THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

Intrepid wrote:

Troll

Liar.

You sure are dishonest, even for a kook.

0 Replies

Which one of you guys is playing the grownup here?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Which one of you guys is playing the grownup here?

If someone is lying about me, is it childish to call them a liar?

It'd be nice once in a while to have a decent discussion about gun rights without the anti-gun people spewing lies and/or bigotry.

0 Replies

Lies & Bigotry = differing opinions and facts?

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Nothing overrules our right to keep a military rifle at home. In fact, I have one. The fact that it is registered does not take away any freedom..

Yeah it does. Historically the first steps involved in the nazi and communist programs to deprive their citizens of firearms and hence ultimately of any political power began with massive registration programs, so the government would know where all non-government-owned weapons were when they went to round them up.

Americans view the ownership of weapons as a natural right superior to the rights of governments, which is basically incompatible with the idea of governments requiring that weapons be registered. You can't really HAVE a right like that if governments can regulate or control it.

Other than that, the psychology of control freaks is not sated with the banning of firearms. There are other things out there to ban as well, certainly including archery equipment, cricket bats, tire irons.....

There is now a strong push in England to ban knives over a certain length. Where does that one end? I mean, forks are also weapons of sorts. Is the once proud and free Englishman ultimately doomed to opening a can of dogfood into a bowl on the floor, and getting down on the floor and lapping it up?

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Yeah it does. Historically the first steps involved in the nazi and communist programs to deprive their citizens of firearms and hence ultimately of any political power began with massive registration programs, so the government would know where all non-government-owned weapons were when they went to round them up.

This is - at least for Germany (re Nazis) - a historic nonsense: registering of arms is known here at least 120 years earlier - I own a registration from 1810 myself (for an hunting rifle).

Though that might be considered as a regional abnormality under the French occupation, the first laws re registering weapons in Germany were made in 1918 and 1919 - clearly nothing to do with Nazis at all.

However, the right (= Nazis) didn't follow these laws, so a stronger one was made in 1922 (with follow-up laws in 1927 and 1928).

The Nazis later turned the whole procedure by 180° = only they were allowed to have firearms (that's in short).

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

blatham wrote:
oralloy wrote:
blatham wrote:
Note the sexual-dominance braggadocio which underlies posts by oralloy, omsig, cjhsa and others.

Please grow real penises you are actually proud of, boys.

It isn't necessary for you to spew bigoted stereotypes like a Klan dragon.

Interesting charge. Moreso for the particular element excerpted as subject for the charge (my claim that the US demonstrates a pathological level of violence didn't merit inclusion). We also note the verb choice and the odd analogy.

I'm curious if you've ever told people who believe in a cause that they all suffer from sexual issues and had it lead to a meaningful conversation.

Ever gone into a biker bar and announced that people who ride Harleys need to grow a real penis?

blatham wrote:
Each one of the folks I mentioned above (plus some others) predictably write posts wherein America's proper stance in the world is imagined or portrayed as admirably aggressive, confident, broad-shouldered, take-no-guff, shoot first and ask questions later (or never), we are way tougher than everyone else, etc etc.

That is a reasonable portrayal, seeing as how we are the current empire on this planet.

blatham wrote:
This tenor in your posts as inevitable as the morning sunrise. The sexual dominance (that is, desired dominance) characteristic of it is utterly impossible to miss.

Some men need a manly uniform to feel manly enough. Some need a manly weapon to feel manly enough. Some need to pretend that their flag and their group ought to represent warriorness, all erect and sturdy like a big dangerous boner.

That is nothing but a stereotype, and like all stereotypes is completely untrue and highly offensive.

It is little different from the nonsense the KKK spews about non-whites.

Stereotypes, rather obviously, aren't "all completely untrue". Let's take one you offered to me about a year ago..."I'm tired of democrats' hypocrisy." Or your suggestion above regarding the folks who sit in biker bars. Or perhaps your analogy last week where you described Chavez as another Adolf Hitler. Or we could take the TV show "Cops" which could properly be retitled as something like "Watch Black People Running From Helicopters".

Here's a swell example, a partial list of indentifying characteristics used by the FBI in 1943 to spot subversives...

Quote:

"Does he mix with Negroes? Does he seem to have too many Jewish friends? Does his face light up when the Red Army is mentioned? Is he always criticizing Vichy France? Does he buy out-of-town newspapers? Do you think he is excessive in opposing fascism or Nazism?"

Better to define them as generalizations, usually derogatory, often lazy-minded, serving as caricatures (eg cartoons of DeGaulle featuring his nose). Like all generalizations, they aren't dependable predictors at the level of individual cases. Not everyone who owns a gun will also be a macho man or a zestful militarist or an American who might easily ignore the deaths and maiming of hundred of thousands - even millions - on the "reasonable" basis that the perpetrator holds current world empire status. Jimmy Carter probably owns some guns.

And if you want to go on insisting that this all has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual dominance behaviors, I sincerely recommend that you stay completely away from all research on the other primates.

And you definitely do not want to go back and read what a couple of the Republican females on this board said, when George strutted on the deck of the "Mission Accomplished" carrier, regarding how that uniform showed off his impressive "package".

0 Replies

And then, there's this photo...

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/10/06/foleyphoto/cover.jpg

Sorry, just could not resist.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

snood wrote:
Which one of you guys is playing the grownup here?

If someone is lying about me, is it childish to call them a liar?

Yes, it is childish. Especially when they are not lies. If you think they are....list them. So far I have seen liar responses to points of fact and opinion. Rolling Eyes

Quote:

It'd be nice once in a while to have a decent discussion about gun rights without the anti-gun people spewing lies and/or bigotry.

In other words.....It'd be nice once in a while to have a decent discussion about gun rights without the anti-gun people disagreeing with me.

0 Replies

kiwimac wrote:

Lies & Bigotry = differing opinions and facts?

To oralloy it is.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Nothing overrules our right to keep a military rifle at home. In fact, I have one. The fact that it is registered does not take away any freedom..

Yeah it does. Historically the first steps involved in the nazi and communist programs to deprive their citizens of firearms and hence ultimately of any political power began with massive registration programs, so the government would know where all non-government-owned weapons were when they went to round them up.

Americans view the ownership of weapons as a natural right superior to the rights of governments, which is basically incompatible with the idea of governments requiring that weapons be registered. You can't really HAVE a right like that if governments can regulate or control it.

Other than that, the psychology of control freaks is not sated with the banning of firearms. There are other things out there to ban as well, certainly including archery equipment, cricket bats, tire irons.....

There is now a strong push in England to ban knives over a certain length. Where does that one end? I mean, forks are also weapons of sorts. Is the once proud and free Englishman ultimately doomed to opening a can of dogfood into a bowl on the floor, and getting down on the floor and lapping it up?

Given the government that you have, I can understand your fear.

You first say knives over a certain length. Then, you go on to compare that to forks and opening a can of dogfood.

Pity.

0 Replies

Don't quite care for the idea of the Englishman lapping food up from a bowl on the floor, you say?

There are other possibilities. One would be going to some sort of a government feeding site and saying:

Quote:

"Pardon, but my government feels I cannot be trusted with knives or other dangerous kitchen utensils. Would you mind feeding me?

Like that better?

0 Replies

How can we keep guns and still guarantee responsible ownership and use? I dont think we can so.

1we must limit access to guns

2we must invent guns that cease working when they sense that the user is off their rocker

3 we allow a certain amount of wanton slaughter to go on with the proviso that gun manufacturers are liable for extreme damage claims (like 100s of millions per claims made, and the erps are killed along with their entire gene pool..

0 Replies

kiwimac wrote:

Lies & Bigotry = differing opinions and facts?

No. Bigoted stereotypes about gun owners' penises are have nothing to do with any facts, and if anything detract from any discussions about facts.

Intrepid's incessant lying also had nothing to do with any facts of the issue. They were nothing but untrue personal attacks against me.

To be blunt, Intrepid is incapable of actually addressing any facts. However, if you guys can refrain from using the word "penis", I think I could engage you and Blatham in a pleasant discussion of the facts of this issue.

However, I am in the midst of the first of two busy weekends with relatives visiting, so I am not sure how much I'll be online for the next couple days.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Don't quite care for the idea of the Englishman lapping food up from a bowl on the floor, you say?

There are other possibilities. One would be going to some sort of a government feeding site and saying:

Quote:

"Pardon, but my government feels I cannot be trusted with knives or other dangerous kitchen utensils. Would you mind feeding me?

Like that better?

No less ridiculous than the first one.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

kiwimac wrote:
Lies & Bigotry = differing opinions and facts?

No. Bigoted stereotypes about gun owners' penises are have nothing to do with any facts, and if anything detract from any discussions about facts.

Intrepid's incessant lying also had nothing to do with any facts of the issue. They were nothing but untrue personal attacks against me.

To be blunt, Intrepid is incapable of actually addressing any facts. However, if you guys can refrain from using the word "penis", I think I could engage you and Blatham in a pleasant discussion of the facts of this issue.

However, I am in the midst of the first of two busy weekends with relatives visiting, so I am not sure how much I'll be online for the next couple days.

Bullshit! Can you provide evidence of even one lie? You seem incapable of knowing the difference between a lie and something you do not agree with. You also make it sound as if I was making penis references. I DID NOT.

Making a statement that someone is incapabable of addressing facts is idiotic. I doubt that you could engage anyone in a pleasant discussion.

0 Replies

I wonder how many pro-gun-freedom advocates have this opinion.

If abolishing gun ownership would stop all murder, I'd be the first on the bandwagon--but we know it won't.

Additionally--and more seriously--freedom is a big deal to me. If we start taking **** away from people to control their behavior--what if gun violence isn't what the "controlling establishment" was focused on--

What if it was extramarital sex, or subversive thinking...? You don't mind wrestling guns away from people, but when they come for your books and your porno, you may feel a bit differently.

I really don't think taking stuff away from people is the way to go. The deviant behavior isn't caused by the item--video games, porno, violent films, guns--but by people. Personal responsibility isn't a catch phrase. Are there any anti-gunnites who at least get this, though they don't agree with it?

It is unfair and incorrect to stereotype pro-gun ownership people as blood thirsty or uncaring about national violence. Could the anti-gun lobby understand that some of us sincerely believe that the government mandated removal of personally owned firearms is more dangerous than the status quo.

0 Replies

I agree with that, Lash. At the same time, I've grown tired of a few pro-gun one trick ponies who think that the solution to violence is more guns in more places.

But I'm glad I have the right to mine, and I hope that if I ever need to use it I will have to balls to do it.

0 Replies

Thanks, FD. Nice to see you. I agree with the "too many guns in too many places" statement.

I had a Peeping Peeker last week, and my gun made me sane for a few tense days.

I would probably be haunted for the rest of my life if I had to use it--but I choose haunted to traumatized because of an assault--or dead.

0 Replies

Again aside from every sort of problem involving freedom, there would be a long list of things which the control freaks would start working at banning the day after they banned private ownership of firearms.

Algor and a large group of his fellow de-mokkker-rats would be right in there trying to get privateownership of motor vehicles banned, and you can be sure that they'd be out after privately owned archery equipment.

Knives would be banned, along with axes and hatchets. I mean, clearly, Jack the Ripper and Elizabeth Bordon never owned a gun between them.

Sex other than for producing children would likely be banned and the war on drugs would likely be extended to include alcohol.

"Archery equipment??" you ask....

Basically, anybody who's halfway good with a modern compound bow set at 70 lbs or over can hit a soccer-ball sized target at 100 yards, and it doesn't make any noise. The arrow will appear to rise six or eight feet over the height of the target, and fall into it.

In fact, if you ever took a modern compound bow set at 80 lbs and aimed it up at a 40 degree angle like you see the British doing in movies, the arrow would never come down. Or it it did, it wouldn't come down in your county.

Consider that AfterShock is now claiming to be achieving ten second kills on cape buffalo with their 125 grain mechanical broadheads; a 375 safari rifle can't do that. They've damned near made firearms obsolete for hunting. In fact, their web site shows a girl with a 45-lb bow and a 450-lb boar hog she killed with it:

http://www.aftershockarchery.com/

http://www.aftershockarchery.com/images/layout/hypershock_sm3.gif

http://www.aftershockarchery.com/images/prostaff/wohlfeil_1.jpg

0 Replies

THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know