in this country than any other group. And, sadly, while the NRA used to be in the forefront of taking these people to taske, lately it seems they are too eager to justify every last person's right to own guns to really and truly take on anything but the kids. They do still, thankfully, spend a lot of time educating kids, but when it gets to adults they step back and defend folks who truly ought not to be defended.

AND, I talk to a lot of the moms in this area who are close to saying "no hunting for MY kid.." because of all the plain lunacy. The only thing that has begun to reverse things is that deer levels are way down in most of PA.

If you think I am in any way exaggerating, then I would say you, too, are becoming part of the problem. It is up to the hunting community and shooting sportsfolk to "police" themselves or soon we will find others doing it for us.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

Postby Night Strike on Sun May 15, 2011 7:28 pm

Just because some people can't be responsible with their rights doesn't mean you have the power to take them away from everybody.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sun May 15, 2011 7:40 pm

Night Strike wrote:Just because some people can't be responsible with their rights doesn't mean you have the power to take them away from everybody.

Now you are twisting what I am saying. Cops have more of a responsibility to catch bad cops than average citizens. Hunters and reasonable sportsmen have a responsibility beyond that of the general public to ensure that people with guns handle them correctly. That means heavy emphasis on education of youth, of course. It also means not simply standing by when you see someone being an idiot with a gun. I don't mean confronting them directly, but there are ways.

Sometimes, it very much does mean ensuring that there are laws to set limits because not everyone is smart enough to set those limits on their own. Just like some people speed, even by schools, so, too some people use guns way, way too close to houses, would not wear orange if it weren't required (yep, I know you take it off when hunting turkeys.. my 10 year old son just got his second tad bit of mom bragging, there.. he is quite the sportsman).

If hunters don't step in and agree with, set the limits that 99.99% of gun owners, sportsfolk would do anyway, then non-hunters and folks who dislike guns will do it for them. The NRA is setting itself up in such an extreme position that they are angering a whole lot more people than they are helping. But understand one thing... I am not out parading this in public. I am quietly, along with some other women, talking behind the scenes. And.. sorry, but I cannot get more specific here.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

Postby Night Strike on Sun May 15, 2011 8:09 pm

What more laws are needed? We have plenty of laws on the books already to keep guns away from criminals. And we have many other laws that keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens such as outright bans in some locations as well as burdensome registration fees, both of which are probably unconstitutional. The NRA has been fighting against MORE gun laws because the ones that are needed are already on the books. They just need to be followed properly (like many laws that the government doesn't actually follow, just so they can write more laws).
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sun May 15, 2011 9:05 pm

Night Strike wrote:What more laws are needed? We have plenty of laws on the books already to keep guns away from criminals. And we have many other laws that keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens such as outright bans in some locations as well as burdensome registration fees, both of which are probably unconstitutional. The NRA has been fighting against MORE gun laws because the ones that are needed are already on the books. They just need to be followed properly (like many laws that the government doesn't actually follow, just so they can write more laws).

I am not necessarily talking about more laws, though some are needed(mostly local ordinances to protect specific areas and such) .

If everyone were responsible than we should be perfectly safe in our houses, at the camps during hunting season (not counting the drunken idiot incidents particularly ... ironically they seem to be more self-contained..and mostly the guns are put away before). they are not. So, we do need laws. We need laws saying that you need to know not just what you see, but what is behind.. know of someone's house is there, etc. and don't shoot if you are close enough to hit that house (or the public restroom, etc.). We need laws saying gun shows cannot "demo" machine guns to 8 year old. etc.

And note, nothing in that is talking about taking away people's guns for protection or anything else. Laws are the boundaries that help control and teach idiots.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

Postby Night Strike on Sun May 15, 2011 9:13 pm

So are any of these new laws needed because of things actually happening or just to write new laws for the sake of writing them? Hunters already do these things.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun May 15, 2011 9:54 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:What more laws are needed? We have plenty of laws on the books already to keep guns away from criminals. And we have many other laws that keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens such as outright bans in some locations as well as burdensome registration fees, both of which are probably unconstitutional. The NRA has been fighting against MORE gun laws because the ones that are needed are already on the books. They just need to be followed properly (like many laws that the government doesn't actually follow, just so they can write more laws).

I am not necessarily talking about more laws, though some are needed(mostly local ordinances to protect specific areas and such) .

If everyone were responsible than we should be perfectly safe in our houses, at the camps during hunting season (not counting the drunken idiot incidents particularly ... ironically they seem to be more self-contained..and mostly the guns are put away before). they are not. So, we do need laws. We need laws saying that you need to know not just what you see, but what is behind.. know of someone's house is there, etc. and don't shoot if you are close enough to hit that house (or the public restroom, etc.). We need laws saying gun shows cannot "demo" machine guns to 8 year old. etc.

And note, nothing in that is talking about taking away people's guns for protection or anything else. Laws are the boundaries that help control and teach idiots.


Looks like you're talking about having more laws while saying you aren't talking about having more laws.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

Postby natty dread on Mon May 16, 2011 4:35 am

I think Player makes some good points.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class natty dread
 
Posts: 12877
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:58 pm
Location: just plain fucked

Re: Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

Postby natty dread on Mon May 16, 2011 4:37 am

Some years ago, a former friend of mine pulled a gun on my head and pulled the trigger. The gun was empty. If it hadn't been, I wouldn't be here posting now.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class natty dread
 
Posts: 12877
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:58 pm
Location: just plain fucked

Re: Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

Postby PLAYER57832 on Mon May 16, 2011 7:43 am

Night Strike wrote:So are any of these new laws needed because of things actually happening or just to write new laws for the sake of writing them?
Each of those refers to one or more specific incidents. I picked ones on the national news and that were discussed here in the forums even (though a few months ago), because (as always) I don't want to give out "identifying information".


Night Strike wrote:Hunters already do these things.

Sometimes, but lately the NRA is in the forefront of saying any legislation any limits are just bad, on principle.. no matter what.

Look at your first knee-jerk response to what I said. And, I want to be clear about something else. These are things I am saying to hunters, to sportsfolk... either myself or through a network of wives. (in this case, that is not a generality. We are all wives). I am not out parading on the downtown streets of the veggie-ville section of SF.. or even Pittsburgh. I have spoken privately to some legislators, with very specific details and information.

But, here is my greatest concern. Although I live in a hunting area now, I actually did not grow up with hunting, per se. My father is European and just did not hunt. (its for wealthy people there). However, neighbors did. The neighbors, along with my parents made sure I knew that real guns and bows and arrows were all dangerous, not toys. "Avoid them until you get older" was the absolute lesson. At the same time, I was brought up to understand that hunting, like farming, was part of "where we got our food". We ate venison, wild pig, etc. (Growing up on a farm, I certainly had no qualms about eating meat!). Sure, it was as much about sport. Later, my father made sure I knew how to shoot, to be safe around a gun in action (finances had more to do with my dropping it once past the basics than anything else).

I always associated the NRA with that ethic... hunting, and shooting for sports. It was a positive message. Not something for everyone, but positive. In many locals, mostly rural areas that still holds. Now, though, on the national level, it seems it has become more about everybody has to have a gun to defend their house... and "gun" can include a machine gun or semi-automatic if that is what folks want. By mixing all those issues, they lose a lot of the credibility they once had with non-shooters, non-hunters. AND, are alienating a great deal of people, even those in the hunting community.

Yes, the negativity is much more found in the women. However, I am not talking about prissy city girls. (The "prisses" here may have their nails done, but chances are they also know one end of a gun from the other ;) ). I am talking about women with father and brothers who hunted, who married hunters and then saw one too many incidents that make them question whether they really want their sons involved. Sometimes, if the husband is not really much into it anyway, they are part of hunting dying off in that family. Sometimes, they quietly "simmer" or say just a little... but believe me, there is an absolute change.

Of course, you have some "push back", but ironically, some of that actually makes it worse. Because, as I said, these are not women who just grew up hating guns and were "taught" that hunting is "bad", etc. So, when the first reaction is like you gave me... well, most won't bother to take the time to say "Hey.. NO! You have it wrong".

Like just about anything, when people stop listening, stop communcating, then the battle is already lost. In this case, hunters and shooting sports aficianados are far, far outnumbered by those who have barely seen a gun, except on TV and to whom a gun means gangs/soldiers or violent crimes. So, if hunters and sportsfolk want to keep having what they have, keep having their say, they need to actually take the time to LISTEN to the non-hunters and concerned alike.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

Postby Woodruff on Mon May 16, 2011 12:24 pm

natty_dread wrote:Some years ago, a former friend of mine pulled a gun on my head and pulled the trigger. The gun was empty. If it hadn't been, I wouldn't be here posting now.


That doesn't have much to do with "gun laws" really, though. That applies much more to "adrenaline rushers" and "those who are suicidally aggressive about enjoying themselves".
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

Postby PLAYER57832 on Mon May 16, 2011 12:46 pm

Woodruff wrote:
natty_dread wrote:Some years ago, a former friend of mine pulled a gun on my head and pulled the trigger. The gun was empty. If it hadn't been, I wouldn't be here posting now.


That doesn't have much to do with "gun laws" really, though. That applies much more to "adrenaline rushers" and "those who are suicidally aggressive about enjoying themselves".

Unless the friend was a child (or you were at the time), then it gets to instruction, safety, control and education (of parents and children).
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

Postby Woodruff on Mon May 16, 2011 9:14 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
natty_dread wrote:Some years ago, a former friend of mine pulled a gun on my head and pulled the trigger. The gun was empty. If it hadn't been, I wouldn't be here posting now.


That doesn't have much to do with "gun laws" really, though. That applies much more to "adrenaline rushers" and "those who are suicidally aggressive about enjoying themselves".


Unless the friend was a child (or you were at the time), then it gets to instruction, safety, control and education (of parents and children).


Which again don't have much to do with "new gun laws". I haven't seen ANY gun laws that designate that instruction, safety, control and education of parents and children should not take place. I HAVE, however, seen gun laws that designate that instruction, safety, control and education of parents and children SHOULD take place.

So I'll have to disagree with you on that point.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

Postby Phatscotty on Mon May 16, 2011 9:25 pm

gun control, naked

Image
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue May 17, 2011 2:15 pm

Woodruff wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
natty_dread wrote:Some years ago, a former friend of mine pulled a gun on my head and pulled the trigger. The gun was empty. If it hadn't been, I wouldn't be here posting now.


That doesn't have much to do with "gun laws" really, though. That applies much more to "adrenaline rushers" and "those who are suicidally aggressive about enjoying themselves".


Unless the friend was a child (or you were at the time), then it gets to instruction, safety, control and education (of parents and children).


Which again don't have much to do with "new gun laws". I haven't seen ANY gun laws that designate that instruction, safety, control and education of parents and children should not take place. I HAVE, however, seen gun laws that designate that instruction, safety, control and education of parents and children SHOULD take place.
So I'll have to disagree with you on that point.

Yes, and no. The NRA is all in favor of voluntary education, does a GREAT deal of it. However, talk about legally increasing the requirements and they almost always object. There are a few narrow exceptions in regards to education of kids, but not many.

But I have said as much as I care to on it for now.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users