On Leaving The Republicn Party

[Vintij]

And obviously you don't know gun owners. While I will give you that there are more than a few that are probably irresponsible gun owners, for the most part, I have never met one that could not operate and safely maintain their weapons at the basic level at least.

Expecting each and every gun owner to be as proficient with a weapon as the relatively few who didgently train with firearms on a reguarl basis is unrealistic.

You also cannot apply what criminals do with illegally sold firearms to law-abiding citizens owning firearms. That's abusrd. Criminals, by law, cannot legally purchase nor possess firearms. They are violating the law to begin with by doing so.

Comparing our culture to a Eurpoean culture wallowing in socialist mediocrity is about as far fetched.

You're making irrelevant comparisons to suit your argument.

How is gun control irrelavent? And the annual gun deaths, I suppose that is irrelavent too?

Im not for pure socialism, im for mixed economy and modern-social democracy. Obviously freedom of market has worked well for us, but it is hurting us in certain aspects of the oil industry. Greed does exists, and greed hurts the american people.

Besides I wasnt even talking about socialism before you brought it up, I dont even care for socialists aristrocrats.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Cars kill people too...let's ban them...and sometimes animals kill people...let's ban them too along with lightning, insects, carnivorous fish and anything else that can be threat to human life.

More importantly less people die a year due to ALL forms of firearms, accident, justified shooting, murder, than are killed by cars. In fact if we just look at murder committed with firearms the difference is 5 times as great, 9000 were murdered with firearms in a recent year and over 45000 died by car.

And if we look at accidents.... less than 800 died due to accidental gun discharges, compared to over 45000 by car accidents.....


9000 murders with firearms in a population of 300 million....even if we assume every murder was by a different person, care to do the math? Yet we are to believe guns are more dangerous then cars? that law abiding citizens are untrustworthy to own guns?

 

[CSM]

More importantly less people die a year due to ALL forms of firearms, accident, justified shooting, murder, than are killed by cars. In fact if we just look at murder committed with firearms the difference is 5 times as great, 9000 were murdered with firearms in a recent year and over 45000 died by car.

And if we look at accidents.... less than 800 died due to accidental gun discharges, compared to over 45000 by car accidents.....


9000 murders with firearms in a population of 300 million....even if we assume every murder was by a different person, care to do the math? Yet we are to believe guns are more dangerous then cars? that law abiding citizens are untrustworthy to own guns?

Obviously, it's the gun owners...they can't drive worth a darn!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

we sold Saddam under Reagan was OK? Where do think the WMDs he used came from, anyway?

Do some research please. You will discover that Germany sold most of the chemicals and equipment needed to make Saddam's WMD's. You will discover France built a nuclear reactor for Saddam Hussein also. Nothing we sold was banned, illegal or on any list to not be sold.

France, Russia and others supplied Saddam with all the weapons he could afford. France had sweatheart deals with Saddam Hussein when the sanctions were lifted. BILLIONS of dollars to run, repair and maintain the oil fields. But that of course had nothing to do with why they lied to us about assisting in the Invasion of Iraq.

 

[Bern80]

"1) There is evidence to exactley the contrary also. I know it gets cited a lot but do read "More Guns, Less Crime""

Proof that more guns equals less violence. Because in Europe its the exact opposite. Cite it please, and no I dont want to read that bias essay I want numbers. Numbers different from mine, which I got from the census beuro of Europe.

Yeah we wouldn't want you to find out that your actually bull of BS or anything. So you go ahead and judge a book by its cover. the book is not an opinion piece it is one of the single best sources og gun data available.

Im not trying to make a law banning guns. Its too late, did you not get my last post? America wants what america gets, its too late to ban guns.

But your statement implies that you would like one, that is the problem.

Im saying that Europe is alot better off in terms of Gun violence. The numbers dont lie, and an opinion column is not going to change my mind. Dont you read anything that relates to foreign countrys compared to our own?

Comparing other countries to us is irrelevant and not even worth while. The only way for those stats to can be remotely useful is if all other variables are equal except guns. That simply isn't the case. The biggest variable is environment. In our own country alone there are many different types of soical environments that use firearms. I gave an example earlier. As I said I live in small town in northern MN growing up hunting and fishing and have a lot of friends that do the same and thus a large amount fo firearms per capita. And I simply can not see the logic in the gov't restricting my rights in a feeble attempt to curtail violence among gangs and drug pushers in LA.

Yes I do believe the governemnt is smarter than the American people. Maybe not me or you, but certainly over 30-40 million american people are alot less educated than members of congress.

Education has very little to do with socialization and decison making.

Probably more. I dont have the numbers right now, but I will look for them. Thats not to say that I want congress running the country on every aspect, but I am saying that they are less likely to make a mistake than 200 million gun owners.

What a hypocrit, all you do on this board is point out mistakes the govt makes. Make a mistake as to what?

This always gets me with you pro-guns people. Tell me how can you legitimately stand there and argue that 200 million gun owners are highly trained and are incapable of making a mistake.

I have never made that argument. I have made the argument that the 200 million should not be infringed upon in an attempt to combat the .1% of bad apples. Especially when such a measure is unlikely to work in the first place. This next part is important:

THAT .1% IS WHAT ARE KNOWN AS CRIMINALS. THE DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL IS ONE THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW THE LAW. THEREFORE, WHY WOULD YOU EXPECT A CRIMINAL (again one who doesn't obey the law) TO ABIDE BY ANY GUN RESTRICTION(a law)? BANNING OR OTHERWISE.

Infact more gun mistakes are made in america than in any other country! Lets cut out the gun mistakes for a second, lets say there are 200 gun owners who can handle a gun perfectly, well great now we have to account for the missing guns, or the illegally sold guns (most in the world), then on top of that we have to account for the gun owners who CANT aim or who are NOT responsible, then we have to account for the drug related crimes, the gang related crimes, the murders.....etc. Please dont tell me that

200 million americans are honest enough to hold a gun in there hand. Obviously you dont know these americans.

well last i checked there were roughly 280 million americans or so? Dont youhonestly tell me that you think 200 million americans actually own guns and secondly don't tell me you honestly the majority of those are irresponsible and teh minority is the safe crowd. Do some more research.

What you people dont take into account is that even if .1 percent of people died a year due to gun related violence. That .1 percent more than europe, who has strict gun control laws. Thats .1 percent familys who dont lose a loved one because of someone elses mistakes, hates, or bad judgements relating to guns. Thats .1 percent of deaths, that come at the expense of americans who want to shoot dear? And who like holding guns and shooting clay? Protecting yourself is not an excuse because there are thousands of non-lethal weapons to protect your family with.

Man you just don't get it. Again you are working from an assumption that has absolutely no merit. You are assuming that if guns were outlawed the .1 percent wouldn't haoppen. Again the .1 percent occur due to criminal acts. Which means the .1 percent is gonna happen whether guns are banned or not.

And don't get on your high horse and think you can honestly blame my 'selfish' reasons for owning a gun for a death in east LA. Maybe you really do need the government. Where the hell did you learn to reason?

Here is the difference between me, and the rest of america! This one question. Answer this......Is one single 10 year old black girls life, worth more than all of your satisfaction of shooting animals and clay and targets? Would you give up your guns if it would have saved her life? That question right there makes me different from you people, because one single childs life is worth more than all the love and protection I will EVER have for a gun.

What an absolutely asanine question. One under absolutely no pretense would me giving up my guns in in northern MN prevent the death of one poor innocent black girl. You will have to explain to me how you came to the conclusion that that is even remotely logical or realistic.

Let me guess, your going to compare what I just said to some emotional rant about how your family is worth more than her life blah blah blah blah blah......please dont respond with that, It has nothing to do with the question, because as I said before....a non-lethal gun works just like a lethal one, without the killing. If you dont know that then you havent seen some of these amazing guns.

batting 1000 in the faulty assumption category so far. See above

back to reality

Im not taking away anyones right to bear arms, Infact my orginal post had nothing to do with gun con
trol. What my main point was that Europe is not such a bad country to emu
late, based on the huge gap between our gun related deaths, and theres. And Deaths in general really.

Yet another wrong assumption. Why do you assume the reason that is the case is guns? It couldn't possibly something else could it?

 

[Gunny]

How is gun control irrelavent? And the annual gun deaths, I suppose that is irrelavent too?

Why would annual gun deaths be relevant to legal gun ownership if you can't break out the percentage of how many are causeed by illegally owned firearms used by criminals?

Or what percentage of crimes involving a firearm are committed by law-abiding citzens who legally own their firearms?

It's even been proven after the fact that if the judiciary had enforced it's ruling, that nimrod in VT would not have been allowed to purchase or possess a firearm legally.

But you saw what he did to a disarmed student populace, right? He was shooting fish in a barrel because firearm control had disarmed everyone but the criminal.

Im not for pure socialism, im for mixed economy and modern-social democracy. Obviously freedom of market has worked well for us, but it is hurting us in certain aspects of the oil industry. Greed does exists, and greed hurts the american people.

Besides I wasnt even talking about socialism before you brought it up, I dont even care for socialists aristrocrats.

I mentioned socialism only in the context that you chose to compare American society to European society. Regardless the numbers, Europeans are FAR more at the mercy of criminals with firearms than American gun owners are.

 

[William Joyce]

I think it's more accurate to say that your choice is between Republican Jews who want war for Israel (Paul Wolfowitz) and Democrat Jews who want open borders, affirmative action and welfare (Chuck Schumer). Either way, you're just getting Jews.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1162378355581

What if we decided that instead of having Jews tell us what to do, we were going to make our own decisions about how the country should be run?

 

[CSM]

I think it's more accurate to say that your choice is between Republican Jews who want war for Israel (Paul Wolfowitz) and Democrat Jews who want open borders, affirmative action and welfare (Chuck Schumer). Either way, you're just getting Jews.

What if we decided that America's agenda should be otherwise?

Since I do not subscribe to your theory that all things are related to Jews, I cannot seriously speculate on our question.

 

[William Joyce]

Since I do not subscribe to your theory that all things are related to Jews, I cannot seriously speculate on our question.

But because you would likely deny that ANYTHING is related to Jews, I also can't seriously speculate on your objection. Capiche?

 

[CSM]

But because you would likely deny that ANYTHING is related to Jews, I also can't seriously speculate on your objection. Capiche?

Dang, ou can read my mind from way over there? You are indeed amazing! You win.

 

[Vintij]

But because you would likely deny that ANYTHING is related to Jews, I also can't seriously speculate on your objection. Capiche?

Your right, nobody can speculate that. Though the evidence is not in your favor, seeing as only 2% of americans are jews, and 11% of jews make up congress. Granted that is a new high, but 11% of jews in congress is hardley enough to make a significant difference......and those 2% civilian jews, mostly vote democrat, but that hasnt stopped bush from taking two straight terms.