Gun Nuts - Gun Haters

Discussion in 'Politics' started by John Q. Public, Oct 31, 2003.

  1. Is there any point in trying to have a discussion about lethal firearms with a man who insists on making inane comparisons with guns and automobiles? I think not.

    I seriously misjudged your wisdom. logic, and rationality. I will not be likely to misjudge them in the future.

    It is pointless to address such absurd arguments, so I won't.
    #21     Oct 31, 2003
  2. There is none - for no one has seriously suggested such a thing.

    And is it not amusing to think that a disorganized band of ragtag Jews could have fought off a government that was taking down well armed and trained armies left and right.

    But I know...details, details.
    #22     Oct 31, 2003

  3. This is not a compromise. First, a compromise implies both sides get something they do not have. At this point the gun owners have it all. So what do they get out of the deal?
    Second, it is outright confiscation cloaked in the language of seemingly apparent reason. Therefore, IMO, the premise of compromise is simply not true.

    Your statement that "only irresponsible gun owner would be opposed" is not true either. Since the only realistic way to meet the so called compromise is to not own any guns. IMO, the only people who will suport this are ones who do not now own guns.

    A more reasonable approach to reducing violence by gun is to "fingerprint" all new guns and their owners making it easier to trace a bullet to its source. Or, requiring electronic locks that permit only the owner capable of firing the weapon. Although it is debateable either of these like many of the other attempts at this issue would work either. Unfortunately, the statistics I've looked at support almost any position on gun control, depending on whose statistics you look at.

    The only way any reasonable person could meet this "compromise" without undue risk is to give up any guns they own since the possibility of theft, etc while small is still finite, and the punishment so severe that the risk/reward is too high. The risk is essentially infinite while the reward is trivial. I do not know many reasonable people who would take that. This reminds me of some option strategies that are touted as 95+% accurate but have a average win/ avg. loss ratio so bad that when that infrequent loss occurs it wipes out the hundred or so winning trades that preceeded it.

    #23     Oct 31, 2003
  4. Maverick74


    LOL. You crack me up. Dude, you can't suppress free speech. You are a first amendment worshipping liberal, you know that. And my comment was not a threat. Don't be so ignorant. Do you realize the comments you made towards me on other threads were slander and I could probably have a field day in court with you. You go ahead and talk to Baron and ask him if he is interested in censoring free speech on this website. I already know what his answer will be.

    Why don't you calm down and re-read "It takes a Village", by Hillary Clinton. That will make you happy. LOL.
    #24     Oct 31, 2003
  5. I must agrer - further discussion on this subject (at least involving you) is indeed pointless.

    By cloaking yourself in the (ill fitting) facade of reasonableness and pretending rationality while at the same time proposing your axiomatically absurd "compromise" and dismissing out of hand any rational discussion on the subject - you present an interesting psychological conundrum which some university grad student might do well studying. Hey, you could be famous, like that woman Sally Fields played many years ago, what was her name - Sybil.

    Alas, I was mistaken in attempting a dialogue with you on this subject since it is quite clear that you have no desire (perhaps no ability) to discuss this multi-faceted issue rationally and reasonably.

    Unfortunately, the "I'm right and everyone who doesn't agree with me is stupid" perspective that you clearly convey is a pathological trait of those blinded by zealotry.

    I fear that while I came prepared for a battle of wits, I found my opponent wholly unarmed. Too bad. This is one of those topics that could well benefit from a rational and reasonable examination of its aspects and applicable methods.

    But this is America and even the demonstrably witless are entitled to their opinion - some even become Senators and Presidents - so we all must at least honor your right to hold even an extreme and illogical opinion as yours.

    And since this IS America, if necessary, I will defend your right to be a flaming myopic fool with all my available firepower.


    Now if someone other than JQP has something sane to add, perhaps we can have a real discussion of this issue.
    #25     Oct 31, 2003
  6. Maverick74


    Wouldn't your comments fall under harassment my liberal friend? And then the second part, wouldn't that be a threat? Hmm, harassing me then following that up with a threat, interesting. Make sure you mention that to Baron. LOL.

    GO BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    God bless America and the 2nd amendment!
    #26     Oct 31, 2003
  7. The 2nd amendment doesn't apply to E.T.

    This forum is not a democracy, Baron is King, what he decides is law. Speech is not free here, a price is paid for abuse.

    Even with the 2nd amendment, you cannot freely yell fire in a public place where there is no fire and expect to go unpunished. There are certain rules that apply to the freest speech.

    I suggest that unless you meant what you said, you simply explain that it was a bad taste perhaps, but still a joke. That is, in my opinion, the reasonable thing to do.
    #27     Oct 31, 2003
  8. Maverick74


    What I said is not the same thing as yelling fire. Will you please get a life. Me telling someone I would like to pay them a visit is not the same thing as creating panic and hysteria in a public place where people could be trampled and killed.

    Are you that dense? Why don't you read "It takes a village" again for the 5th time too.
    #28     Oct 31, 2003
  9. I am not threatening you. I am asking you kindly to behave in a more adult manner.

    We can all have political opinions, we can disagree strongly with someone else's opinions.....but this is still a community of traders, and there should be some degree of mutual respect among us, even if we don't agree with someone's political beliefs.

    An apology or explanation is in order, in my opinion, out of civility if nothing else. This is not a liberal versus conservative thing, is is common courtesy.

    You often hear heated exchanges on the floor of congress, but no one threatens physical violence without repercussions.

    This intense bitterness and hatred between Americans of different political perspectives has got to stop.

    Stop for a moment, take a deep breath, and try to be more humane and stop calling people names all the time. There are better ways to get your message across.
    #29     Oct 31, 2003
  10. Let's try this again, since you and others seem to have a problem in understanding what I have proposed.

    There is a key phrase all of you seem to be overlooking. It goes something like: disable the firearm. Render it inoperable by removing a key part, or parts when the gun is not in your direct control. As an example, a revolver without it's chamber is of little use.

    Here is the bottom line. Every gun in this nation started out as a legal firearm. However through unscrupulous dealers, careless or irresponsible gun owners, hundreds of thousands if not millions of guns have, shall we say, fallen in to the wrong hands. This must stop. Well you may have a right to be armed, but I have a right to be protected from irresponsible gun owners. A gun owner who insured that his weapon could not be fired when not under his control loses none of his rights or privileges, does he?

    I know of no gun, be it a hand gun or a long gun that cannot be broken down in seconds. Do you? Than what's the beef?
    #30     Oct 31, 2003