Because they don't believe in true liberty. Liberal is a misnomer for them.
Hey what's with the Nordic profiling,they can't all be crooks.what's next,damn eskimos Iluak,and Sialuk must have killed all them seals
no one is gonna take away America's guns.. whine and whine about it though :D sleep with it and kiss it, make sure everyone knows how you love it, whether they're threatening it or not, you're so cool
As opposed to those liberty loving conservatives who want to limit free speech and allow the government to arrest and hold anybody indefinitely.
This is a common scare tactic of the right.
("sleep with a *GUN",
I mean.. which I'm sure some of you do :D)
At least conservatives don't pretend they're for freedom. Their intolerance is in plain view.
BWAH HA HA HA HA!
That's some pretty mean paranoia you have there, RightWing. Do you take medication for it?
If the crime is so bad that teh only way to defend onesself is to pack heat, I suggest there is a *much* bigger problem than gun control going on.
Plus, the last thing I want is someone calling themselves RightWing_Anything to be walking around packing a gun. I've seen how you can indiscriminately wield Karma ... you want us to trust you with a GUN?!?
Quinn the Nordic Profiling is because I am of Scandinavian decent.
Cathexis, you take this site and karam WAY to seriously. Karma and a Gun are very different issues.
If you don't like us owning guns then move to Canada.
Once your guns are gone they can do whatever they want. For example look at the trouble they got into when they murdered babies at Waco. Even if David Koresh was guilty of what the Feds said, he wasn't eligible for the death penalty. And certainly noone can argue that children as yound as 6 months would be eligible for the death penalty because of the crimes of their parents.
Besides, the very first thing ADOLF HITLER DID WAS TO TAKE THE GUNS AWAY FROM THE PEOPLE.
Well written Confident.
Yeah, but the percentage of Democrats that want to take all your guns away, is about the same percentage of Republicans who want to reinstate segregation. Neither of them are large. Don't confuse not wanting people to have AK47's with taking "all" your guns away. That's why I say its a scare tactic.
I think the proportion of Democrats that want to take away our 2nd amendment rights is much higher than the proportion of Republicans who want to bring back legal segregation. Now Democrats are lobbying for racist government policies on a daily basis.
A number of reason. The majority of anti-2nd amendment democrats are probably well meaning but ignorant. They see that innocent people get killed by guns and think that by eliminating guns you can eliminate gun crime. They don't know or don't care to realize that most gun crimes are committed by people using illegally aquired weapons. They ignore the amount of crimes prevented by private citizens using firearms and only focus on their misuse. Besides which they inflate the number of gun deaths every year, lumping suicides and self defense in with murders and accidents. People would kill themselves without access to firearms and using them in self defense is precisely what they are intended for. I believe these are the majority of anti-gun democrats. Which is fortunate, they can simply be educated and change their minds.
Then there are those holywood idiots who simply want attention and some cause to give meaning to their lives, they are a tiny minority and can be ignored, because they are simply spoiled, bored idiots.
Then there are those who don't like the fact that ownnership of firearms puts too much power in the hands of individuals. They don't like this, they wish to create a permanent victim mentality among american citizens, where we are kept constantly dependent on the government for everything we could possibly need, employment, education, healthcare, security, etc. They wish to make us all dependents because this is how they keep and expand their power. These people do NOT have the best interest of america in mind, and they CANNOT be reasoned with. I sincerely hope they are a tiny minority, but unfortunately they are overrepresented in congress.
All I can say is that from personal experience I know no Democrat who wants to take away all the guns, and I live in Southern California, an area you conservatives commonly claim to be the most liberal in country.
yeah after you take away Bigger guns, you will start going for smaller guns.
Of course they don't start out by taking away all firearms, that would cause a national uproar. You start with the big scary ones, like say any weapon that has been modified to look like a machine gun we'll call them 'assualt weapons' for convenience. Then you work out a way to limit ownership of pistols, like say by strict liscensing. Then you work your way up, only allowing a few hunters to get permission to carry rifles or shotguns (because we all know the 2nd amendment was about hunting). Then start issuing fewer and fewer liscenses, and there you have it, eventually nobody in the US is allowed to legally own firearms, except the police and military of course. And each one of these steps was done in tiny increments, nothing that any 'peace loving' citizen could oppose.
Ok look at this situation.
John is a student at Washington middle school. Bob is a student at Washington middle school. Bill is the father of Bob and a proud owner of a 30 round AK-47. John one day decides he doesn't like Bob so he hits Bob. Bob gets mad and fights back. Bob hears a rumor from the school that John will bring 4 friends to beat him up. The next morning Bob brings his fathers AK-47 to school and fires 8 rounds in Johns car killing Johns mother, John and his infant brother. It turns out that that was a false rumor. It's a wonderful world isn't it?
Chuck is a legal owner of a semi-automatic Tech 9. Chuck hears that a gang that his brother use to be in is planning a drive by on his house. Not wanting to involve the police Chuck loads his Tech 9 and waits for the gang. Chuck sees a car that looks like the car of the gang but doesn't shoot right away. The car window opens up and out of instinct Chuck pops 15 rounds randomly into the car. It kills everyone inside of the car and a stray bullet ends up killing a bystander on the other side of the street.
Now do you see where I'm going with this?
If a kid wants to get a gun, he'll get it. How many people do you know that own assult weapons? Most gun owners either own Pistols, Rifles and Shotguns. Takeing away firearms from law abiding citizens won't solve anything.
Story 1: an americans gets pissed off at the US government because he believes it is being run by jews, so he gets a van and several hundred pounds of fertilizer and kills 600 people in an FBI building. No firearms were used, only an automobile and fertilizer, none of which are regulated as to who can get them.
Story 2: another person believes the US is being run by zionists, although he's not an american. So he get's some of his buddies to hijack several planes with boxopeners and crash them into various buildings. Killing thousands. Boxopeners are not regulated, neither are airplane tickets.
Now, what have we learned? Well we've learned that if you want to kill someone you can do it quite easily using unregulated and legal items, without ever once picking up a gun.
Herzog, homeland security and security on the airlines can stop people from doing that. But I doubt anyone can stop a .223 from exiting a barrel of a rifle.
Please answer this honestly.
Is it easier for a group of people to take over a plane with assault rifles than box cutters?
It's simple, the benefits of legal guns outway the problems they cause.
cc: Nah ... seeing as you have no real input into framing the question, I think I'll stick around.
Yes, guns and K are two different things.
But judgment, maturity, and responsibility apply across the board.
You think just because someone is entrusted with something lethal that they'll sudden;y become responsible?
I think not.
Actually, I have mixed feelings on guns.
Unfortunately, I don't have mixed feelings about how responsible everyone is to be entrusted with them.
LD: it's nearly impossible to get assualt rifles on to planes.
Having assualt rifles on planes is illegal anyway, using them to hijack a plane is illegal anyway, using them to kill someone is already illegal. Given that these people are willing to break all these laws, how much are they going to worry about violating US gun laws?
These terrorists came in from overseas, they don't need to buy a gun here, they could simply pick up an ak-47 in the middle east for about $50.
They could get the guns from the same person they got their stolen passports from, her-blog.
First of all, I personally do not believe all guns should be taken away. Secondly, we have always assumed that certain rights have restrictions. You have the freedom of speech, but not the right to yell "fire" in a theater or incite a riot. Why, because the overall public safety in those situations outweighs the right of the individual. For some of the weapons that can kill tens of people in a matter of seconds, I believe the overall public safety should outweigh the person's right to that particular gun. Secondly, on the slippery slope argument, could you then say that the current administration will soon be able to arrest anybody who disagrees with them, because now they have repeatedly arrested people and held them without bail without evidence because they believed they could be associated with terrorists. Lastly, please explain to me exactly how you think the government would ever be able to actually confiscate all the weapons. Seems as unlikely as the US turning into a dictatorship.
Herzog, if you say he can get one in the middle east for 50 dollars and can't take it on the plane than that would mean he can only get it in the US. I was using it as an example. Let me ask a different form of the same question. Is it easier to take over a theater of 400 people with assault rifles or box cutters?
LD: Why did you bother to label John, Bob, and Bill as "Person A", "Person B", and "Person C" and then proceed only to use their actual names in your story?
To identify the number of people in the story. Why don't you ask Republican Rightwing the same question?
LD: taking over a movie theatre with any weapon is illegal yes? So why would they be concerned with breaking a much smaller, and less severe law while committing murder?
Besides which, machine guns are ALREADY illegal, outlawing them again would do nothing. Murder is illegal, it still happens, so the solution must be to create a new law stating that murder is still illegal and you shouldn't do it, huh?
Murder has been illegal in this country for some 250 years but how do you prevent murder is the problem. One way of lowering the murder rate is by illegalizing assault rifles. I may have said this in the past but maybe they won't kill many people but they sure do make this country more blood thirsty and a way to reduce that is by making guns not accepted in society.
herzog, you owned this one.
Sure, you just keep telling that to yourself. Maybe one day you'll be right.
Walter: " LD: Why did you bother to label John, Bob, and Bill as "Person A", "Person B", and "Person C" and then proceed only to use their actual names in your story? "
LD: " To identify the number of people in the story. "
Contrary to your own popular belief, LD, Republicans are capable of counting on their own.
" One way of lowering the murder rate is by illegalizing assault rifles. "
Ever heard of the Black Market?
P.S. Republican_Rightwing didn't come up with some stupid story in which he unnecessarily labeled people. In fact, he didn't tell any story at all on this ballot, so why would I pose the same question to him as I did to you?
** karma **
When I become a Super God Iím going vote him down to Village Idiot.
by RepublicanRightWing on Dec 15, 2004
Never gonna happen RRW! Since you have been back, you have pissed everyone off!!
And, you have 2 usernames that I know of
Republican_Rightwing and then one without the dashes. Wonder how many others you have??
Are you sure this is the same guy? I disagree with R_R a lot, but he hasn't been trollishly obnoxious like this.
Cath: I think it's a different guy. Notice that the RRW has an underscore in his name, this joker doesn't.
Ah, that's already been pointed out, nevermind.
Anyway he doesn't seem like the same guy. His style is completely different and R_RW seems to agree with me on this subject based on the ballot wording.
This idiot is mobsie666. Sorry about this idiot guys.
The whole point of coming up with multiple user names is anonymity. Reregestering under practically the same name doesn't really make alot of sense. It wouldn't really help me to come up with the new user name 'herzog2'. So I declare this jackass a troll and will rate him down accordingly.
Herzog and Cathexis, you guys make a lot of sense. Thanks! Now I don't feel as bad, but if it is Mobsie, what he wrote to me on my user page and in another ballot was particulary cutting...I thought I knew him. :(
** karma **
I thought I'd said this before, but I guess not. So, here it is, one time only. Please take notes where applicable.
I personally do NOT want to take your guns from you. Abridging anyone of a single right provides irresponsible politicians with the necessary ammunition to take MORE of our rights. If you want your guns, have them, and enjoy them. I just want to know who you are and where you live, so that I can keep me and mine as FAR AWAY from you as possible, because you're statistically more likely to shoot an innocent person than you are a guilty one. And we won't begin to venture into the area of what happens when your gun is stolen or found by someone in your house who has no business with it...
Ok look at this situation
Take Criminal A. We'll call him Sven. Take Citizen B. We'll call him Olaf.
Sven wants to rob Olaf of his wallet. Olaf does not want Sven to do so, but Olaf is a good citizen so he obeys the law. The law says he cannot have a gun so he doesn't. He has a large knife, which the law allows.
Now Sven is not a good citizen; he is a criminal. His nature is to break the law. So, even though the law says he cannot have a gun, Sven gets one anyway.
Now Sven visits Olaf. Olaf shows Sven his legal knife. Sven shows Olaf his illegal gun. Sven leaves with Olaf's wallet.
This type of situation will happen if you take away law abiding citizen's guns.
I'm a Democrat and I don't want to take away anyone's 2nd Amendment right (with the exception of felons).