Obama and Biden very anti Gun owner, and Gun Rights .

[Chris]

To the board, your replies are constant deflection.

Folks here ask you what you would do under these circumstances, and you quote statistics, and won't answer how you would face this possible life/death scenario.

Please, give us a good alternative.......as you and I know that criminals aren't going to give up their guns/knives or mental behaviour because you and me give up our weapons of defense.

Your side or cause or whatever is looking pretty lame, as you won't "own up" and just give a good alternative to a life and death situation where one must defend oneself from impending danger to one's life in their home/abode.

No you are deflecting, eightball.

The quesiton is, which society is better, one awash in guns or one with sensible gun control laws?

We lead the world in gun deaths. We make it easy for a angry spouse or a depressed teenager to kill themselves or others. One million American gun deaths since 1960. More Americans killed than in World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War combined.

Home invasions are very rare. Suicides and family murders are much more common. Which is a greater threat?

 

[Eightball]

No you are deflecting, eightball.

The quesiton is, which society is better, one awash in guns or one with sensible gun control laws?

We lead the world in gun deaths. We make it easy for a angry spouse or a depressed teenager to kill themselves or others. One million American gun deaths since 1960. More Americans killed than in World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War combined.

Home invasions are very rare. Suicides and family murders are much more common. Which is a greater threat?

You still won't answer the many folks on the forum, what you'd do if confronted with imminent danger in your home?

Done with yah guy.........your a broken record. You have your anti-gun owner mantra down to a fine art.

You won't answer the basic question of your personal danger situation.

That's because you "know" that you'd need to be weaponized to save your life, and I doubt you'd stand their and let someone take it.........?

I'm tired of repeating the same request to all of you folks in here that keep on throwing out all kinds of non-connective stats about guns and deaths, as means to deflect the basica question of what "you" would do in a life or death situation in your home.

From thence onward I will just observe from the stands on this thread.

I've never heard of such illogical banter about guns and their private ownership of fellow citizens.

No one here that is anti-gun will tell the rest of us what they would do when faced with physical/life danger. Why? Cause they don't have an answer. Just statistics, statistics......How weak, an argument, and how obviously deflective.

 

[Inferno]

You still won't answer the many folks on the forum, what you'd do if confronted with imminent danger in your home? ....

I would not be defending the homefront with a gun. I don't really think many people do. I think the guns at home are locked or or the victims are asleep when the home is invaded.

On the street most places do not allow you to carry concealed weapons. Most places won't let you walk around with a gun in your hand. I don't think that much crime is stopped by a gun.

 

[Eightball]

I would not be defending the homefront with a gun. I don't really think many people do. I think the guns at home are locked or or the victims are asleep when the home is invaded.

On the street most places do not allow you to carry concealed weapons. Most places won't let you walk around with a gun in your hand. I don't think that much crime is stopped by a gun.

No where in my post did I ask about concealed-carry on the street, nor did I ask about how many folks own guns in their homes or how they store them.

You folks are incredible. Just want to know how you anti-gun folks would defend your lives if you were confronted with someone breaking in and with the potential to hurt you?

Instead I get........well, most guns are locked up ......and most folks wouldn't know theirs someone in their house.......Whats that have to do with the scenario that I presented that is and does happen all over our country, both in rural settings and in urban settings?

You folks just skip around my question, and won't face the reality of it. You don't have an adequate answer do you? You going to Karate chop this armed, deranged person? You going to talk them out of killing you?

Sure the odds that you will have an armed dangerous intruder in your home is statistically low in some areas of the country and statistically higher in others.

Never the less, it happens.........Just read the papers, and watch your local TV news........

You folks act like a bunch of Lemmons.........You just head for the cliff, jump off, and don't think of an alternative.

I really feel sorry for so many of you. All that intelligence, brain power, gone to waste, cause one won't lift a finger to defend themselves. If you think your mimicking Jesus', "Turn the other cheek." then you don't know biblical scripture contextually.

This packing a gun down the street reply is totally off-subject, and another deflection.

Why do I keep trying to reply.........I said I had enough of this useless banter.

Make love, not war........All criminals abide by that code.

 

[Inferno]

You still won't answer the many folks on the forum, what you'd do if confronted with imminent danger in your home?

I will answer this again but will keep it very simple for you.

The first line in my reply said: I would not be defending the home front with a gun. Is that easy enough. That is what you asked.

I would do what I could to avoid the danger but if I died i would be dead but I would not use a gun.

 

[Eightball]

You still won't answer the many folks on the forum, what you'd do if confronted with imminent danger in your home?

I will answer this again but will keep it very simple for you.

The first line in my reply said: I would not be defending the home front with a gun. Is that easy enough. That is what you asked.

I would do what I could to avoid the danger but if I died i would be dead but I would not use a gun.

Well, you indeed fullfill the "Lemmon" prophecy. Lie down and die.......How sad and how pitiful. What a tragic waste of human life..........for the sake of.........Gun=bad

"I wouldn't defend the home with a gun".........? Ok, with what would you defend the home. Dialogue, a stick, threatening words, just a 911 call and wait minutes for police help?..... Very sad indeed. Just as I thought; no answer to adequate self defense.

Guns=bad bullets=bad American people=stupid. Gun ownership= unnecessary.........Why........statistics on bad folks killing good folks with stolen guns........

 

[Roethlesberger]

I hear they're planning on making us all carry guns wherever we go...even into the shower.

I also heard that McCain, not to be outgun-righted, is going to make us all carry flamethrowers.

Why not SHOULDER MOUNTED MISSLE LAUNCHERS ????

 

[52ndStreet]

Most gun deaths occur when people kill themselves or a member of their family, so your gun is more of a threat to your loved ones than to any criminal.

But no one is going to take your gun away. We lead the developed world in gun deaths, one million since 1960, so we could use more sensible gun control laws. It won't happen though, mainly because of ignorant people like you.

Well if people are getting killed by other people.Then America has a problem
with people who are Violent, and who kill.The Gun and or Assault rifle is an
inanimate object.If people kill themselves or a family member.Then America
has a Suicide and Family violence problem.That requires more Psychologists,
and or Psychiatrists. We need not enact any more Gun control laws,which is just a knee jerk response to a problem, not the real solution to the problem.

Now, the ignorance lies with people like you Kirk, who feel that more "Gun control" laws will some how reduce those kinds of deaths. What we need is more People control laws,not Gun control. The Gun does not kill, it is the Human being that uses the Gun to Kill.This is what all you Gun control advocates fail to understand. Separate the object from the act and the person
initiating the action.Then find out what made this person act, or what led up to the act. Look at the entire event.Then you will see the Gun is not the issue
in all of these incidents.!

 

[mightypeon]

Hi there,
while you may consider the usual armament of the USA to be unique among developed countries, its not. Switzerland has about as many assault rifles per person as the US does, however the crime rate is very low. (Suicide rate is quite high though). What is the case for Switzerland is, while Assault rifles are actually issued(side effect of conscription) to the population, possesion of easily hideable handguns is strongly monitored/prohibited.
Apart from Amokrunners, a Criminal will usually not use an assault rifle to commit crimes, as they are big, unwieldy and very difficult to hide.
Last but not least, they tend to be fairly expensive.

So, allow assault rifles, ban pistols.
This should satisfy your second amendment and may reduce homicide rates by quite a bit.

Cheers,

Mightypeon

P.S. What about Bullet control? If each Bullet would cost 5000 bucks, couldnt that really reduce homicide? What about a huge tax on bullets which is used to found social services for crime victims?

Murderer:"I would kill you, but I did not get a credit for the Bullets!"


P.P.S. I personally do not believe that a "all guns banned" approach would work in the US as way to many guns are in circulation. However, if Germany would have had a lax gun control I would likely be dead.

 

[AllieBaba]

There's a thought. Make it difficult to stash a weapon on your person, but let it be obvious that everyone has a weapon.

Which is why rural areas have such light crime. Everyone knows everyone else has a gun stashed in their house, and everybody knows we know how to use it. Hence very little robbery/burglary. No mugging, period, ever.

 

[Eightball]

Hi there,
while you may consider the usual armament of the USA to be unique among developed countries, its not. Switzerland has about as many assault rifles per person as the US does, however the crime rate is very low. (Suicide rate is quite high though). What is the case for Switzerland is, while Assault rifles are actually issued(side effect of conscription) to the population, possesion of easily hideable handguns is strongly monitored/prohibited.
Apart from Amokrunners, a Criminal will usually not use an assault rifle to commit crimes, as they are big, unwieldy and very difficult to hide.
Last but not least, they tend to be fairly expensive.

So, allow assault rifles, ban pistols.
This should satisfy your second amendment and may reduce homicide rates by quite a bit.

Cheers,

Mightypeon

P.S. What about Bullet control? If each Bullet would cost 5000 bucks, couldnt that really reduce homicide? What about a huge tax on bullets which is used to found social services for crime victims?

Murderer:"I would kill you, but I did not get a credit for the Bullets!"


P.P.S. I personally do not believe that a "all guns banned" approach would work in the US as way to many guns are in circulation. However, if Germany would have had a lax gun control I would likely be dead.

Oh yeah; the criminals have nice easy to carry and swing- -around and use pistols and Joe citizen has to fumble around defending himself with a heavier gun, of much more length........Yeah, that makes sense. Criminals get pistols, we have 30" long guns......?

Everyone knows an assault rifle is real easy to manuever in the middle of the night in the dark........in one's house/abode.

 

[greenpartyaz]

By Cory Nealon, Times Staff
Published: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 10:32 PM EDT
MILLSTONE TWP. — A 3-year-old Freedom boy accidentally shot and killed himself Monday in Elk County.

Trey M. Rosenberger Gordon died from a single gunshot to the head around 11 a.m., according to Louis Radkowski, Elk County coroner.

State police released few details about the incident in a press release Tuesday. It said that a handgun was “negligently left within reach of the child,” and the investigation was ongoing.

Cpl. Robert P. Cogley, the investigating officer, did not return a phone call seeking additional information.

The boy had been at a Millstone Township camp with his mother, Jessica A. Rosenberger of Monaca, according to Radkowski.

Harold Rosenberger of New Sewickley, the boy’s maternal grandfather, said the family is still coming to terms with Trey’s death. He declined to provide details about how the youngster obtained the gun.

“Someone had a gun there, it was loaded, the rest is self-explanatory,” he said.

Radkowski said an autopsy was to be performed Tuesday in Erie. The results were not available Tuesday night.

In addition to his mother, Trey is survived by his father, David Gordon of Freedom.

Cory Nealon can be reached online at

Exercise your 2nd ammendment right, keep them loaded!

 

[AllieBaba]

Oh my GOD! And that singer's 16 year old son backed over their daughter, and I don't know how many kids drown each year because their parents are stupid enough to take them to the water and not watch them.

We still get to drive, we still get to swim, and we still get to have guns, dumbass.

 

[greenpartyaz]

Oh my GOD! And that singer's 16 year old son backed over their daughter, and I don't know how many kids drown each year because their parents are stupid enough to take them to the water and not watch them.

We still get to drive, we still get to swim, and we still get to have guns, dumbass.

Guns are fun until your son or daughter gets shot in the face!

Exercise your second ammendment right keep em loaded!

 

[Eightball]

Oh my GOD! And that singer's 16 year old son backed over their daughter, and I don't know how many kids drown each year because their parents are stupid enough to take them to the water and not watch them.

We still get to drive, we still get to swim, and we still get to have guns, dumbass.

Outlaw automobiles!!!!!!!!! They maybe neutral like guns, but in the wrong hands (Stupid Americans) their killers.

 

[AllieBaba]

Guns are fun until your son or daughter gets shot in the face!

Exercise your second ammendment right keep em loaded!

You're an idiot. My son almost killed himself with a pair of scissors when he decided to cut an electric cord.

The only time he's been near a gun is when his 22 year old brothers were with him, probably the safest he's ever been in his life.

 

[Eightball]

Guns are fun until your son or daughter gets shot in the face!

Exercise your second ammendment right keep em loaded!

Cars are fun to drive too.........But to drive them in the U.S. is a priviledge. So is gun ownership.

Folks do stupid things with cars, guns, knives, BB guns, bow and arrows, tasers, drugs, ........But guns.......they have a mind of their own.......They just might shoot you or your kids even if your a responsible person/owner. Cuckoo.........

 

[AllieBaba]

Guns have a mind of their own?

You are joking, right?

 

[Eightball]

Guns have a mind of their own?

You are joking, right?

Didn't catch the sarcasm?

Folks have such a phobic fear of firearms, from being brainwashed in school, and from the media how they should only be in the hands of police, and soldiers, that their reactions are exaggerated to the hilt.

The roots of this anti-gun movement has it's beginnings and strong roots in your basic liberal, anti-military, anti-authority mentality/movements.

You'll find that the prominent politicians that abhor private gun ownership will covertly and sometimes overtly show their anti-military beliefs.

Libs giver lip service to the military to look like their for them, but in reality, they'd love it if we had no military at all. They believe that dialogue will trump any confrontation with an armed enemy, whether on the private home level or on the large scale national level.

We all know that Prime Minister Chamberlain blessed us with peace in our time back in the late 1930's. He was hailed a hero when he gave Hitler a nice hunk of Europe if he'd just quit being so assertive militarily. Hitler agreed to the pact, with his fingers crossed behind his back and Chamberlains legacy, and stupid trust of an insanely mad enemy resulted in the death of millions of civilians and soldiers worldwide.

All the anti-gun advocated do in this forum is state stats about those that have mishandled or abused their gun ownership, or how guns in the hands of criminals do mayhem.

They want private citizens disarmed, but have no rational answer how we will disarm the criminally minded person.

They/anti-gun folks are confronted with real life scenarios that put them in a dangerous situation in their own home, with a person intent on hurting/killing them, and not one here has given us a simple explanation as to how they will stop this intruder and adequately protect their loved ones and self.

Do these people have scales on their mind's eyes.....or are the afraid to answer this simple question, because they know that they don't have an answer except to lay down and take it from the "perp", and only call 911.

B.O. thinks we should dialogue with our enemies........Well, this administration does, but does draw the line when it comes to dealing with irrational dictators bent on annihilating anyone that isn't of their religious persuasion.

The liberal mentality is talk it out. Something in this logic reveals a missing thought track here folks.

Again, these group fears guns, nuclear power plants, crude oil/fossil fuels, with fuzzy logic that won't allow them to be pinned down and give you a straight coherent answer that is based on objective reality.

 

[greenpartyaz]

Didn't catch the sarcasm?

Folks have such a phobic fear of firearms, from being brainwashed in school, and from the media how they should only be in the hands of police, and soldiers, that their reactions are exaggerated to the hilt.

The roots of this anti-gun movement has it's beginnings and strong roots in your basic liberal, anti-military, anti-authority mentality/movements.

You'll find that the prominent politicians that abhor private gun ownership will covertly and sometimes overtly show their anti-military beliefs.

Libs giver lip service to the military to look like their for them, but in reality, they'd love it if we had no military at all. They believe that dialogue will trump any confrontation with an armed enemy, whether on the private home level or on the large scale national level.

We all know that Prime Minister Chamberlain blessed us with peace in our time back in the late 1930's. He was hailed a hero when he gave Hitler a nice hunk of Europe if he'd just quit being so assertive militarily. Hitler agreed to the pact, with his fingers crossed behind his back and Chamberlains legacy, and stupid trust of an insanely mad enemy resulted in the death of millions of civilians and soldiers worldwide.

All the anti-gun advocated do in this forum is state stats about those that have mishandled or abused their gun ownership, or how guns in the hands of criminals do mayhem.

They want private citizens disarmed, but have no rational answer how we will disarm the criminally minded person.

They/anti-gun folks are confronted with real life scenarios that put them in a dangerous situation in their own home, with a person intent on hurting/killing them, and not one here has given us a simple explanation as to how they will stop this intruder and adequately protect their loved ones and self.

Do these people have scales on their mind's eyes.....or are the afraid to answer this simple question, because they know that they don't have an answer except to lay down and take it from the "perp", and only call 911.

B.O. thinks we should dialogue with our enemies........Well, this administration does, but does draw the line when it comes to dealing with irrational dictators bent on annihilating anyone that isn't of their religious persuasion.

The liberal mentality is talk it out. Something in this logic reveals a missing thought track here folks.

Again, these group fears guns, nuclear power plants, crude oil/fossil fuels, with fuzzy logic that won't allow them to be pinned down and give you a straight coherent answer that is based on objective reality.

Maybe Lapierre will show up and have another rally?