This Makes Me Sick

@revel,

You ruined your entire argument by calling a man "crazy" when he was obeying the law.

He had committed no crime, was not under arrest, had a legal right to carry that weapon, and was carrying it safely.

For you to call him crazy shows an apppalling lack of knowledge on your part concerning guns, and the safe handling of them.
It also shows your bias against anyone owning firearms.

As for owning tanks, people have already tried to say it was in the 2nd amendment, and have always lost that arguement (and rightfully so).

But, you continue to show your bias and ignorance.

3 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

You ruined your entire argument by calling a man "crazy" when he was obeying the law.

He had committed no crime, was not under arrest, had a legal right to carry that weapon, and was carrying it safely.

While he had a legal right to do so, he was showing poor judgment in doing so.

Quote:

For you to call him crazy shows an apppalling lack of knowledge on your part concerning guns, and the safe handling of them.
It also shows your bias against anyone owning firearms.

It's not illegal to own jars of hydrochloric acid, but it's questionable when you start hauling them around with you.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

You ruined your entire argument by calling a man "crazy" when he was obeying the law.

How does that ruin Cycloptichorn's argument? Being crazy, in and of itself, is perfectly legal.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Because I didnt say it to Cyclo.
I said it to revel.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Since being crazy is legal even if it's revel who complains about it, revel's argument stands un-ruined as well.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Please show where I said being crazy was illegal!!!

I said that to call a person that is OBEYING THE LAW crazy ruined revels entire arguement.

1 Reply

@Bi-Polar Bear,

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

pussy, pussy, pussy why did we oust the repubs when they obviously still run things?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32437468/ns/politics-white_house/

Too bad we don't have Hillary in there BPB.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

It was just plain crazy to carry an assault riffle to a highly charged event filled to the brim with tension, or perhaps I should have used Cyclop's word and said it showed a lack of judgement on that guy's part.

I do not see any thing wrong with owning and using regular fire arms and hunting riffles, I live in Kentucky and everyone I know has at least three or four, but it is another kettle of fish all together when someone takes an assault riffle to shoot at some poor innocent deer blowing it to smithereens. A regular gun (I am not up on guns so substitute whatever kind)will do just as well.

I don't see why it would be covered in the second amendment to own assault riffles but not any other kind of weapon. Since you said rightfully so, maybe you can explain it to me.

2 Replies

@revel,

revel wrote:

when someone takes an assault riffle to shoot at some poor innocent deer blowing it to smithereens. A regular gun will do just as well.

Actually, a "regular gun" is more likely to blow a deer to smithereens than an "assault rifle" is. "Regular" rifles have higher velocity and a larger caliber bullet, bigger bullets flying faster cause more damage.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

yup.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Please show where I said being crazy was illegal!!!

I said that to call a person that is OBEYING THE LAW crazy ruined revels entire arguement.

The point is that just because it is legal doesn't mean it isn't crazy. They are not mutually incompatible.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Yea, i read that somewhere on the Internet after i wrote that post.

I know it was legal for that guy to carry that weapon, it just seems to me to be troublesome for these protesters to be carrying around weapons close to the President especially given the death threats he has been getting since becoming president and before.

1 Reply

@revel,

revel wrote:

Yea, i read that somewhere on the Internet after i wrote that post.

So, do you retract this statement?

Quote:

I do not see any thing wrong with owning and using regular fire arms and hunting riffles, I live in Kentucky and everyone I know has at least three or four, but it is another kettle of fish all together when someone takes an assault riffle to shoot at some poor innocent deer blowing it to smithereens. A regular gun will do just as well.

Or do you have another reason, not previously listed, to "see anything wrong" with someone owning an "assault rifle".

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Well, when I wrote the first; I was under the impression that an assault riffle shoots out a lot of bullets at one time thereby blowing a deer all apart making it pretty useless to either hang as some kind of trophy or eat as meat. Apparently I was wrong in my assumption. I also freely admit my complete ignorance about guns and their different models and makes. (I am still not sure exactly what an assault rifle does vs. a regular rifle, but i read enough to know i don't know what i am talking about and will leave it at that.)

However, none of that has any bearing on whether it is good idea to carry around assault weapons in public or not especially around the president of the US, I just think it is troublesome and bears watching as the police must think it as well or they wouldn't be watching them.

2 Replies

@revel,

revel wrote:

Well, when I wrote the first; I was under the impression that an assault riffle shoots out a lot of bullets at one time thereby blowing a deer all apart making it pretty useless to either hang as some kind of trophy or eat as meat. Apparently I was wrong in my assumption. I also freely admit my complete ignorance about guns and their different models and makes. (I am still not sure exactly what an assault rifle does vs. a regular rifle, but i read enough to know i don't know what i am talking about and will leave it at that.)

Fair enough. It's an honorable position you arrived at. If you'd like to learn more, there are plenty of gun related threads on this board.

Quote:

However, none of that has any bearing on whether it is good idea to carry around assault weapons in public or not especially around the president of the US, I just think it is troublesome and bears watching as the police must think it as well or they wouldn't be watching them.

Understood.

0 Replies

@revel,

revel wrote:

However, none of that has any bearing on whether it is good idea to carry around assault weapons in public or not especially around the president of the US, I just think it is troublesome and bears watching as the police must think it as well or they wouldn't be watching them.

I have always considered pistols to be defensive weapons, and rifles to be offensive. I don't know of a single military that routinely issues pistols to enlisted infantry, for example. Anyhow, I seriously question the judgement of anyone who carries either in close proximity to the President of the US, if for no other reason than that police and Secret Service already have enough to keep themselves occupied. There are other reasons, of course.

1 Reply

@roger,

This is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

The usual justification for carrying a weapon is that it "makes one safer." This person is determined to exercise his 2nd amendment rights, in spite of the fact that it places him and others in greater danger.

Of course, carrying a weapon is often in defiance of the actual evidence, which shows that having a weapon in the home actually makes people less safe.

0 Replies

@revel,

What part of KY?

I live about 25 miles west of Henderson/Evansville.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

I'm not sure what's here to make you sick. Compromise is all part of the American political process.

Weren't you one of the folks really pissed off when Bush ran roughshod over all opposition?

that's a fair question Drew Dad and my answer is that bush ran roughshod over the opposition to send young people to war , instituted ignorant useless color code alert systems, allowed war profiteers to get filthy rich on the blood of innocents, (I'd like to know the ratio of terrorists who were killed to innocent civilians and our people), stopped stem cell research, purposely and viciously painted American soldiers who honorably served as communist sympathizers and Un-American, wrote legislation to put those in Chapter 13 beholding to pay their credit card debt before their medical expenses and obfuscated important issues with bullshit like Schiavo..... I could go on.

With healthcare, we're talking about running roughshod over the opposition in order to be able to see the doctor and still eat and pay your bills. Give me some roughshod in this case.

1 Reply

All these gun carrying jerkoffs screaming about their rights to own as many guns as they want at HEALTHCARE reform meetings.

I believe a person should be able to have sex with animals if that what floats their boat but I wouldn't show up at a town hall on an unrelated issue with my dick in a swan to make my point.

idiots.

0 Replies

This Makes Me Sick

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know