| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: << 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 >> |
nraboni
Uggh...
Member since 10/09 6905 total posts
Name:
Nicole
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by NervousNell
Regardless if you feel people have the right to bear arms to protect themselves- I want to know what the purpose of these high powered weapons are?
If you are looking to protect yourself and family from an intruder a small caliber gun will do, no?
What use does a gun like the one we are speaking of serve - other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a period of time as possible?
What is the "legal" use of this particular gun?
Game hunting?
I dont' think so.
What?
These are my thoughts too. I had this discussion the other night with some people and I disputed every reason they had for the purpose of these types of weapons.
|
Posted 1/11/13 4:51 PM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
HeathKernandez
Our Ron is an awesome Ron
Member since 4/07 9091 total posts
Name:
baby fish mouth
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by MrsMeloyellow
I can't...
It's kind of funny bc you posted on the alex jones thread but many of your posts come off "alex jonesish" to me...in that they push propaganda based on opinion. That video you went on a rant about in the other thread...was a video about people handling guns legally, with proper paperwork etc. I watched waiting...waiting for something despicable to happen...and I gave up.
DID YOU EVEN WATCH THE VIDEO YOU POSTED????
Colette's point WAS they were marketing a "family fun day" where in actuality NINE YEAR OLDS were shooting RPGs...
not skeet shooting... not hunting... MILITARY ARTILLERY.
omg If you're not HORRIFIED then you seriously have a screw loose.
or you just google and skim biased resources where they fit your agenda and post at will...
|
| Posted 1/11/13 4:54 PM |
| |
|
BunnyWife
Insert Witty Comment Here
Member since 5/07 8274 total posts
Name:
BunnyWife
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Ophelia
I'm sorry if this is harsh but this is the reality. I saw one little boy who had a cloth covering the side of his head that was blasted off the same boy whos hand and lower arms was GONE by another bullet...... These babies were RIPPED TO SHREDS.
.
This is truth. Right here. This is what these weapons are made for. To rip people to shreds. Read this again and then try to argue with me why someone outside of active duty military needs a semi automatic weapon.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 5:00 PM |
| |
|
hotsauce345
my love, my life, my son
Member since 1/09 4169 total posts
Name:
Melody
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by ItsaJoya19
Posted by MrsMeloyellow
see...this is what upsets me. This assumption that anyone uttering the slightest of pro 2nd amendment rights is either obviously against gun control or less sympathetic. It's BS. I'm a mother. You think I want to see that? I don't even OWN a gun...but I do feel strongly about maintaining my right to own one. ..especially because of how crazy society is lately and the home invasions on LI. I am disgusted and saddened by what happened in Newtown. I cried when I read the euology written by pozner's mother. I can't imagine being in that position. I think I would just curl up and die. People aren't voicing opinions to be unsympathetic...or because they don't care enough about human life vs rights to an inanimate object. it's because it's a topic being brought up in the media 24/7 and it is a hot topic right now.
you feel strongly about maintaining your right to own an assault weapon???
isn't that what this is about? regulating ASSAULT weapons?
round and round we go on the LIF merry-go-round.....
i'm sorry...did you see the word assault in there? I sure didn't
The only reason why you hear 2nd amendment come up from me in a conversation about assault weapons is because people will start a convo about assault weapons and in the next breath talk about how "guns are bad and kill people". I address the second half about guns being bad...NOT about assault weapons.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 5:05 PM |
| |
|
DancinBarefoot
06ers Rock!!
Member since 1/07 9534 total posts
Name:
The One My Mother Gave Me ;-)
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
It may be true that a criminal will find a way to get a weapon, no matter what, but that is completely different from a mentally ill indivdual going through all necessary steps to obtain a gun (whether legal or on the black market). However, the "average" criminal with a weapon uses one gun to rob a store, or break into a home, or carjack somebody, or jump them in an alley - s/he doesn't use an assault rifle with a clip designed to shoot 100 rounds in 10 seconds to perpetrate his/her crime.
In the case of Newtown, mommy dearest had legally obtained assault weapons, which the shooter used. If the only thing he had was a semi-automatic pistol he could not have done the damage he did in the same time frame. Some of those babies would be alive if mommy didn't have access to assault weapons - and by all accounts, she was a "responsible" gun owner. IMHO, a "responsible" gun owner only has guns in their possession legally. Ergo, if there was an assault weapon ban, she would not have had those guns, and the carnage would have been significantly reduced.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 5:08 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Blissful
As someone who lives in Newtown and has a first hand account of all of this, here is what I'm going to say.
If Nancy Lanza didn't have those weapons he would not have succeeded as he visited 5 gun shops over the course of the week prior to purchase guns and was denied.
As someone who WENT to funeral and saw those babies bodies because most were open casket I will say this. These weapons and bullets are made to DESTROY. The bullet used, when it enters the body opens like a flower and is used to severely damage tissue and blast it.
A shot gun and and pistol would not have done so much damage, those children might have had a chance to live. The two babies brought to the hospital might have survived.
These man BLASTED OFF ands of children with one bullet, the entire side and jaw of anothers face, half of the torso of another acts that could have only been done with these assault rifles.They had NO chance or survival.
I'm sorry if this is harsh but this is the reality. I saw one little boy who had a cloth covering the side of his head that was blasted off the same boy whos hand and lower arms was GONE by another bullet...... These babies were RIPPED TO SHREDS.
Half of Victoria Sotos' class watched as the teacher was slain and witness blood gushing out of her mouth as she was shot in the neck and chest..... 6 year old babies lived to see that.
These weren't simple gun wounds, this was a slaughter. SOMETHING HAS TO CHANGE!!!!
I am so glad that someone can put some perspective on this entire debate. Of course, crimes will happen, people will die, but as said in the above quote these children and their teachers did not have a chance.
A homeowner has no need to have an assault weapon at their home with XL cartridges for more firepower. It is unneccessary. I can understand a shotgun, handgun to protect yourself. But a highpowered assault rifle? I mean how many people do you think you need to defend yourself from? The assault weapon is to kill point blank. No questions about it.
And all this hoopla that the NRA wants you to think that the govt wants to take away your guns. It's all bull, the NRA is just protecting the gun makers. Basically they are protecting where the money is at. It all comes down to money and of course the selling of guns is very lucrative, so lucrative that it is at the cost of innocent lives.
It is ludacrous and outrageous.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 5:11 PM |
| |
|
Ophelia
she's baaccckkkk ;)
Member since 5/06 23378 total posts
Name:
remember, when Gulliver traveled....
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by MrsMeloyellow
Posted by ItsaJoya19
Posted by MrsMeloyellow
see...this is what upsets me. This assumption that anyone uttering the slightest of pro 2nd amendment rights is either obviously against gun control or less sympathetic. It's BS. I'm a mother. You think I want to see that? I don't even OWN a gun...but I do feel strongly about maintaining my right to own one. ..especially because of how crazy society is lately and the home invasions on LI. I am disgusted and saddened by what happened in Newtown. I cried when I read the euology written by pozner's mother. I can't imagine being in that position. I think I would just curl up and die. People aren't voicing opinions to be unsympathetic...or because they don't care enough about human life vs rights to an inanimate object. it's because it's a topic being brought up in the media 24/7 and it is a hot topic right now.
you feel strongly about maintaining your right to own an assault weapon???
isn't that what this is about? regulating ASSAULT weapons?
round and round we go on the LIF merry-go-round.....
i'm sorry...did you see the word assault in there? I sure didn't
The only reason why you hear 2nd amendment come up from me in a conversation about assault weapons is because people will start a convo about assault weapons and in the next breath talk about how "guns are bad and kill people". I address the second half about guns being bad...NOT about assault weapons.
that second assumption of what would happen is made by so many and a huge reason we are having this debate.
but the actual thought should be, ....banning assault weapons could lead to...less children and theatre goers and volunteer fire fighters and mall shoppers and people driving on highways likely to be sawed in half by semi automatic gun fire with mini missles.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 5:12 PM |
| |
|
smdl
I love Gary too..on a plate!
Member since 5/06 32461 total posts
Name:
me
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Plenty of things are illegal in the US. Just because we like something does not mean we can have it.
I like tigers. I can't have one.
It's not allowed for me to have a pet alligator either.
I can't even have chicken in my backyard because of my township.
But I can have multiple assault weapons. That is OK.
Nobody said taking assault weapons was taking ALL guns away.
Those weapons were created for military purposes. Not self defense. Not hunting. We have no business owning those weapons. Or go use them at a driving range only.
I love guns. I won medals with riffle shooting. I think the way guns are control in this Country is outrageous. There is no control how guns are bought. No control on how many.
It's not about being a responsible gun owner. It's about getting this crap under control.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 5:26 PM |
| |
|
Janice
Sweet Jessie Quinn
Member since 5/05 27567 total posts
Name:
Janice
|
The argument is not
are we really just a country of bad seeds??
the numbers do not lie...our gun violence rates compared to others is incredible.
do we really have that many more bad guys???
|
| Posted 1/11/13 5:35 PM |
| |
|
smdl
I love Gary too..on a plate!
Member since 5/06 32461 total posts
Name:
me
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Janice
are we really just a country of bad seeds??
the numbers do not lie...our gun violence rates compared to others is incredible.
do we really have that many more bad guys???
No they also don't have as many guns and it's harder to get them. They are also not as "fanatic" are some of the lunatics who are on TV. And those OWN guns. Quite scary!!!
|
| Posted 1/11/13 5:40 PM |
| |
|
Janice
Sweet Jessie Quinn
Member since 5/05 27567 total posts
Name:
Janice
|
The argument is not
but that is what i mean.
why can't we make it harder to get guns..rather then just saying criminals will get them anyway
|
| Posted 1/11/13 5:41 PM |
| |
|
smdl
I love Gary too..on a plate!
Member since 5/06 32461 total posts
Name:
me
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Why do people want more than 1-2 guns? Why do they want ASSAULT WEAPONS?
|
| Posted 1/11/13 5:48 PM |
| |
|
maybebaby
LIF Adult
Member since 11/05 6870 total posts
Name:
Maureen
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Blissful
Posted by HeathKernandez
Posted by eroxgirl
Posted by LIVINMYDREAM
Ok , so I have to ask the question ... Do you ACTUALLY think that any stricter gun control will prevent these animals from obtaining guns and Killing..????? IT WILL NOT.
DRUGS are ILLEGAL yet they are a major issue in society and kill thousands everyday.
GUNS are NOT the problem here... PEOPLE are the problem and no matter how many restraints are put on GUNS a crazy low life crimanl will find a way to get their hands on one if they truley want to kill.
AND one other question... These laws that everyone thinks should be put into effect.... Would these laws have stopped Adam Lanza from getting his hands on those guns ...... NOPE!!!!!!! and why ????? Because the guns were registered to HIS MOTHER!!!! And were fully legal. So this goes back to my point of NO MATTER WHAT , a crazy person will find a way wether it be as easy as it was for Adam Lanza or be it not so easy, to kill if that is their intention!!!!!!
I fully believe that if Adam Lanza's MOTHER didn't have guns in her home; didn't have unsecured assault rifles in her home he would not have succeeded.
I'm sure he would have tried.
And if he was truly the mentally ill, ASD diagnosed person that they claimed him to be, I think it's very likely he would have gotten himself killed in the process of trying to illegally buy weapons. Or someone may have been alerted to what he was planning.
Or he would have given up.
Everyone says "they will find a way." So do nothing??? COME ON HERE! Guess what, many people don't do drugs because they're illegal - and only because they're illegal. Many people get BUSTED trying to do illegal things.
I know in my soul that if his mother didn't have a fricken assault rifle laying around her home, he wouldn't have ruined as many lives as he did. Maybe he still would have shot up the school, but not to the same degree. That needs to count for SOMETHING.
^yup.
and if he walked in with a "musket" 20 BABIES wouldn't have died. shot... MULTIPLE TIMES... within seconds.
As someone who lives in Newtown and has a first hand account of all of this, here is what I'm going to say.
If Nancy Lanza didn't have those weapons he would not have succeeded as he visited 5 gun shops over the course of the week prior to purchase guns and was denied.
As someone who WENT to funeral and saw those babies bodies because most were open casket I will say this. These weapons and bullets are made to DESTROY. The bullet used, when it enters the body opens like a flower and is used to severely damage tissue and blast it.
A shot gun and and pistol would not have done so much damage, those children might have had a chance to live. The two babies brought to the hospital might have survived.
These man BLASTED OFF ands of children with one bullet, the entire side and jaw of anothers face, half of the torso of another acts that could have only been done with these assault rifles.They had NO chance or survival.
I'm sorry if this is harsh but this is the reality. I saw one little boy who had a cloth covering the side of his head that was blasted off the same boy whos hand and lower arms was GONE by another bullet...... These babies were RIPPED TO SHREDS.
Half of Victoria Sotos' class watched as the teacher was slain and witness blood gushing out of her mouth as she was shot in the neck and chest..... 6 year old babies lived to see that.
These weren't simple gun wounds, this was a slaughter. SOMETHING HAS TO CHANGE!!!!
I read what Noah Pozners mother wrote about viewing his body for the first time. She relayed the details to the public because she said it was her motherly duty to describe just how horrific this way. It's all well and good that people posted drawings of the children in heaven with Jesus, or to say things like "these angels are in a better place". But Noahs mother needed people to know that this was BRUTAL. She said that maybe the sheer horror of knowing what these children went through would wake people up to this massacre. Noah's lower jaw was taken off by a bullet as well as the many other bullets his poor body took. I sobbed as I read the story....how can any mother and father get through seeing that??? It's disgusting. Truly the most horrifying way to die, just so damn brutal. I'm glad she told the public her story..I don't know if I would have had the strength. She said that she got to see Noah every day just as he way...a beautiful boy with gorgeous eyelashes...and felt it was her job to see him as he was at death...I can't even imagine.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 5:51 PM |
| |
|
sfp0701
Liam's Mommy!
Member since 1/07 9764 total posts
Name:
Tricia
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by PennyJ923
Posted by colette
Posted by PennyJ923
Posted by colette
Posted by PennyJ923
Stricter gun control laws will not prevent criminals or any citizen from obtaining any kind of gun they want to own, just like drug dealers & users are able to get drugs. I do not believe that someone needs the type of gun used in Sandy Hook, but if someone wants to have that type of gun and use it, they will find someone who sells it and they will buy it, even if it's out of the trunk of someones car.
P.S I don't think anyone is stupid LOL I just saw this pic on facebook then came on here and saw this post so I figured it fit. NO OFFENCE TO ANYONE....
Your meme is stupid, you are not.
I can walk into a gun show and buy an unlimited amount of heavy assault weapons and unlimited amount of hi cap magazines with a driver's license.
Me. Right now. Today.
I can take those weapons and distribute them to all my gun loving crack dealing friends.
Me.
I can do that.
And it's LEGAL because the NRA wants it to be.
40% of LEGAL guns are sold this way.
74% of NRA member support closing this gap.
You say the problem is criminals and illegal activity.
I say the problem is making them as easy to get as a cheeseburger. LEGALLY.
Now, tell me again how improved laws won't change anything?
I can also call people right now and find heroin, crack, pills, weed, acid, mushrooms. Sex addicts can find a 15 year old girl to get a blow job from tonight by stopping at a corner, I can go into the city a buy knock off LV bags. There are laws against this type of stuff and it is still happening
And as soon as we have our very first SEX, heroin, crack, pill, weed, acid, mushroom massacre of 20 6 year olds I will be all over that too.
Trite analogy. You can do better.
Drug addiction is out of control in this country. Maybe 20 6 year olds arn't dieing of overdose, but millions of teenager are. We can agree to disagree all day, my point is if someone wants to do something they will find a way no matter what the law says. Laws are broken every day, illegal activy is performed all day every day. That is my point and I am sticking by it.
If herion, crack, mushrooms, underage sex was LEGAL don't you think we would see MORE of it. Of course. It is LEGAL to buy assault rifles now. I we make them ILLEGAL we will see LESS of them. I don't think anyone is saying that they will be GONE.. we WILL see LESS of them.
ETA: FTR I am NOT minimizing the drug epidemic at ALL. I know first hand how bad it is. I am say that if these drugs were LEGAL it would be worse.
Message edited 1/11/2013 5:55:24 PM.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 5:52 PM |
| |
|
maybebaby
LIF Adult
Member since 11/05 6870 total posts
Name:
Maureen
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by smdl
Why do people want more than 1-2 guns? Why do they want ASSAULT WEAPONS?
I DON't UNDERSTAND THIS EITHER..NO ONE SHOULD OWN ASSAULT WEAPONS LIKE THIS!!!!! I'm sorry there is NO ROOM FOR THEM IN THIS WORLD!!!!
It seems so simple, right??? It SHOULD be as simple as abolishing them.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 5:52 PM |
| |
|
ItsaJoya19
my cup runneth over
Member since 1/10 2949 total posts
Name:
E
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by MrsMeloyellow
Posted by ItsaJoya19
Posted by MrsMeloyellow
see...this is what upsets me. This assumption that anyone uttering the slightest of pro 2nd amendment rights is either obviously against gun control or less sympathetic. It's BS. I'm a mother. You think I want to see that? I don't even OWN a gun...but I do feel strongly about maintaining my right to own one. ..especially because of how crazy society is lately and the home invasions on LI. I am disgusted and saddened by what happened in Newtown. I cried when I read the euology written by pozner's mother. I can't imagine being in that position. I think I would just curl up and die. People aren't voicing opinions to be unsympathetic...or because they don't care enough about human life vs rights to an inanimate object. it's because it's a topic being brought up in the media 24/7 and it is a hot topic right now.
you feel strongly about maintaining your right to own an assault weapon???
isn't that what this is about? regulating ASSAULT weapons?
round and round we go on the LIF merry-go-round.....
i'm sorry...did you see the word assault in there? I sure didn't
The only reason why you hear 2nd amendment come up from me in a conversation about assault weapons is because people will start a convo about assault weapons and in the next breath talk about how "guns are bad and kill people". I address the second half about guns being bad...NOT about assault weapons.
No need to apologize. I thought this thread was about assault weapons so I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the 2nd amendment. The discussion is about regulating the sale and possession of assault weapons. Show me the post that specifically says "all guns are bad" in this thread and ill go back in my hole.
I do appreciate the snark. It makes me all warm and fuzzy on this cold, rainy night.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 5:58 PM |
| |
|
smdl
I love Gary too..on a plate!
Member since 5/06 32461 total posts
Name:
me
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by ItsaJoya19
Posted by MrsMeloyellow
Posted by ItsaJoya19
Posted by MrsMeloyellow
see...this is what upsets me. This assumption that anyone uttering the slightest of pro 2nd amendment rights is either obviously against gun control or less sympathetic. It's BS. I'm a mother. You think I want to see that? I don't even OWN a gun...but I do feel strongly about maintaining my right to own one. ..especially because of how crazy society is lately and the home invasions on LI. I am disgusted and saddened by what happened in Newtown. I cried when I read the euology written by pozner's mother. I can't imagine being in that position. I think I would just curl up and die. People aren't voicing opinions to be unsympathetic...or because they don't care enough about human life vs rights to an inanimate object. it's because it's a topic being brought up in the media 24/7 and it is a hot topic right now.
you feel strongly about maintaining your right to own an assault weapon???
isn't that what this is about? regulating ASSAULT weapons?
round and round we go on the LIF merry-go-round.....
i'm sorry...did you see the word assault in there? I sure didn't
The only reason why you hear 2nd amendment come up from me in a conversation about assault weapons is because people will start a convo about assault weapons and in the next breath talk about how "guns are bad and kill people". I address the second half about guns being bad...NOT about assault weapons.
No need to apologize. I thought this thread was about assault weapons so I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the 2nd amendment. The discussion is about regulating the sale and possession of assault weapons. Show me the post that specifically says "all guns are bad" in this thread and ill go back in my hole.
I do appreciate the snark. It makes me all warm and fuzzy on this cold, rainy night.
Here lies the whole issue.
People reading/hearing what they want to read.
The whole thing is about assault weapons. And gun fanatics on tv screaming they don't want nobody to take their guns.
It's quite pathetic that nobody sees that there is a HUGE difference with owning a riffle for hunting/self defense and assault weapons.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 6:09 PM |
| |
|
Celt
~~~~~~~~~~
Member since 4/08 7758 total posts
Name:
colette
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Thanks to the folks that get it 
Faith restored!!!
It's not about confiscation.
It's about LEGISLATION.
LEGISLATING THE SHIT out of assault weapons, specifically, and their ammo.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 6:29 PM |
| |
|
hotsauce345
my love, my life, my son
Member since 1/09 4169 total posts
Name:
Melody
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Ophelia
Posted by MrsMeloyellow
Posted by ItsaJoya19
Posted by MrsMeloyellow
see...this is what upsets me. This assumption that anyone uttering the slightest of pro 2nd amendment rights is either obviously against gun control or less sympathetic. It's BS. I'm a mother. You think I want to see that? I don't even OWN a gun...but I do feel strongly about maintaining my right to own one. ..especially because of how crazy society is lately and the home invasions on LI. I am disgusted and saddened by what happened in Newtown. I cried when I read the euology written by pozner's mother. I can't imagine being in that position. I think I would just curl up and die. People aren't voicing opinions to be unsympathetic...or because they don't care enough about human life vs rights to an inanimate object. it's because it's a topic being brought up in the media 24/7 and it is a hot topic right now.
you feel strongly about maintaining your right to own an assault weapon???
isn't that what this is about? regulating ASSAULT weapons?
round and round we go on the LIF merry-go-round.....
i'm sorry...did you see the word assault in there? I sure didn't
The only reason why you hear 2nd amendment come up from me in a conversation about assault weapons is because people will start a convo about assault weapons and in the next breath talk about how "guns are bad and kill people". I address the second half about guns being bad...NOT about assault weapons.
that second assumption of what would happen is made by so many and a huge reason we are having this debate.
but the actual thought should be, ....banning assault weapons could lead to...less children and theatre goers and volunteer fire fighters and mall shoppers and people driving on highways likely to be sawed in half by semi automatic gun fire with mini missles.
I agree with you. There is no need for a civillian to own such weapons. When I commented on this thread I was taking into account ALL comments on EVERY recent thread re: gun politics since newtown on this site. Why? because it seemed that the poster was fed up with what she read in all those posts as well as possibly even off of LIF.
I feel like the gun politics debate often starts off as everyone agreed that they are pro-assault weapons ban...but then as the conversations roll along you get the comments like "why does a person need more than 1-2 guns? (no specification towards automatic made) or "guns are instruments of death" or "why would anyone keep a gun in a home where there are children" or "bullets should cost 100,000" (again, no specifications made as to assault vs. any old gun) and THOSE kinds of comments are what I speak towards as well as those made by politicians.
but if we are ONLY taking into account assault weapons...then I completely agree with most of the expressed sentiments on that issue.
I actually agree with everything else colette posted except this: NO one. NO ONE WHO IS INVOLVED in gun control legislation is calling for the removal of firearms from individuals. No ONE.
and maybe the issue is that feinstein is not actually CALLING for it...but she supports it and has said so more than once (without differentiation between assault vs other...more than once). that makes me question her.
Message edited 1/11/2013 6:54:02 PM.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 6:33 PM |
| |
|
nrthshgrl
It goes fast. Pay attention.
Member since 7/05 57538 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
I'm not schooled on weapons. I worked for an attorney that sued gun manufacturers for what they described as "lost merchandise" which happened so regularly, it was a simple line item deduction that they took and never made an effort to track. This is where most of the illegal weapons come from.
This thread is about assault weapons. I'm honestly shocked that people don't see regulating the purchase of them as a good thing. I am especially surprised that SOs of cops are not for regulating the purchase of weapons.
Maybe we should stop focusing on banning assault weapons since it's our right to own a gun and focus on legislating against the bullets?
|
| Posted 1/11/13 6:34 PM |
| |
|
smdl
I love Gary too..on a plate!
Member since 5/06 32461 total posts
Name:
me
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
I have the right to own a cat. Not a lion. 
|
| Posted 1/11/13 6:49 PM |
| |
|
|
|
The argument is not
I don't know who to specifically quote but here's some information from some people I know personally:
But first, a disclaimer - ***I don't like guns, I'm horrified at what happened at Newtown, I'm glad we are debating this issue, and I don't see why people need assault weapons.***
Now that's out of the way-
My understanding is that people want to keep their assault weapons (not just a simple hand gun or 2) for following reasons:
-collectors of guns
-former or current military/police with an appreciation of weapons
-some have said that simple rifles/hand guns have not disarmed intruders who have broken into their homes - especially if intruder was hopped up on PCP, etc
-general fear over not having control and not enough defense weapons when govt/military/etc DOES have them
Align those reasons to a law-abiding and mentally stable citizen, and that seems to be the formula that results in people getting angry at the idea of their crazyass weapons being banned.
My opinion? Those people simply hate not having access to something that more powerful people have. It creates anxiety in them for some reason. I think those people tend to be a little "off" mentally-speaking. Not saying that in a judgemental way, but their thinking is skewed..they are distrustful by nature. Not all. Maybe a good majority.
I know people first hand who are like this. They are so scared of a ban and Newtown has not swayed them one bit. If anything, it's made them want their guns more. I don't understand it myself.
But these people I know, I've asked. I've asked why they still need to have such weapons of mass destruction. Why, even after Newtown, do they not support regulation of the crazyass weapons and bullets. I am curious by nature and am baffled myself.. Just as so many are. This is simply what was shared with me from a variety of people, including civilians, military and ex military.
And please. If anyone quotes this, please quote my disclaimer. I don't want to be affiliated in any way to this thinking or have someone read what I wrote the wrong way.
I'm all for gun control.
Message edited 1/11/2013 7:09:23 PM.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 7:05 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by colette
Thanks to the folks that get it
Faith restored!!!
It's not about confiscation.
It's about LEGISLATION.
LEGISLATING THE SHIT out of assault weapons, specifically, and their ammo.
I get it. And my post above was about assault weapons/ammo. Not a handgun.
And I agree with you. And if this is the Year of Collette and you're helping people with BBB coupons after Sandy and this new cause regarding newton, I'm all for it.
I'm for and support anyone being touched by something and making a change.
Props, sister friend. I admire anyone with passion for something they believe in!
|
| Posted 1/11/13 7:15 PM |
| |
|
HeathKernandez
Our Ron is an awesome Ron
Member since 4/07 9091 total posts
Name:
baby fish mouth
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by MrsMeloyellow
I agree with you. There is no need for a civillian to own such weapons. When I commented on this thread I was taking into account ALL comments on EVERY recent thread re: gun politics since newtown on this site. Why? because it seemed that the poster was fed up with what she read in all those posts as well as possibly even off of LIF.
I feel like the gun politics debate often starts off as everyone agreed that they are pro-assault weapons ban...but then as the conversations roll along you get the comments like "why does a person need more than 1-2 guns? (no specification towards automatic made) or "guns are instruments of death" or "why would anyone keep a gun in a home where there are children" or "bullets should cost 100,000" (again, no specifications made as to assault vs. any old gun) and THOSE kinds of comments are what I speak towards as well as those made by politicians.
but if we are ONLY taking into account assault weapons...then I completely agree with most of the expressed sentiments on that issue.
I actually agree with everything else colette posted except this: NO one. NO ONE WHO IS INVOLVED in gun control legislation is calling for the removal of firearms from individuals. No ONE.
and maybe the issue is that feinstein is not actually CALLING for it...but she supports it and has said so more than once (without differentiation between assault vs other...more than once). that makes me question her.
maybe NEXT time.. you should READ and try to UNDERSTAND what the poster is trying to say instead of grabbing some little insignificant part of what she said... saying "NOBODY IS SAYING BAN AGAINST GUNS" as in NOBODY IN THE WORLD..
not ONE effing person is saying that.
any INTELLIGENT person would understand that the OP was saying "no one HERE... in the GUN threads of LIF... and the (oh I don't know MAJORITY of people calling for action) is saying ban guns..."
but YOU had to pull out that NOBODY and challenge her with some senator from California... and CHALLENGE the poster's semantics...
YES... you are CORRECT... SOMEBODY is asking for a ALL OUT ban.
yes. you ARE CORRECT.
unfortunately it painted you (YET AGAIN) in a terrible light. AND i do NOT BELIEVE for one second you are "sympathetic" to people who are for stricter gun laws.
you are just someone who wants to sound intelligent and failing miserably at it
AGAIN.
Message edited 1/11/2013 7:33:11 PM.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 7:32 PM |
| |
|
hotsauce345
my love, my life, my son
Member since 1/09 4169 total posts
Name:
Melody
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by HeathKernandez
Posted by MrsMeloyellow
I agree with you. There is no need for a civillian to own such weapons. When I commented on this thread I was taking into account ALL comments on EVERY recent thread re: gun politics since newtown on this site. Why? because it seemed that the poster was fed up with what she read in all those posts as well as possibly even off of LIF.
I feel like the gun politics debate often starts off as everyone agreed that they are pro-assault weapons ban...but then as the conversations roll along you get the comments like "why does a person need more than 1-2 guns? (no specification towards automatic made) or "guns are instruments of death" or "why would anyone keep a gun in a home where there are children" or "bullets should cost 100,000" (again, no specifications made as to assault vs. any old gun) and THOSE kinds of comments are what I speak towards as well as those made by politicians.
but if we are ONLY taking into account assault weapons...then I completely agree with most of the expressed sentiments on that issue.
I actually agree with everything else colette posted except this: NO one. NO ONE WHO IS INVOLVED in gun control legislation is calling for the removal of firearms from individuals. No ONE.
and maybe the issue is that feinstein is not actually CALLING for it...but she supports it and has said so more than once (without differentiation between assault vs other...more than once). that makes me question her.
maybe NEXT time.. you should READ and try to UNDERSTAND what the poster is trying to say instead of grabbing some little insignificant part of what she said... saying "NOBODY IS SAYING BAN AGAINST GUNS" as in NOBODY IN THE WORLD..
not ONE effing person is saying that.
any INTELLIGENT person would understand that the OP was saying "no one HERE... in the GUN threads of LIF... and the (oh I don't know MAJORITY of people calling for action) is saying ban guns..."
but YOU had to pull out that NOBODY and challenge her with some senator from California... and CHALLENGE the poster's semantics...
YES... you are CORRECT... SOMEBODY is asking for a ALL OUT ban.
yes. you ARE CORRECT.
unfortunately it painted you (YET AGAIN) in a terrible light. AND i do NOT BELIEVE for one second you are "sympathetic" to people who are for stricter gun laws.
you are just someone who wants to sound intelligent and failing miserably at it
AGAIN.
you seem like a very unhappy person. What's missing from your life that you resort to acting like a grade school child? I hope you find your happiness soon.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 7:36 PM |
| |
|
| Pages: << 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 >> |
