| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 |
|
|
Re: My person analogy of the gun ban
Posted by MrsProfessor
I agree that crazy people will always find a way.
But why make it easier for them? An automatic weapon stacks the deck in favor of the shooter. Look at what those bullets did to those children- one child's entire jaw was gone.
You can't compare guns and cars either. Transportation is the purpose of a car. Killing is the purpose of an assault rifle.
I still fail to see the logic behind continuing to let regular people have unfettered access to high-powered guns and ammunition.
A few terrorists fly planes into buildings and make shoe bombs, and look at what we're willing to go through in order to fly safely, something many of us probably don't do that often. And yet, people shoot up malls, movie theaters, and schools, and people begin screaming about their 2nd amendment rights without thinking about the fact that lots of people don't feel safe anywhere, any more.
so well said.
|
Posted 1/21/13 8:16 AM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
|
|
Re: My person analogy of the gun ban
Posted by MandJZ
Posted by MrsDiamondgrlie
I have kept this in mainly because I know I am the minority on this board with my views but lately I cringe when I come on LIF and especially the FHF board and I hate that.
I still cannot think about Sandy Hook for more than a couple of minutes before my throat constricts and tears prick my eyes and I knew no one personally who was affected.
If someone could promise me that if guns of all types were banned, another tragedy like this would never happen again or even 1 accidental shooting, by all means I would change my tune. No one can make that claim, it would be crazy to believe that.
Anyway, the analogy I think is 100% fitting is this:
A drunk driver takes his father's Corvette and drives it 140 mph into a school bus of children and everyone dies. I feel as though an uproar would begin to ban cars that can go that fast instead of focusing on the drunk driving aspect.
Crazy people will always find a way... terrifying fact but true.
Flame away, but I needed to spill my guts.
But....drunk driving is illegal. So - we ARE addressing the drunk driving aspect. Some of the military-level assault weapons used in Sandy Hook are NOT illegal. If they already WERE illegal I could understand your analogy much more.
And personally, I hear just as much about mental health and the 'person' aspect as I do about guns. Both are equally important, one is not more so than the other.
When I said that the drunk "took" his father's car, I meant stole it. If it helps you get it, I can change my analogy to someone stole a stranger's car. Stealing someone else's property is illegal.
That is why in my analogy it IS illegal.
Message edited 1/21/2013 8:41:03 AM.
|
| Posted 1/21/13 8:27 AM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: My person analogy of the gun ban
The car was owned by a person who drove it responsibly, at a safe speed and never under the influence... it represents a person who owns a gun (any type) who has legally obtained it, has been taught how to shoot it and does so in a controlled environment (a shooting range).
The drunk driver represents a mentally ill person who is unchecked by friends and family and who takes a deadly force into his own hands illegallyfor evil.
I say that the focus would go onto banning fast cars because that is what is happening in my analogy to banning guns. Lets not look at the fact of the drunk driving aka mental illness, lets blame the super duper fast car aka rifles.
I am all for stricter enforcement on weapons and ammo. More background checks, a psychiatrist reporting suspicious behavior (I dont care about the privacy factor if someone is about to kill others), anything to make life safer. Anything they want to do to make schools safer (bars on windows, barbed wire, bulletproof glass, locked doors, etc.) I dont care what the school looks like, at the end of the day I only care about my son's safety.
But the government saying "you may own this but not that" does not fly with me because what is next?
I am not trying to convince anyone to change their beliefs but dont follow like lemmings without being informed. If you want to be a lemming after you open your mind to both sides, its all up to you. Freedom is GOOD!
Message edited 1/21/2013 8:43:19 AM.
|
| Posted 1/21/13 8:40 AM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: My person analogy of the gun ban
What gets me, and I'm not saying anyone on this thread is doing this, is how high and mighty people get about the constitution and rights when it comes to guns. But when it comes to basic human rights, and not just regarding guns, no one ever seems to get as passionate.
DH works at Dicks sporting goods, and the things he sees when people are trying to buy guns now, because of the laws being put in place, are frightening. They are not representing gun owners in any kind of positive way. They are acting furious andinsane. Not someone you then want to put a gun in their hands.
|
| Posted 1/21/13 8:46 AM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: My person analogy of the gun ban
Posted by waitingonasunnyday
Posted by MrsProfessor
You can't compare guns and cars either. Transportation is the purpose of a car. Killing is the purpose of an assault rifle.
I still fail to see the logic behind continuing to let regular people have unfettered access to high-powered guns and ammunition.
so well said.
I have used an assault rifle have NOT killed anyone. It is NOT the ONLY purpose. Regular people will NOT see the weapon as a murder weapon, only crazy people will. (or military in the field) A car is for transportation but a crazy person can see it as a deadly weapon or he/she can look at a piano wire and think the same thing.
|
| Posted 1/21/13 8:46 AM |
| |
|
faerychel
LIF Infant
Member since 7/11 182 total posts
Name:
Chelly
|
Re: My person analogy of the gun ban
Posted by MrsDiamondgrlie
The car was owned by a person who drove it responsibly, at a safe speed and never under the influence... it represents a person who owns a gun (any type) who has legally obtained it, has been taught how to shoot it and does so in a controlled environment (a shooting range).
The drunk driver represents a mentally ill person who is unchecked by friends and family and who takes a deadly force into his own hands for evil.
I am all for stricter enforcement on weapons and ammo. More background checks, a psychiatrist reporting suspicious behavior (I dont care about the privacy factor if someone is about to kill others), anything to make life safer. Anything they want to do to make schools safer (bars on windows, barbed wire, bulletproof glass, locked doors, etc.) I dont care what the school looks like, at the end of the day I only care about my son's safety.
But the government saying "you may own this but not that" does not fly with me because what is next?
I am not trying to convince anyone to change their beliefs but dont follow like lemmings without being informed. If you want to be a lemming after you open your mind to both sides, its all up to you. Freedom is GOOD!
Lord have Mercy! I have stayed away from these posts, too, because I'm too vocally opinionated, but it seems to be all there is on this site anymore...
Why on EARTH does a common, non-law enforcing citizen need a military grade assault riffle? Because it's COOL?! "The government is taking away my rights!" Nooo, you're not "protecting your land and property" with an assault riffle: you're feeling cool because you have one (most people I know with them are 20 somethings acting like they're 12 and collecting f*ing Pokemon card!!) and putting everyone else at risk because you're keeping it legal to continue mass producing them.
If they're banned they won't be mass produced. You won't be able to pick one up at every f*ing gun show and shop you see, and yes, they'll still be available out of trunks for illegal sales, but you know what?? You can't "brew" guns in your bathtub or "grow" guns in your basement with halogen lights. They will be depleted and we may even get them close to non-existent if they're banned.
|
| Posted 1/21/13 8:48 AM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: My person analogy of the gun ban
Posted by lipglossjunky73
What gets me, and I'm not saying anyone on this thread is doing this, is how high and mighty people get about the constitution and rights when it comes to guns. But when it comes to basic human rights, and not just regarding guns, no one ever seems to get as passionate.
DH works at Dicks sporting goods, and the things he sees when people are trying to buy guns now, because of the laws being put in place, are frightening. They are not representing gun owners in any kind of positive way. They are acting furious andinsane. Not someone you then want to put a gun in their hands.
Maybe they have always wanted a gun but didnt have the money but now since they may lose their chance to have one, they scraped up the money to get one sooner rather than later.
You have to look at both sides of the coin.
Those people are not the ones to be worried about, you have to get a background check to buy a gun at Dicks. The people who this doesnt affect are not standing in line at Dicks, trust me. They are the ones who are trading drugs or whatever for illegal guns that will always be out there.
|
| Posted 1/21/13 8:52 AM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: My person analogy of the gun ban
Posted by faerychel
Posted by MrsDiamondgrlie
The car was owned by a person who drove it responsibly, at a safe speed and never under the influence... it represents a person who owns a gun (any type) who has legally obtained it, has been taught how to shoot it and does so in a controlled environment (a shooting range).
The drunk driver represents a mentally ill person who is unchecked by friends and family and who takes a deadly force into his own hands for evil.
I am all for stricter enforcement on weapons and ammo. More background checks, a psychiatrist reporting suspicious behavior (I dont care about the privacy factor if someone is about to kill others), anything to make life safer. Anything they want to do to make schools safer (bars on windows, barbed wire, bulletproof glass, locked doors, etc.) I dont care what the school looks like, at the end of the day I only care about my son's safety.
But the government saying "you may own this but not that" does not fly with me because what is next?
I am not trying to convince anyone to change their beliefs but dont follow like lemmings without being informed. If you want to be a lemming after you open your mind to both sides, its all up to you. Freedom is GOOD!
Lord have Mercy! I have stayed away from these posts, too, because I'm too vocally opinionated, but it seems to be all there is on this site anymore...
Why on EARTH does a common, non-law enforcing citizen need a military grade assault riffle? Because it's COOL?! "The government is taking away my rights!" Nooo, you're not "protecting your land and property" with an assault riffle: you're feeling cool because you have one (most people I know with them are 20 somethings acting like they're 12 and collecting f*ing Pokemon card!!) and putting everyone else at risk because you're keeping it legal to continue mass producing them.
If they're banned they won't be mass produced. You won't be able to pick one up at every f*ing gun show and shop you see, and yes, they'll still be available out of trunks for illegal sales, but you know what?? You can't "brew" guns in your bathtub or "grow" guns in your basement with halogen lights. They will be depleted and we may even get them close to non-existent if they're banned.
You know what I hate hearing over and over? The "need" for an assault rifle. What is the "need" for a LV handbag or a $100k Mercedes?
I dont "need" to own or shoot one but I want to. I have the right (or did) to go to the range and learn and practice.
I can protect my home if I ever needed to with one. God help us if I ever need to do that but I technically "can".
And um, yes. When there is a law that is passed that says "no, you may not buy this" that IS the government taking away rights.
Oh and if you think I'm extra cool, thanks.
Message edited 1/21/2013 8:59:29 AM.
|
| Posted 1/21/13 8:56 AM |
| |
|
faerychel
LIF Infant
Member since 7/11 182 total posts
Name:
Chelly
|
Re: My person analogy of the gun ban
Posted by MrsDiamondgrlie
Posted by faerychel
Posted by MrsDiamondgrlie
The car was owned by a person who drove it responsibly, at a safe speed and never under the influence... it represents a person who owns a gun (any type) who has legally obtained it, has been taught how to shoot it and does so in a controlled environment (a shooting range).
The drunk driver represents a mentally ill person who is unchecked by friends and family and who takes a deadly force into his own hands for evil.
I am all for stricter enforcement on weapons and ammo. More background checks, a psychiatrist reporting suspicious behavior (I dont care about the privacy factor if someone is about to kill others), anything to make life safer. Anything they want to do to make schools safer (bars on windows, barbed wire, bulletproof glass, locked doors, etc.) I dont care what the school looks like, at the end of the day I only care about my son's safety.
But the government saying "you may own this but not that" does not fly with me because what is next?
I am not trying to convince anyone to change their beliefs but dont follow like lemmings without being informed. If you want to be a lemming after you open your mind to both sides, its all up to you. Freedom is GOOD!
Lord have Mercy! I have stayed away from these posts, too, because I'm too vocally opinionated, but it seems to be all there is on this site anymore...
Why on EARTH does a common, non-law enforcing citizen need a military grade assault riffle? Because it's COOL?! "The government is taking away my rights!" Nooo, you're not "protecting your land and property" with an assault riffle: you're feeling cool because you have one (most people I know with them are 20 somethings acting like they're 12 and collecting f*ing Pokemon card!!) and putting everyone else at risk because you're keeping it legal to continue mass producing them.
If they're banned they won't be mass produced. You won't be able to pick one up at every f*ing gun show and shop you see, and yes, they'll still be available out of trunks for illegal sales, but you know what?? You can't "brew" guns in your bathtub or "grow" guns in your basement with halogen lights. They will be depleted and we may even get them close to non-existent if they're banned.
You know what I hate hearing over and over? The "need" for an assault rifle. What is the "need" for a LV handbag or a $100k Mercedes?
I dont "need" to own or shoot one but I want to. I have the right (or did) to go to the range and learn and practice.
Oh and if you think I'm extra cool, thanks.
You're right, we should ban LV bags because the crack dealers are taking out full city blocks with them. 
Nope, you don't have the right.
I want a tank, I don't care if they're dangerous, I want one. I also want to be able to juggle grenades. And hell, a slave or two would be a regular hoot! Sound ludicrous? It is, just like the "But I waaaaannnnnt one!" mentality of why assault riffles can't be banned.
Message edited 1/21/2013 9:04:29 AM.
|
| Posted 1/21/13 9:01 AM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: My person analogy of the gun ban
Posted by faerychel
Posted by MrsDiamondgrlie
Posted by faerychel
Posted by MrsDiamondgrlie
The car was owned by a person who drove it responsibly, at a safe speed and never under the influence... it represents a person who owns a gun (any type) who has legally obtained it, has been taught how to shoot it and does so in a controlled environment (a shooting range).
The drunk driver represents a mentally ill person who is unchecked by friends and family and who takes a deadly force into his own hands for evil.
I am all for stricter enforcement on weapons and ammo. More background checks, a psychiatrist reporting suspicious behavior (I dont care about the privacy factor if someone is about to kill others), anything to make life safer. Anything they want to do to make schools safer (bars on windows, barbed wire, bulletproof glass, locked doors, etc.) I dont care what the school looks like, at the end of the day I only care about my son's safety.
But the government saying "you may own this but not that" does not fly with me because what is next?
I am not trying to convince anyone to change their beliefs but dont follow like lemmings without being informed. If you want to be a lemming after you open your mind to both sides, its all up to you. Freedom is GOOD!
Lord have Mercy! I have stayed away from these posts, too, because I'm too vocally opinionated, but it seems to be all there is on this site anymore...
Why on EARTH does a common, non-law enforcing citizen need a military grade assault riffle? Because it's COOL?! "The government is taking away my rights!" Nooo, you're not "protecting your land and property" with an assault riffle: you're feeling cool because you have one (most people I know with them are 20 somethings acting like they're 12 and collecting f*ing Pokemon card!!) and putting everyone else at risk because you're keeping it legal to continue mass producing them.
If they're banned they won't be mass produced. You won't be able to pick one up at every f*ing gun show and shop you see, and yes, they'll still be available out of trunks for illegal sales, but you know what?? You can't "brew" guns in your bathtub or "grow" guns in your basement with halogen lights. They will be depleted and we may even get them close to non-existent if they're banned.
You know what I hate hearing over and over? The "need" for an assault rifle. What is the "need" for a LV handbag or a $100k Mercedes?
I dont "need" to own or shoot one but I want to. I have the right (or did) to go to the range and learn and practice.
Oh and if you think I'm extra cool, thanks.
You're right, we should ban LV bags because the crack dealers are taking out full city blocks with them.
Nope, you don't have the right.
I want a tank, I don't care if they're dangerous, I want one. I also want to be able to juggle grenades. And hell, a sex slave or two would be a regular hoot! Sound ludicrous? It is, just like the "But I waaaaannnnnt one!" mentality of why assault riffles can't be banned.
I didnt say that LV bags are dangerous, I just said no one "needs" one.
You are either purposely missing the point or playing stupid or...
Message edited 1/21/2013 9:07:01 AM.
|
| Posted 1/21/13 9:04 AM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: My person analogy of the gun ban
Posted by MrsDiamondgrlie
I have used an assault rifle have NOT killed anyone. It is NOT the ONLY purpose.
What are other purposes for assault rifles, then? I'm really not being snarky, I just don't see their other uses. In terms of defending your home from an intruder, do you think you could achieve the same purpose of defending your home with a handgun? If someone broke into your home and you have an assault rifle to defend yourself, that person is probably not walking out alive (and I have no issue with someone defending their home and killing an intruder, but I do feel the same end can be achieved with a less dangerous weapon.)
|
| Posted 1/21/13 9:10 AM |
| |
|
Kitten1929
LIF Adult
Member since 1/13 6040 total posts
Name:
|
My person analogy of the gun ban
I don't see this as a practical analogy, but I understand what I think the OP is trying to say. I don't think that you can at all compare this to drunk driving. A cars intended purpose is to transport, and you still have to follow protocols in order to obtain one (and a license). This just doesn't at all equate to the need for gun control. This is not going to be some slippery slope where the next you thing you know we are living under a dictatorship without any rights...that just isn't going to happen. Its preposterous and warrants an eyeroll to those who think that. If people do think that way then maybe they shouldn't have a gun in the first place.
|
| Posted 1/21/13 9:12 AM |
| |
|
faerychel
LIF Infant
Member since 7/11 182 total posts
Name:
Chelly
|
Re: My person analogy of the gun ban
Posted by MrsDiamondgrlie
I didnt say that LV bags are dangerous, I just said no one "needs" one.
You are either purposely missing the point or playing stupid or...
Sorry, you compared wanting to own and fire an assault riffle to wanting a LV. I didn't misread you, you don't get to make such a comparison and then cry "that's not what i said!"
That's the larger issue. Just like a handbag or fancy car, guns are part of a disgusting status symbol now. And if you've taken the time to be trained on how to properly use them... that's awesome. Many MANY haven't, though, but own them because they "felt like it."
|
| Posted 1/21/13 9:14 AM |
| |
|
MandJZ
Time for Baby #2!
Member since 8/10 4194 total posts
Name:
M
|
Re: My person analogy of the gun ban
Here's what I don't get, and nobody has responded to this when I have asked it of people.
Those who are so very concerned about their 2nd Amendment right either haven't read the 2nd Amendment or are conveniently ignoring the ENTIRE beginning of it. The 2nd Amendment provides the right to a "WELL-REGULATED militia". It is right there spelled out in the right. So for everyone who is so up in arms, what about the well-regulated part? In fact, if you read it, then regulations on owning weapons is EXACTLY in the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. By regulating guns, your rights aren't being stomped on they are being CHAMPIONED.
This genuinely confuses me. It's like the ONLY part of the 2nd Amendment that matters is that it says guns in there. Nowhere in there does it say "you have the right to own any and as many guns as you like." In fact, it clearly says the opposite. So even if you don't believe that the constitution is a living document that is subject to change and improvement, even if you don't, it says right there that what the 2nd Amendment provides is the right to a well-regulated militia!
|
| Posted 1/21/13 9:25 AM |
| |
|
Kitten1929
LIF Adult
Member since 1/13 6040 total posts
Name:
|
Re: My person analogy of the gun ban
Posted by MandJZ
Here's what I don't get, and nobody has responded to this when I have asked it of people.
Those who are so very concerned about their 2nd Amendment right either haven't read the 2nd Amendment or are conveniently ignoring the ENTIRE beginning of it. The 2nd Amendment provides the right to a "WELL-REGULATED militia". It is right there spelled out in the right. So for everyone who is so up in arms, what about the well-regulated part? In fact, if you read it, then regulations on owning weapons is EXACTLY in the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. By regulating guns, your rights aren't being stomped on they are being CHAMPIONED.
This genuinely confuses me. It's like the ONLY part of the 2nd Amendment that matters is that it says guns in there. Nowhere in there does it say "you have the right to own any and as many guns as you like." In fact, it clearly says the opposite. So even if you don't believe that the constitution is a living document that is subject to change and improvement, even if you don't, it says right there that what the 2nd Amendment provides is the right to a well-regulated militia!
People only read what they want to read. It's another case of blindly following others with out any true understanding of what they're fighting for.
|
| Posted 1/21/13 9:37 AM |
| |
|
danielle3203
LIF Adult
Member since 8/10 1446 total posts
Name:
Danielle
|
Re: My person analogy of the gun ban
Posted by KellyFG
So let's take the OPs analogy & say the son that borrowed the corvette wasn't drunk or high. Just mentally ill & out to prove a point causing him to drive 140 MPH crashing into a bus filled with 5 year olds.
Why do we sell cars that are as dangerous as an assualt rifle when our speed limit is 70MPH at the most? Cars are legal but going double the speed limit isn't anywhere in this country and its a fact that more people die in car "accidents" every year than by being shot with an assault rifle.
As an avid firearm collector & marksman I am 100% in favor of limiting magazine size and limiting bulk ammo purchasing ability, I'm also in favor of background checks for all firearm purchases. I also think firearm safety lessons should be required, my DH teaches them in fact.
My concern is the sandy hook tragedy is opening the door for reasonable changes that will evolve into major changes in our ability as American citizens to bear arms.
For the record since its seems most LIFers don't own firearms, let me inform you it is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to purchase the ammo used in the most popular assualt rifles in the US right now. Some local stores have waiting lists of two months or more. Online sellers aren't even taking preorders anymore.
It bears mentioning the department of homeland security has purchased what can be considered a seven year supply of 223 ammo in the last 12 months.
Not the department of defense, homeland security. 
This has put a crunch on the supply. After Sandy hook people started stock pilling and now the well has run dry.
Call me a nut job, call me whatever you want but it is my right (and yours) to be able to protect my family. the thought of my government moving in the direction to strip me of that right based on a handful of mentally ill lunatics has me very concerned.
Ita with everything u said!
|
| Posted 1/21/13 9:39 AM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: My person analogy of the gun ban
Posted by MandJZ
Here's what I don't get, and nobody has responded to this when I have asked it of people.
Those who are so very concerned about their 2nd Amendment right either haven't read the 2nd Amendment or are conveniently ignoring the ENTIRE beginning of it. The 2nd Amendment provides the right to a "WELL-REGULATED militia". It is right there spelled out in the right. So for everyone who is so up in arms, what about the well-regulated part? In fact, if you read it, then regulations on owning weapons is EXACTLY in the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. By regulating guns, your rights aren't being stomped on they are being CHAMPIONED.
This genuinely confuses me. It's like the ONLY part of the 2nd Amendment that matters is that it says guns in there. Nowhere in there does it say "you have the right to own any and as many guns as you like." In fact, it clearly says the opposite. So even if you don't believe that the constitution is a living document that is subject to change and improvement, even if you don't, it says right there that what the 2nd Amendment provides is the right to a well-regulated militia!
I think people interpret it the way they like, to suit their own purposes. A lot of the weaponry we have today didn't exist when the Constitution was written, so I feel like people are showing their ignorance when they claim they should be able to buy as many guns as they want, and do as they wish with them, like that guy walking around JC Penney with the assault rifle on his back.
|
| Posted 1/21/13 9:41 AM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: My person analogy of the gun ban
Posted by faerychel
Posted by MrsDiamondgrlie
I didnt say that LV bags are dangerous, I just said no one "needs" one.
You are either purposely missing the point or playing stupid or...
Sorry, you compared wanting to own and fire an assault riffle to wanting a LV. I didn't misread you, you don't get to make such a comparison and then cry "that's not what i said!"
QUOTE]
Still missing the key word we are debating.
I said NEED not want. You copied my words and still put the wrong words in my mouth.
|
| Posted 1/21/13 9:42 AM |
| |
|
faerychel
LIF Infant
Member since 7/11 182 total posts
Name:
Chelly
|
Re: My person analogy of the gun ban
Posted by MrsDiamondgrlie
Posted by faerychel
Posted by MrsDiamondgrlie
I didnt say that LV bags are dangerous, I just said no one "needs" one.
You are either purposely missing the point or playing stupid or...
Sorry, you compared wanting to own and fire an assault riffle to wanting a LV. I didn't misread you, you don't get to make such a comparison and then cry "that's not what i said!"
QUOTE]
Still missing the key word we are debating.
I said NEED not want. You copied my words and still put the wrong words in my mouth.
Where in that quote did I say need? in all but one of my posts i've said "Want."
Message edited 1/21/2013 9:45:33 AM.
|
| Posted 1/21/13 9:45 AM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: My person analogy of the gun ban
Posted by MrsProfessor
Posted by MrsDiamondgrlie
I have used an assault rifle have NOT killed anyone. It is NOT the ONLY purpose.
What are other purposes for assault rifles, then? I'm really not being snarky, I just don't see their other uses. In terms of defending your home from an intruder, do you think you could achieve the same purpose of defending your home with a handgun? If someone broke into your home and you have an assault rifle to defend yourself, that person is probably not walking out alive (and I have no issue with someone defending their home and killing an intruder, but I do feel the same end can be achieved with a less dangerous weapon.)
Target shooting. That is another purpose. A hobby if you will...
If you read the details of the ban, many hand guns were banned as well.
|
| Posted 1/21/13 9:45 AM |
| |
|
LIVINMYDREAM
LIF Adolescent
Member since 12/07 833 total posts
Name:
Erin
|
Re: My person analogy of the gun ban
Posted by MrsDiamondgrlie
I have kept this in mainly because I know I am the minority on this board with my views but lately I cringe when I come on LIF and especially the FHF board and I hate that.
I still cannot think about Sandy Hook for more than a couple of minutes before my throat constricts and tears prick my eyes and I knew no one personally who was affected.
If someone could promise me that if guns of all types were banned, another tragedy like this would never happen again or even 1 accidental shooting, by all means I would change my tune. No one can make that claim, it would be crazy to believe that.
Anyway, the analogy I think is 100% fitting is this:
A drunk driver takes his father's Corvette and drives it 140 mph into a school bus of children and everyone dies. I feel as though an uproar would begin to ban cars that can go that fast instead of focusing on the drunk driving aspect.
Crazy people will always find a way... terrifying fact but true.
Flame away, but I needed to spill my guts.
I was absolutely 100% feeling the same way .. However, after hearing the rationale about having some control over Military assault weapons and THOSE ALONE, I will admit I changed my stance a bit. Although I was disgusted at the way some people were trying to state their opinions.. ( Very condecending and nasty.) I think my view changed a bit after reading the one post where the mother was describing the amount of damage done to that poor little baby by the bullets.
I do still believe, however, that no matter what a crazy person will find a way to kill..... NO MATTER WHAT. But atleast keeping tighter control over Military Assault weapons will make it a little bit harder...
ETA: I do have guns in my home... My STBDH is a police officer.. However did you know that as the law stands right now a POLICE OFFICER can't even LEGALLY hold a full magazine of bullets?? So I will say that the law right now being they were in such a rush to pass it needs to be revamped a bit.. BUT Military assault weapons and those alone should be made harder to get.
Message edited 1/21/2013 9:59:53 AM.
|
| Posted 1/21/13 9:45 AM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: My person analogy of the gun ban
Posted by faerychel
Posted by MrsDiamondgrlie
Posted by faerychel
Posted by MrsDiamondgrlie
I didnt say that LV bags are dangerous, I just said no one "needs" one.
You are either purposely missing the point or playing stupid or...
Sorry, you compared wanting to own and fire an assault riffle to wanting a LV. I didn't misread you, you don't get to make such a comparison and then cry "that's not what i said!"
QUOTE]
Still missing the key word we are debating.
I said NEED not want. You copied my words and still put the wrong words in my mouth.
Where in that quote did I say need? in all but one of my posts i've said "Want." I don't CARE that you WANT to be able to shoot. a WANT is not a G*d given right.
I said there is no "need" for a LV bag or a gun. Period.
|
| Posted 1/21/13 9:46 AM |
| |
|
2BadSoSad
LIF Adult
Member since 8/12 6791 total posts
Name:
|
Re: My person analogy of the gun ban
Posted by Jbon630
Posted by 2BadSoSad
Posted by MrsProfessor
Prohibition was a huge failure, too.
Exactly! Try to outright BAN something and people revolt, regulate it instead and it helps.
So we should then apply this rule to heroin, meth, etc?
Let's be reasonable here.
|
| Posted 1/21/13 9:46 AM |
| |
|
faerychel
LIF Infant
Member since 7/11 182 total posts
Name:
Chelly
|
Re: My person analogy of the gun ban
Posted by MrsDiamondgrlie
Posted by faerychel
Posted by MrsDiamondgrlie
Posted by faerychel
Posted by MrsDiamondgrlie
I didnt say that LV bags are dangerous, I just said no one "needs" one.
You are either purposely missing the point or playing stupid or...
Sorry, you compared wanting to own and fire an assault riffle to wanting a LV. I didn't misread you, you don't get to make such a comparison and then cry "that's not what i said!"
QUOTE]
Still missing the key word we are debating.
I said NEED not want. You copied my words and still put the wrong words in my mouth.
Where in that quote did I say need? in all but one of my posts i've said "Want." I don't CARE that you WANT to be able to shoot. a WANT is not a G*d given right.
I said there is no "need" for a LV bag or a gun. Period.
AMEN! On that we agree.
|
| Posted 1/21/13 9:47 AM |
| |
|
Jbon630
LIF Adult
Member since 12/11 1340 total posts
Name:
|
Re: My person analogy of the gun ban
Posted by 2BadSoSad
Posted by Jbon630
Posted by 2BadSoSad
Posted by MrsProfessor
Prohibition was a huge failure, too.
Exactly! Try to outright BAN something and people revolt, regulate it instead and it helps.
So we should then apply this rule to heroin, meth, etc?
Let's be reasonable here.
I think it was a reasonable statement. At least people who use meth and heroin (unless they get into a vehicle) are only harming themselves. Assault rifles are for the main exclusive purpose of killing other people.
|
| Posted 1/21/13 10:16 AM |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 |
