• Back at the office or school? Still working from home? Need to vent, or just connect with other planner and built environment types? Come join us!

    Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing or masks required.

Do you own firearms?

Do you own any firearms?

  • Yes, I do.

    Votes: 13 29.5%
  • No, I don't.

    Votes: 26 59.1%
  • I would like to buy one in the future.

    Votes: 1 2.3%
  • Firearms should be outlawed.

    Votes: 4 9.1%

  • Total voters
    44
Messages
7,628
Points
29
I don't own one. My husband used to, probably still does. I am not sure. If he does, it is secure and out of my sight, like his collection of knives and shuriken. However, I can readily find his wooden practice sword.

And my bow is in the shed.

Columbine: they blithely ignored the fact that several gun control laws were broken in order for the under-aged individuals in question to get hold of guns and promptly responded by trying to pass more gun control laws.

To quote Archie Bunker "Would it makes yuh feel any better if they was pushed out of windows, little girl?" Before we had guns, we had a class of assassins for hire.
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,699
Points
24
Re: honest answer-and troll alert!

BKM said:
Not sure Iike the idea of automatic weapons, though. Does the Second Amendment imply that you have the right to own and operate a howitzer? A battle tank?

The US government limits private weapons to less than 20mm. Someone mentioned they had a musket. That more or less is the private limit.

Explosives are controled substances to include black powder. You can leagally have all the black powder you want but it is controlled.

Automatic weapons are tightly controlled by the government and include an extensive background check and modifications to the place of storage is madatory.
 

Budgie

Cyburbian
Messages
5,262
Points
30
Rumpy Tuna said:
Its also alot easier to kill a person with a car than a knife.

I agree with you completely there. Why do you think I bought a Segway?

Sure your typical criminal may come into possession with one, but rest assured if they were banned the black market price would go up greatly, thereby pricing "Joe teenager" out of the market. Columbine happened because the guns were too easy to get.
 

Rumpy Tunanator

Cyburbian
Messages
4,463
Points
25
Re: honest answer-and troll alert!

We're all living in the matrix. This is not for real.

If we didn't have have the right to bear arms, how would you overthrow the government? Use a board with a nail in it against a police/military force with weapons? Eventually the time will come for change in government and if the people of this country are not armed, how will we overthrow the government? Sit down and play "paper, rocks, scissors" with them, best out of three?

With all of our rights and civil liberties being taken out of the constitution nowadays (Patriot Act, etc.), I'm glad to know that I can still have a gun incase they try and search and seize my home without warrant.
 

Rumpy Tunanator

Cyburbian
Messages
4,463
Points
25
Budgie said:
I agree with you completely there. Why do you think I bought a Segway?

Sure your typical criminal may come into possession with one, but rest assured if they were banned the black market price would go up greatly, thereby pricing "Joe teenager" out of the market. Columbine happened because the guns were too easy to get.

Yes I agree with you about the prices in the black market going up, but I think if "Joe teenager" really wanted to kill someone, he'd surely find a way.
 

Budgie

Cyburbian
Messages
5,262
Points
30
Duke Of Dystopia said:
Columbine did not happen because of the guns. Columbine happened because the damnable popular kids with thier shit they throw at each other managed to destabalize thier less than well socialized peers.

If those two had committed suicide like they were suposed too, nobody would have cared if they had been driven there by thier piers, business as usual. Instead, they took some of the rat bastards with them. Some deserving some not. But blame it on guns? No, those two were motivated, they would have taken a few of the worst offenders to thier miserable lives with them regardless.

How many would they have killed with knives? Social disfunction is a major problem (take me for example). But is making it easy for social disfunction to manifest itself in mass murder through the easy availablity of guns, o.k. Don't you think that if guns were harder to get ahold of we wouldn't see a wave of copy-cat incidents? Copy cat incidents, although rarely as dramatic as the original event, occur on a whim and wouldn't occur if the means were not sitting in front of them.

Guns don't kill people, People kill people -- True !!!! Form follows function, so guns do what? Deter crime? No, they are used to kill and injure. When was the last time you used a gun to prepare dinner? Ah, but you would use a knife to make dinner infinitely more times than you'd use a gun.

True guns are also used as a pastime at firing ranges and for hunting, but with such a narrow reasonable use, doesn't the benefits out weigh the loss of enjoyment at the range?
 

Rumpy Tunanator

Cyburbian
Messages
4,463
Points
25
Budgie said:
Guns don't kill people, People kill people -- True !!!! Form follows function, so guns do what? Deter crime? No, they are used to kill and injure. When was the last time you used a gun to prepare dinner? Ah, but you would use a knife to make dinner infinitely more times than you'd use a gun.

I used my gun to start the microwave and open the can of cream corn last night. Also comes in handy as a remote control.
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,699
Points
24
Re: Re: Re: Exactly !!!

Budgie said:
I said military service and police service - NOT COMBAT !!! Believe me there are plenty of military jobs, especially in the Air Force that can be done perfectly well.

Let's keep in mind that this is a internet form, not a thesis.

First off, I usually respect the points of view you put up here, even in this. My issue is that I believe you are simplifying many different social issues and blaming them on the firearm.

I understand these points above. I reiterate, trusting ANY government not to abuse its power is laughable and you did not respond. So I assume you have trust issues with the government as well.

in the mid 1990's, there were over 100 groups considered to be in armed opposition to US gov interests. I bet that list has grown.

Would you really trade your freedoms for safety? If so, how long do you really think you would be safe? How long would you be safe from the growing swell of "armed criminals and thugs" you helped to create?

Also, in a military, how do you separate a military combatant from a noncombatant? If they wher a uniform, they are combatants with no illusions. Here is a better question, how do you leave your military training behind when you go back to civilian life? Why would you? Your well trained malitia lives around you and they are normal people? Why do you automaticly assign criminal intent or blame to that?
 

Budgie

Cyburbian
Messages
5,262
Points
30
Rumpy Tuna said:
Yes I agree with you about the prices in the black market going up, but I think if "Joe teenager" really wanted to kill someone, he'd surely find a way.

But will he kill in mass? It's not sexy to kill people with poison, but it sure is flashy to do it in black trenches and large fire power.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,461
Points
29
If we didn't have have the right to bear arms, how would you overthrow the government? Use a board with a nail in it against a police/military force with weapons? Eventually the time will come for change in government and if the people of this country are not armed, how will we overthrow the government? Sit down and play "paper, rocks, scissors" with them, best out of three?

I remain skeptical. If one of Ashcroft's Storm Troopers were knocking at the door without a warrant and you tried to pull your weapons on them it wouldn't be a victory "for the patriot," it would be WACO or Ruby Ridge-and you would be dead. (And the news media would be proclaiming how "crazy" you were) Personal ownership of weapons is NOT the way that we will maintain our freedoms.

More seriously, I find a bigger threat to MY freedoms the very culture celebrated by the crazier Second Amendment advocates. Its a culture of rural bigotry, "manly violence" and patriotism as a (fundamentalist) religion. The NRA LIKES the right wing forces you mention in your post.

And no, I am not saying anyone on this board by any means follows this creed-I am not attacking anyone HERE personally.

But, the abortion clinic/gay bar/Olympics bomber was protected by the exact kind of armed, rural, fundamentalist culture I am talking about for months and months and months.
 

Rumpy Tunanator

Cyburbian
Messages
4,463
Points
25
Budgie said:
But will he kill in mass? It's not sexy to kill people with poison, but it sure is flashy to do it in black trenches and large fire power.

They could have easily used a poisonous gas. Look what happen in Japan on the subway.
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,699
Points
24
Budgie said:
How many would they have killed with knives? Social disfunction is a major problem (take me for example). But is making it easy for social disfunction to manifest itself in mass murder through the easy availablity of guns, o.k. Don't you think that if guns were harder to get ahold of we wouldn't see a wave of copy-cat incidents?

So your major point is that if we can just limit everybody to the most dimwitted, most impressionable, mentally unbalanced, nurotic, childish, and otherwise most limited of behavior everything will be just wonderfull?

Society by lowest common denominator?

WOW, and you wonder why conservatives are afraid.

Hmmm, let me see. A nut of average intelligence, gets really pissed off at someone and just happen to have a pilots license. He rents a cesna and loads it up with gass cans and flies it into a crowd. You prevented the nut from mass killing with a gun?

Do you get a blue ribon for making them more inventive?
 

Jeff

Cyburbian
Messages
4,159
Points
27
Rumpy Tuna said:
They could have easily used a poisonous gas. Look what happen in Japan on the subway.

....and don't forget how easy it is to make ricin.

Did you know you can kill someone with a tin of Copenhagen? Each can has a lethal dose of nicotine, the nicotine can be extracted through a very easy process using your stove....

Copenhagen doesn't kill people....people kill people.
 

Rumpy Tunanator

Cyburbian
Messages
4,463
Points
25
BKM said:
I remain skeptical. If one of Ashcroft's Storm Troopers were knocking at the door without a warrant and you tried to pull your weapons on them it wouldn't be a victory "for the patriot," it would be WACO or Ruby Ridge-and you would be dead. (And the news media would be proclaiming how "crazy" you were) Personal ownership of weapons is NOT the way that we will maintain our freedoms.

More seriously, I find a bigger threat to MY freedoms the very culture celebrated by the crazier Second Amendment advocates. Its a culture of rural bigotry, "manly violence" and patriotism as a (fundamentalist) religion. The NRA LIKES the right wing forces you mention in your post. /B]


Not everbody that owns guns is a crazed, racist, fundamentalist, right wing force. But yes thats what everybody associates second ammendment supporters with. I just feel that I should have the right to arm myself and overthrow the government if need be. If we never had guns to overthrow the british rule, we'd still be wiping the queens ass.
As for Asscrock's storm troopers, that idiot was here a few weeks ago pushing the Patriot Act, and surprise, only law enforcement and the media were aloud to attend, no ordinary tax paying citizen. Gee, only two groups aloud that control the public and inform it (most of the time biased to make you afraid).
Now I'm going bowling.
 

Rumpy Tunanator

Cyburbian
Messages
4,463
Points
25
Mike D. said:
....and don't forget how easy it is to make ricin.

Did you know you can kill someone with a tin of Copenhagen? Each can has a lethal dose of nicotine, the nicotine can be extracted through a very easy process using your stove....

Copenhagen doesn't kill people....people kill people.

Damn Straight, its in the anarchist cookbook and the poor man's james bond.
 

Rumpy Tunanator

Cyburbian
Messages
4,463
Points
25
Rumpy Tuna said:
Not everbody that owns guns is a crazed, racist, fundamentalist, right wing force. But yes thats what everybody associates second ammendment supporters with. I just feel that I should have the right to arm myself and overthrow the government if need be. If we never had guns to overthrow the british rule, we'd still be wiping the queens ass.
As for Asscrock's storm troopers, that idiot was here a few weeks ago pushing the Patriot Act, and surprise, only law enforcement and the media were allowed to attend, no ordinary tax paying citizen. Gee, only two groups allowed that control the public and inform it (most of the time biased to make you afraid).
Now I'm going bowling.

Damn, I need to learn how to speel
 

Budgie

Cyburbian
Messages
5,262
Points
30
Re: Re: Re: Re: Exactly !!!

Duke Of Dystopia said:
I reiterate, trusting ANY government not to abuse its power is laughable and you did not respond. So I assume you have trust issues with the government as well.


"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." - Hermann Goering, at the Nuremberg Trials

And who said history doesn't repeat itself.

Would you really trade your freedoms for safety? If so, how long do you really think you would be safe? How long would you be safe from the growing swell of "armed criminals and thugs" you helped to create?


IMO, I am safer not owning a gun than I would be if I did. I'm not free to own marijuana, I'm not free to own plutonium, I'm not free to own a vile of anthrax. These are freedoms I live without and perhaps I'm better for it. The same can be said for guns. The recreational use of marijuana is probably just as safe as the recreational use of guns. When's the last time you've heard about someone dying from a freak weed accident?

Also, in a military, how do you separate a military combatant from a noncombatant? If they wher a uniform, they are combatants with no illusions. Here is a better question, how do you leave your military training behind when you go back to civilian life? Why would you? Your well trained malitia lives around you and they are normal people?


You should have asked Al Gore and Shrub about separating military combatant from a noncombatant. Jessica Lynch is a good example. She was a noncombatant in harms way, but there are clerks at an Air Force base in Clovis, New Mexico who wear a uniform everyday and will never see action. there are thousand upon thousand of uniform wearing military personnel who might have annual PT tests and the occassional alert and that's it. It's not hard to draw the line. Most military jobs have a civilian counterpart. Even special forces have civilian jobs, they are military consultants for Northrup Drummond. On Friday they take off their military uniform and put on a tie on Monday. This may not be true for all, but it is true for most. You're right, your well trained militia is around you and that militia should include normal people such as gays, the elderly, children, single-mothers. Eyes on the street, survillence and knowing your neighbor. That's were safety and crime prevention begins. Not with arming every Tom, Dick and Harry.


Why do you automaticly assign criminal intent or blame to that?
When did I do this?
 

Budgie

Cyburbian
Messages
5,262
Points
30
Duke Of Dystopia said:
So your major point is that if we can just limit everybody to the most dimwitted, most impressionable, mentally unbalanced, nurotic, childish, and otherwise most limited of behavior everything will be just wonderfull?

Society by lowest common denominator?

WOW, and you wonder why conservatives are afraid.

Hmmm, let me see. A nut of average intelligence, gets really pissed off at someone and just happen to have a pilots license. He rents a cesna and loads it up with gass cans and flies it into a crowd. You prevented the nut from mass killing with a gun?

Do you get a blue ribon for making them more inventive?

Please explain to me how my major point equates to society by lowest common denominator. If you really believe that's my point, you have a very narrow definition of what makes someone smart. I suppose your major point is that only smart stable people carry guns. You can't be as stupid as your statement concerning my major point leads me to believe. If you're on this board your smarter than to come up with your interpretation of my "major point".

You're assuming that it takes smart people to operate a gun. IMO if you own a gun, you have already dropped yourself to the same level as the dimwitted criminal. And to believe it makes you safer is an absolute farce.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,461
Points
29
And I am certainly not a gun control fanatic, either. (I think its too late :) )

Not everbody that owns guns is a crazed, racist, fundamentalist, right wing force. But yes thats what everybody associates second ammendment supporters with. I just feel that I should have the right to arm myself and overthrow the government if need be. If we never had guns to overthrow the british rule, we'd still be wiping the queens ass.

I never stated that everyone who owns a gun is a nut. Just that there is a certain culture that holds guns in a little too high regard. Forgive me if I don't feel much fondness for many representatives of said culture.

I AGREE with you that everyone should have a right to own a weapon for basic self-defense. I am somewhat skeptical about the efficacy of such guns, but the jury is out, and the argument that widespread ownership of guns by ordinary citizens can help reduce crime has been suggested by some (albeit inconclusive) studies

As for the Queen, if the British had had mass media propaganda, efficient police and military forces, weapons of mass destruction, and full bore modern intelligence agencies, then even a population where everyone owned a handgun would still be drinking milk in their tea. That is one area where my skepticism remains :)
 

Budgie

Cyburbian
Messages
5,262
Points
30
Duke Of Dystopia said:
Hmmm, let me see. A nut of average intelligence, gets really pissed off at someone and just happen to have a pilots license. He rents a cesna and loads it up with gass cans and flies it into a crowd. You prevented the nut from mass killing with a gun?

The scenario you mention is possible, but how often will this happen? Once every three years? How many people get shot in the United States everyday due to a fit of passionate brief hatred? Your resorting to infinite obscure examples only further proves the point that it is too easy to buy a gun and put rash plans of violence to fruition.

Isn't "fruition" one of a planners favorite words.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,986
Points
31
It aint about hunting or self defense - Those are side issues.

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of Amercia from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Thus, I keep and bear arms. Re-write the 2nd Ammendment all you want - you revisonist pansies. ;) Debate it all you want. Pass all the laws you want. You'll never get mine while I am alive. Period. If you get them at all, you'll get mine from my corpse. I plan to fight smart.

I took an oath to defend the Constitution - as written - not as a living document. The day I left the service the oath didn't expire.

You are free today because a few patriots have stayed armed and vigiant throughout our history. Once disarmed you will be the government's bitch, and rightfully so.

Yes BKM, I may not get a stormtrooper (anyone confiscating guns from a law abiding citizen) in the battle myself, but others like me will. That is the deterent. When the history of the 3rd American Revolution is written we will be on the right side. All gorllia revolutions are fought up close.

And Yes, I really am that militant. As W says; Bring it on.

I hope I was clear on where I stand. :)
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,461
Points
29
Funny, El Guapo. My recollection of US History has been that every time a few rabid "patriots" have risen up against the evil U.S. government, (Shay Rebellion/Whiskey Rebellion, The Civil War, the KKK (an armed rebellion in reality), WACO, Ruby Ridge, The Republic of Texas nutcases, the Black Panthers, the SLA), there has not been a lot of succcess. I remain skeptical that your gun ownership is the reason we are free.

Nonetheless, I would never presume to deny anyone the right to bear arms (subject to the "well regulated" clause). Consitutional provisions aside, I see no practical way or justifiable reason to "disarm the population."

With that comment in mind, and as guns are really not that IMPORTANT to me, I too lay my comments on this thread to rest, as well.
 

Wannaplan?

Ready to Learn
Messages
3,237
Points
30
Did anyone see Bowling for Columbine?

Let's not forget Michael Moore. He owns a gun. Doesn't seem to like them much, either. He also exaggerates facts in his films. Is he a gun nut?

bowling.jpg
bowling_for_columbine_150.jpg


movie_reviews2-1.jpg
bfc.gif
 

Budgie

Cyburbian
Messages
5,262
Points
30
Re: It aint about hunting or self defense - Those are side issues.

Since you used the work "pansy", I consider the gloves off. Try not to trip over yourself.

el Guapo said:
I took an oath to defend the Constitution - as written - not as a living document.


Which American City did you save from eminent distruction?

So I guess, slavery is still valid, since that was the first interpretation as written prior to amendments. You took an oath to protect the constitution but not the people of the United States. Bush and Ashcroft have been the biggest unilateral revisionist of the Constitution since McCarthy. My earlier quote from Hermann Goering makes it abundantly clear what the game plan is. Right now we are giving up the freedom of privacy to the book police in the name of "safety" since we are constantly under a "terrorist alert", which periodically increases without "a specific threat" so that we can keep the ducks in line. El Guapo, do I have you to thank, since you defended the unamendible Constitution.

You are free today because a few patriots have stayed armed and vigiant throughout our history. Once disarmed you will be the government's bitch, and rightfully so.


Yes, I know you and Timothy McVeigh were tent mates.

That is the deterent. When the history of the 3rd American Revolution is written we will be on the right side. All gorllia revolutions are fought up close.


I find this disturbing. Koresh, McVeigh, Manson? 3rd American Revolution? You've clearly killed any credibility you ever had, unless of course your God given right to blow someones head off is all the validation your life needs.
 

Budgie

Cyburbian
Messages
5,262
Points
30
BKM said:
Consitutional provisions aside, I see no practical way or justifiable reason to "disarm the population."


Yet, landscaping is a legitimate use of the police power. The irony and inconsistency in this clear cut "bear arms" country is unbearable.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,986
Points
31
You took an oath to protect the constitution but not the people of the United States.
Them too. And I executed the lawful orders of the officers apointed above me. If that involved going somewhere and killing someone, well them's the orders.

El Guapo, do I have you to thank, since you defended the unamendible Constitution.
No - Your silence would be thanks enough.

Bush and Ashcroft have been the biggest unilateral revisionist of the Constitution since McCarthy. My earlier quote from Hermann Goering makes it abundantly clear what the game plan is. Right now we are giving up the freedom of privacy to the book police in the name of "safety" since we are constantly under a "terrorist alert", which periodically increases without "a specific threat" so that we can keep the ducks in line.

Off topic. I'm not defending those actions - see if you can find a quote where I say "the patriot act be good." Back on subject please.

Yes, I know you and Timothy McVeigh were tent mates.

and here is some more

I find this disturbing. Koresh, McVeigh, Manson? 3rd American Revolution? You've clearly killed any credibility you ever had, unless of course your God given right to blow someones head off is all the validation your life needs.
For this my friend you get a well considered: Piss Off Asshole.

The above is why I have no desire to drink a beer with you. Let's pass on the social engagements. I guess the gloves are off forever now. :)
 

Zoning Goddess

Cyburbian
Messages
13,843
Points
40
Mike D. said:
Was it loaded and in the front seat with you when you were travelling up the east coast?

Of course not. It was in a holster in a locked glove box.

My junior year, between Daytona and Jacksonville, I was behind a guy in an older model car who pulled a rifle as he pulled alongside a semi. He was trying to get a good angle for a shot. Another car (found out later, with 4 guys from SUNY Stony Brook), also saw what was happening. Shouting to each other, we decided they would try to keep cars from coming up to that car, and I would get off the highway and call the cops. Which I did. When I got back on the highway and approached Jacksonville, several highway patrol cars had the nutcase pulled over, spread-eagled on the ground, with at least a dozen rifles lined up along the side of his car.

I am a pretty rational person. I never considered pulling my gun and trying to do anything.

The only reason I keep it now is in case my insane ex- tries to get near me or my son when we're at home.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,986
Points
31
Zoning Goddess said:
The only reason I keep it now is in case my insane ex- tries to get near me or my son when we're at home.

It comes down to this: Budgie wants to take your gun away from you -period. I want to leave you the hell alone to make your own judgments on how best to insure your family's safety.

Who are you going to vote for in your next local, state and federal elections? I trust you and feel safer with you packing after some training. Budgie wants the government to ensure your safety at their normal efficient rate of error-free service delivery. Who's your real friend?
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,699
Points
24
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Exactly !!!

Budgie said:
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." - Hermann Goering, at the Nuremberg Trials

Yup, people are easy to control, except they have this tendency to do thier own thing or get out of control. If people were so easy to control, we never would have made it out of the dark ages.

Budgie said:
"And who said history doesn't repeat itself.

Not me, I believe it does, which means I don't trust my own government for a reason

Budgie said:
"IMO, I am safer not owning a gun than I would be if I did. I'm not free to own marijuana, I'm not free to own plutonium, I'm not free to own a vile of anthrax. These are freedoms I live without and perhaps I'm better for it. The same can be said for guns. The recreational use of marijuana is probably just as safe as the recreational use of guns. When's the last time you've heard about someone dying from a freak weed accident?

The point is not weather YOU are safer owning gun or what social issues you support. The issue is why you feel the need to control others if they so choose.

Budgie said:
"You should have asked Al Gore and Shrub about separating military combatant from a noncombatant. Jessica Lynch is a good example. ...

However you want to split hairs, when your name is on the lists of the armed forces, you are a combatant. Triger puller or support makes no difference.

As far as ascribing criminal intent, you give that value to those who would need to be controlled by what you fear. Control means a number of individuals are the target of your "control". That control is called a "Law". "Laws" asses penalties for breaking the "control boundaries". It can't be sugarcoated.
 

Suburb Repairman

moderator in moderation
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
7,452
Points
36
When my Granpa died a few years back he gave me his 12 ga shotgun. I don't know all that much about brands of guns, etc., but I have taken several gun safety courses (usually 1 a year). All I can tell you is the gun is really frickin old! I have never shot a living thing with the gun mainly because I don't need food and would rather buy meat somewhere than go through the hassle of cleaning/gutting. I use it only for shooting clays to blow off stress.

As with any proper high school student at a country school, I had to make a potato gun! :)
 

H

Cyburbian
Messages
2,846
Points
24
Do states still allow gun racks in trucks? I never see guns in them anymore, rather bats or something. Unless I am at a hunting camp, then there are guns, but that is private property.
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,699
Points
24
Budgie said:
Please explain to me how my major point equates to society by lowest common denominator. If you really believe that's my point, you have a very narrow definition of what makes someone smart. I suppose your major point is that only smart stable people carry guns. You can't be as stupid as your statement concerning my major point leads me to believe. If you're on this board your smarter than to come up with your interpretation of my "major point".

You're assuming that it takes smart people to operate a gun. IMO if you own a gun, you have already dropped yourself to the same level as the dimwitted criminal. And to believe it makes you safer is an absolute farce.

On the contrary, I think the vast majority of people have no need or desire to carry a gun. Myself included. I believe the VAST majority of people, including the POLICE! that do carry firearms do not need to do so.

I think most people of real intelligence stay away from issues and places where guns would be used. Like many gun owners, I know others who shouldn't have them. However, I don't feel the need to spite my face by cutting off my nose.

I know as many if not more people that should not be allowed to have kids, drive a car, drink, operate heavy machinery and more.

As per the discussions above, I assume you want society by lowest common denomonator as you pick out all of the reasons associated with poor use of fire arms to ban them. For instance; the columbine kids, LA bank robers, unbalanced individuals, kids playing with guns and criminals with illegal access to guns. Nobody as of yet, wants to allow these people unfettered access to fire arms. If we are banning these weapons because of your fear and worst case scenarios, that is society by lowest common denomonator. It is the equivelent of making adults watch Barny the purple dinosaur to prevent kids from seeing stuff that is intended for older audiences. Its called making the lowest common denomonator the rule that governs society. As such, I reject that.
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,699
Points
24
Budgie said:
The scenario you mention is possible, but how often will this happen? Once every three years? How many people get shot in the United States everyday due to a fit of passionate brief hatred? ....

I could think of many more, not so obscure. Have in fact had to for work, but I am keeping those to myself and away from others that might use them. There is death by auto that occurs every day.
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,699
Points
24
Re: Re: It aint about hunting or self defense - Those are side issues.

Budgie said:
...You took an oath to protect the constitution but not the people of the United States. Bush and Ashcroft have been the biggest unilateral revisionist of the Constitution since McCarthy. My earlier quote from Hermann Goering makes it abundantly clear what the game plan is. Right now we are giving up the freedom of privacy to the book police in the name of "safety" since we are constantly under a "terrorist alert", which periodically increases without "a specific threat" so that we can keep the ducks in line. ...

I find this disturbing. Koresh, McVeigh, Manson? 3rd American Revolution? You've clearly killed any credibility you ever had, unless of course your God given right to blow someones head off is all the validation your life needs.

You live in a state of hopelessness that the right side of the government is after your freedoms and you are going to lie down and take it without a fight? You would disarm yourself for them in order for a dry bed at night? You deserve no safety and no freedom.

In each of the cases where there was a rebellion you mentioned, the after effects were taken quite seriously and changes were made. A few people seemed to have stood up and had thier lives destroyed, but they did have an impact.
 

SkeLeton

Cyburbian
Messages
4,837
Points
26
As always I support things in balance, some people should be allowed to own guns, and I'm not refering just to the military and police forces... But there can't be too much ease to obtain firearms. It's all about control, not too much and not too little. For an example, Chile has some gun laws that are a bit too strict, which should be eased a bit in order for it to be easier to have a gun legally with all the implications and responsabilities that should be applied, these laws should be 'liberalized' a bit, in order to lower the illegal gun tennment that is quite high right now. It can't be too liberal, like being able to buy ammo on your local big box... such sales should have it's price, and it's place, and more places where there is a hunting tradition.
JMHO
 

The Irish One

Member
Messages
2,266
Points
25
I have a bow and arrow

I don't own a gun. I've thought about it but if I do I will take a few classes to really immerse myself from a purely educational understanding of the weapon, atleast a year of solid study. This is the deal from my point of view. A person should be able to buy a gun, a person should be trained before they buy it. I wouldn't mind dishing out my hard earned tax dollars to support a nationwide mandatory gun class in every elementary, middle and high school, even college. It would be just like math and english. I can't emphasize how much education changes peoples perceptions and actions. As for the government and not trusting them, well I trust the government to control peoples behaviors, ie. drug use -, your perceptions of the world and even own country, speed limits. I'd like to have a couple of guns if the government ever took over, but if they really wanted to get rid of me, there is nothing a good dose of agent orange won't take care of. My solution to good responsible gun ownership is mandatory education. This won't stop bad people with guns, nothing will! It will decrease accidents and give confidence to youths and adults unsure of what the weapons are capable of and good storage procedures.
 

Wulf9

Member
Messages
922
Points
22
Somewhere back on page 2, I made a point that gun makers should be held to product liability laws and that an owner should be responsible for whatever is gun does.

Some responders took that as an anti-gun argument. However, it was the conditions under which I think guns should be legal.

The argement was made that a car can kill someone. Cars have a lot of product liability issues and, because of that, are much safer than they were 50 years ago. Also, cars require registration and insurance. If a car is taken for some reason, the insurance goes with it. I would feel a lot safer if guns were treated the same as cars.
 

Budgie

Cyburbian
Messages
5,262
Points
30
el Guapo said:
Them too. And I executed the lawful orders of the officers apointed above me. If that involved going somewhere and killing someone, well them's the orders.

So who's the bitch? Were you? If I'm not mistaken you said if you give up your arms you become a bitch of the government, but it sure sound like you got there by picking them up. Them's the order.
 

Budgie

Cyburbian
Messages
5,262
Points
30
el Guapo said:
For this my friend you get a well considered: Piss Off Asshole.

The above is why I have no desire to drink a beer with you. Let's pass on the social engagements. I guess the gloves are off forever now. :)

Yes, I've alienated El Guapo, first. I knew he'd be easy. ;)
 

Budgie

Cyburbian
Messages
5,262
Points
30
el Guapo said:
It comes down to this: Budgie wants to take your gun away from you -period. I want to leave you the hell alone to make your own judgments on how best to insure your families safety.

Who are you going to vote for in your next local, state and federal elections? I trust you and feel safer with you packing after some training. Budgie wants the government to ensure your safety at their normal efficient rate of error-free service delivery. Who's your real friend?

Where did I say, I want to take your gun away from you? I said, that they need to be harder to get. I'm not here to be anyone's friend. I suppose my philosophy should be, "I think I'll be best friends with the next developer to come through my door and wink at blatent disregard for zoning and building codes". Hey, who's your buddy.

How knows best in this matter? Who faces this issue everyday? The police !!!! I bet those who know best will clearly say, "make guns harder to get". Ask the out fire powered LAPD. It's not a matter of government telling the people, it's a matter of the people telling the government. Right wingers fail to grasp that regulations are not contrived solely by buearcrats. They come from the people. Diversity exists in this country and to paint such a black and white portrait of this issue based on the first incarnation of a 230 year old living document, which has been interpreted and reinterpreted is little more than believing oneself to be wise.

Who's your real friend? Not the people who make these legislative decisions.
 

Budgie

Cyburbian
Messages
5,262
Points
30
At this point, I have every reason to fear retribution from gun slinging militants. Because, GOD dammit, I'm unamerican, unchristian and anti-gun. I guarantee the gun carriers are polishing and loading their pieces. Who's my friend?
 

Jeff

Cyburbian
Messages
4,159
Points
27
Re: I have a bow and arrow

The Irish one said:
I wouldn't mind dishing out my hard earned tax dollars to support a nationwide mandatory gun class in every elementary, middle and high school, even college. It would be just like math and english.

The NRA has been trying to do this for years through their "Eddie Eagle" program which teaches youngsters on the dangers of firearms, not to play with them, etc. But heaven forbid we bring the NRA into our schools. They may be perceived as .... dare I say .... rational or informative?
 

Jeff

Cyburbian
Messages
4,159
Points
27
Budgie said:
Where did I say, I want to take your gun away from you? I said, that they need to be harder to get.

This is the point that always drives me up a wall.

How much harder do you want to get? Should we make a trek across the Antarctic to visit Ye Ol Gun Shop? It is already illegal for felons, mental patients, alcoholics and drug addicts (who've been 302'd), dishonorable military personnel, fugitives ,etc to buy guns.

Furthermore, it is also illegal to sell said firearms out of the back of your trunk to school kids.

Also, it is illegal to shoot anyone except for self-defense with said firearms. It is illegal to brandish said firearms in a threatening manner, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Anti gun nuts .... get on the judges to enforce the freaking laws of this country. Leave me the hell alone.
 

Wannaplan?

Ready to Learn
Messages
3,237
Points
30
Re: Re: I have a bow and arrow

Mike D. said:
The NRA has been trying to do this for years through their "Eddie Eagle" program which teaches youngsters on the dangers of firearms, not to play with them, etc. But heaven forbid we bring the NRA into our schools. They may be perceived as .... dare I say .... rational or informative?

I want the local Ninja Training Association to come to schools and teach the children of America the dangers of swords, nunchukas, and shurikens. Proper awareness of the dangers of sharp objects and blunt instruments ensures a civil society for everyone.
 

Tom R

Cyburbian
Messages
2,274
Points
25
Re: guns

Tom R said:
Winchester Model 94 .32 Winchester Special (Looks just like a 30-30)
It was my father's deer rifle. Probably from the '50s. Hasn't been fired in 20+ years.

I looked the serial # up. It's from 1952.
 

Jeff

Cyburbian
Messages
4,159
Points
27
Re: Re: Re: I have a bow and arrow

Alan said:
I want the local Ninja Training Association to come to schools and teach the children of America the dangers of swords, nunchukas, and shurikens. Proper awareness of the dangers of sharp objects and blunt instruments ensures a civil society for everyone.

Write your congressman. He could probably point you in the right direction to get a program started in your area.

Kids are back to playing with shurikens again? Whod've thunk it? I thought they lost popularity with the advent of M203 grenade launcher.
 
Top