Liberal arguments for supporting gun ownership rights

[Chris]

Ohh I have some really nasty ones. Of course only the M1 Carbine counts as one of those evil "assault rifles" The M1 Garand doesn't have a detachable magazine so it is not an "assault rifle".

My daughter currently has my 9mm handgun since someone threatened her and her boyfriend.

Ohh and I have over 1000 rounds for the carbine and over 600 for the Garand. Even have several 30 round magazines for that nasty little "assault rifle" Had a bayonet for both but lost them when we moved last time.

Guns are fun, aren't they?

 

[sky dancer]

wonder why he cares if they die by gun or by suction?

Nice comment for someone who pretends to not be nasty. How do you prefer people die? I prefer they die naturally and peacefully. How about you?

 

[WillowTree]

Because conservatives like killing.

Nothing gets a conservative going like a war, a bomb, or a gun.

They LOVE it.

Conservatives are more generous, liberals are very stingy, they say they want to help the poor but they won't give up any money!

 

[Vintij]

Any Felony and you lose the right to own weapons. I suggest you learn the law.

Im talking about the right to sell guns as well. If someone bought a gun from a store, and the buyer had a record......why does the gun shop keep its license? It should be shut down.

 

[sky dancer]

Conservatives are more generous, liberals are very stingy, they say they want to help the poor but they won't give up any money!

If you're the poster child for conservative posting then I think your attitude toward political opponents, (aka other American citizens) is 'stingy' to say the least.

Merry (Hostile) Christmas Season, LOL. May you keep your Christmas greetings up all year in the hopes of making merry one day.

Oh no, maybe you're keeping them up as a 'war on Christmas' offensive for 2009.

 

[Chris]

Conservatives are more generous, liberals are very stingy, they say they want to help the poor but they won't give up any money!

Conservatives give to their whites only churches.

Very generous.

 

[sky dancer]

Conservatives give to their whites only churches.

Very generous.

Which is about the same as giving to their political party--they don't believe in separation of church and state. They're the party of the rich they give generously in order to get tax write offs, while reaping corporate welfare bailouts for their companies while screaming about welfare fraud and scrimping on foodstamps for the poor.

 

[WillowTree]

Conservatives give to their whites only churches.

Very generous.

Hee Haw!

 

[sky dancer]

Hee Haw!

Spoken like a true ass.

 

[Father Time]

Conservatives are more generous, liberals are very stingy, they say they want to help the poor but they won't give up any money!

Most liberals though support welfare and all that jazz, meaning they see it as partly the government's responsibility to take care of them.

That's it.

 

[Chris]

Most liberals though support welfare and all that jazz, meaning they see it as partly the government's responsibility to take care of them.

That's it.

Horseshit.

I've never gotten a government check in my life except for that rebate thingy last summer.

Most of the retired military Republicans on this board get a check from the government every month.

 

[sky dancer]

We, the people are the government. I'd rather see my tax dollars benefiting poor and vulnerable people than bailing out corporations.

 

[strollingbones]

I don't like guns because of the constant threat of danger they pose, but I support gun rights based on the liberal argument that the government doesn't have the right to intrude into your private life or legislate personal decisions.i have lived with guns for 55 yrs...i have never been under a constant threat from any of them

I think owning a gun should require a gun license that itself requires passing a gun safety and use exam (just like driving a car). I think a 5-day waiting period and background check are appropriate and reasonable safeguards to prevent violent crime without impinging on personal rights.how does any of that prevent crime? plus there is a large underground trade in guns...always has...always will be..

Beyond that, if people want to own guns they're free to. I don't think the Second Amendment guarantees the right for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to carry one (rather members of trained militias), but no law prevents it either.

I don't think insurance should be a requirement because of the disproportionate and undue effect that will have on the poor. Then the few who may legitimately require a gun for their personal safety will be unable to legally acquire one.

what about people who have had guns for years and have guns passed down from one generation to another? i have zero...let me repeat that...zero interest in anyone knowing what guns i own or have

 

[Dante]

Liberal arguments for supporting gun ownership rights

 

[Chris]

what about people who have had guns for years and have guns passed down from one generation to another? i have zero...let me repeat that...zero interest in anyone knowing what guns i own or have

There are 200 million guns in private hands in this country. No one is taking away anyone's guns.

Guns should be regulated, however. Just like cars, food, drugs, and everything else that can kill you.

 

[Dante]

Willow, why don't you start your own thread and see if anybody shows up?

 

[editec]

that will never happen.

women (and some men) need to learn when to walk away and cut their emotional losses. I will never understand people who stay with an abusive partner long enough for the bonds to gel. of course there are a few exceptions...but they prove the rule(s)

That assumes that the victims are staying for some emotional reason, Dev.

Often abused women stay because they cannot financially escape, or because they are fearful of losing their kids, and because they are quite literally afraid to leave because they are terrorized that their abusive mates will kill them if they try.

And since about half the murdered domestic violence victims DO GET KILLED attempting to leave or after having left, that's a fairly reasonable reason to be afraid, don't you think?

My point here is that most abused women are not exactly the emotional idiots you seem to think they are.

Getting out of those relationships with power and control freaking men, isn't nearly as easy as most people think it is. That's why they are power and control freaks, after all.

Before one leaves, women need the resources to get out, to take their kids, too, and one of the hallmarks of a power and control freaking abuser is that they ISOLATE THE WOMAN FROM RESOURCES FOR THEIR FLIGHT TO SAFETY.

And then too there's the Kafkan reality that women in abusive relationship also find that the courts grants their absuve abusers visitation rights, thus putting those absuve men back into their lives.

And even more chilling are those cases where the women loses the children to the abusive husband and that happens why?

You will NOT believe this but rest assured it happens.

The abused woman loses custody of the children because she exposed them to violence by BEING ABUSED BY THE HUBBY!!

And guess who gets the kids?

Yeah, that's right... the abusive husband, usually with his cpontrol freaking mother is standing there ready to HELP him take care of those children too.

Sounds absurd right?

Tell us that cannot possible be true , editec, right?

Sorry, I wish I could tell you that's impossibly rare, but it isn't.

It's actually a fairly common event for a mother fleeing an abusive relationship to lose her children to the abusive husband and his mother.

Why?

Because he has all the money, the home, and on paper at least, the the resources she does not have to raise the children in that middle class lifestyle that most courts of predisposed to think is the way your raise children. She've very likely in a shelter, but he's often in the home, you see?

So perhaps NOW you see that the reason MANY women stay in those relationships has nothing to do with their emotional instability, but for very practical and often quite deadly practical reasons somewhat outside of their control.

 

[Dante]

That assumes that the victims are staying for some emotional reason, Dev.

Often abused women stay because they cannot financially escape, or because they are fearful of losing their kids, and because they are quite literally afraid to leave because they are terrorized that their abusive mates will kill them if they try.

my point is that by that time it's too late. sooner is when they should leave and being afraid of financial things is still fear...emotion. poor choices in love or dependency.
I am sympathetic but harsh in criticism.

And since about half the murdered domestic violence victims DO GET KILLED attempting to leave or after having left, that's a fairly reasonable reason to be afraid, don't you think?

on the first threat or slap/hit it should be a warning or a walk away. staying is when it escalates.

My point here is that most abused women are not exactly the emotional idiots you seem to think they are.

I did not say idiots are what they are did I? I've seen the escalation and was told when spoke up to mind my own biz. Police and the courts often get told the same in the initial battles. sometimes people make their own beds and have to sleep in them,. women and men who escape reality in relationships are often hostile to those they seek help from later.

Getting out of those relationships with power and control freaking men, isn't nearly as easy as most people think it is. That's why they are power and control freaks, after all.

Before one leaves, women need the resources to get out, to take their kids, too, and one of the hallmarks of a power and control freaking abuser is that they ISOLATE THE WOMAN FROM RESOURCES FOR THEIR FLIGHT TO SAFETY.

And then too there's the Kafkan reality that women in abusive relationship also find that the courts grants their absuve abusers visitation rights, thus putting those absuve men back into their lives.

And even more chilling are those cases where the women loses the children to the abusive husband and that happens why?

You will NOT believe this but rest assured it happens.

The abused woman loses custody of the children because she exposed them to violence by BEING ABUSED BY THE HUBBY!!

And guess who gets the kids?

Yeah, that's right... the abusive husband, usually with his cpontrol freaking mother is standing there ready to HELP him take care of those children too.

Sounds absurd right?

Tell us that cannot possible be true , editec, right?

Sorry, I wish I could tell you that's impossibly rare, but it isn't.

It's actually a fairly common event for a mother fleeing an abusive relationship to lose her children to the abusive husband and his mother.

Why?

Because he has all the money, the home, and on paper at least, the the resources she does not have to raise the children in that middle class lifestyle that most courts of predisposed to think is the way your raise children. She've very likely in a shelter, but he's often in the home, you see?

So perhaps NOW you see that the reason MANY women stay in those relationships has nothing to do with their emotional instability, but for very practical and often quite deadly practical reasons somewhat outside of their control.

the rest? boring because lectures about subjects I am familiar with always are,.

I've went in as an advocate fora friend in trouble and worked very hard to have a guy served a restraining order and thrown out of his own apt (with me sitting there laughing) by the police while he was hungover/drunk/high. so go fuck yourself. I put myself upfront with an violent asshole for a friend.

excuse me if I think you need to STFU until you know what you are talking about

 

[garyd]

Okay for openers there is no gun control plank in the Republican party's platform. There has been one for years in the Democratic party platform.

2nd this christian gives to more than his church and my church has food pantries and the like all over the country.

3rd editec research in fact shows that houses containing a gun are much safer crime wise. Five gallon buckets are more dangerous to toddlers than hand guns by a factor of almost ten to one.

4th I explained to a young woman sometime back that if she was going to leave an abusive relationship her first purchase ought to be a hand gun and enough ammunition to become proficient in it's use. She said she had a restraining owner I told her to get back to me when they printed them on kevlar...

 

[Chris]

Okay for openers there is no gun control plank in the Republican party's platform. There has been one for years in the Democratic party platform.

2nd this christian gives to more than his church and my church has food pantries and the like all over the country.

3rd editec research in fact shows that houses containing a gun are much safer crime wise. Five gallon buckets are more dangerous to toddlers than hand guns by a factor of almost ten to one.

4th I explained to a young woman sometime back that if she was going to leave an abusive relationship her first purchase ought to be a hand gun and enough ammunition to become proficient in it's use. She said she had a restraining owner I told her to get back to me when they printed them on kevlar...

If you own a gun, you are much more likely to die of a gun death. States with looser gun laws have more gun deaths.