Christmas gun ads from the past
Ah, back when we didn't see each other as the enemy and weren't whipped up by fear of everything from shampoo on flights to saying the word Christmas in school.
http://www.retronaut.co/2011/12/christmas-guns/
= new reply since forum marked as read
He could learn that firearms up until the latter half of the 20th century were prized possessions in the United States often costing more than an average months salary. Most people did not own more than one or two weapons, and the pistol wasn't popular until the Colt Revolver, only the elites could afford to ornate weapons or possess a collection.
He could learn to read the Constitution correctly. 
From this forum that suggest some care more about their guns than they do innocent victims. 
And don't give me that you're hurting our feelings crap, at least one poster has plainly said he only cares about himself.
Your side first...
But in the spirit..
Have fun tilting at that windmill.
...when the arguments start getting ludicrous and start devolving into personal attacks.
Have another one...
Where I get these there are also conservative cartoonists - the pro-gun control to anti-gun control ratio is like 20 to 1. I think the political cartoonists are on to something and you should consider what they have to say with their penetrating threat of ink.
I've made plenty of my own arguments. They're not hard to find.
Look who else agrees with these ridiculous positions on the Second Amendment:
I don't agree with anything these loons have to say, why do so many in this forum buy their line? Are they afraid of taking the Republicans head-on?
No, I don't disavow any of those people, any statements they've made that have perhaps gone to far are motivated primarily absurd positions that the above Republican figures and some in this forum seem to be taking in regards to opposition to common sense gun control.
C'mon, why is it so hard to say that the Republicans are wrong on gun rights?
You want to get down in dirty with the debate, so let's have it. Denounce the Republican position.
This nonsensical proposition for extreme limitations on new gun control is not only in complete opposition to the conceptions of the Founders, it is embraced by our political opponents. If I found myself in such company, I'd question my own beliefs and become a changed man.
The Founders are quite clear both on regulation of firearms and on the social contract governing such statements:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
-----
Hitler is a whole different topic.
These are all mid-size newspapers (Salt Lake City, St. Louis, Green Bay, Tucson etc.) or Cagle cartoon services. I'm not even busting out Tom Toles, Ted Rall, or Jeff Danziger - "the big guns" or political cartoons these days. Please, feel free to post whatever pro-gun cartoons you wish, I'd just not that the one's I've seen, like most of the conservative cartoons are poorly conceived and executed. 
Here, have another:
I'm sure you'll ignore this like you ignore all the other salient arguments made against the gun nuttery
1. Prove me wrong that a "fair deal of Middle America" doesn't favor more stringent gun control. 
2. "Grow up, man. You're embarassing yourself."
Wamp...wamp...you got nothing... I wonder why I've never seen you post in any forum but this...
3. Intellectually simple and unable to do something like provide some basic visual relief to this drab repetitious drooling. Wait, it's coming to me, this must be what the Republican caucus meetings are like. A bunch of old white men agreeing with each other about how what they do shouldn't effect other peoples lives.
4. Mein gott...a typo...also there are two rr's in "embarrassing"...you'd think he's having six conversations at once with people who have nothing better to do than debate people on a website that predominantly disagrees with their world-view. 
5. BTW - get a feckin avatar...I'm tired of looking at the blanks. 
I just don't need to play patsy-cake with you...seriously. You don't like my posts, put them on ignore or don't respond, I'm not going to hold your feckin' hands.
"it's a convenient way to avoid such distasteful duties." - That's not a bad way to describe how most DUers view this forum.
"And again, you question my bona fides. It's a shoddy tactic, my friend."
I think it's an accurate description...you seem to have one issue and only post in one forum. Am I wrong?
"Please explain how it is "intellectually simple" to ask you to address issues rather than parading an endless stream of cartoon propaganda across the bandwidth."
I'd wager you've never spent a dime on this bandwidth.
"I'd just not that the one's I've seen" should be "It's just that" - If you're going to play that little game. I've got more cartoons, dude.
"I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Republican. What are you suggesting?"
What should I be suggesting - do you vote Democratic?
And Edit: For the record I've never voted, supported, or advocated in anyway for any non-Democrats. I've voted in 2 Presidential elections and 2 Midterms. I've given money to Howard Dean and Barack Obama. I've volunteered for both campaigns. I've been a Democrat since I was 10 years old - I'm 25. What are your political affiliations?
1. I only repeat myself so many times before I expect those who are following my posts across several threads to stop asking the same damn question. Have I not made my position clear? Why are your trying to silence me and harass me over my typos? Also, please pick an avatar - looking at the shadow is dull.
2. I don't have to take you seriously. IMHO you're probably a Libertarian who holds the funny notion that somehow Democrats agree with such nonsense. You only seem to discuss a single issue and it is my express right to not take you seriously. This isn't a public website dude - I have no rights, you have no rights. I finally got it out of you though, why are you here? To challenge? You certainly don't seem here to support Democrats otherwise you wouldn't be isolating yourself to the Gungeon. Where's the Libertarian board dude?
3. You don't have any skin this game so don't tell me what to make of posters who seem to only have two positions - very little gun control and the contingent legalization of drugs. I wasn't born yesterday - I know what political groups love to beat those two drums in particular. It ain't hard to tell. I'm not calling you a troll, I just don't quite think you and your friends here are quite on my side of the ballot box. That's okay - but when you play games with other peoples words, engage in swarming behavior, you're going to draw some attention. In fact, it's pretty obvious...
4. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=myaccount&sub=star&page=pp
5.
These are the terms of service:
Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).
Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.
Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.
--------
Don't do anything else which is similarly disruptive.
Just because it isn't listed here, doesn't mean it's ok. If you post anything which is obviously disruptive, malicious, or repugnant to this community, its members, or its values, you risk being in violation of these Terms of Service.
One more thing: Don't push your luck.
The DU Community Standards state: "It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints." Members who demonstrate a pattern of disruptive behavior over time and end up getting too many of their posts hidden by the jury (measured by raw number or percentage) may be found to be in violation of our Terms of Service. If you seem to be ruining this website for a large proportion of our visitors, if we think the community as a whole would be better off without you here, if you are constantly wasting the DU Administrators' time, if you seem to oppose the mission of DU, or if the DU Administrators just don't like you, we will revoke your posting privileges. Remember: DU is supposed to be fun — don't make it suck.
Yeah we'll see about that...when any of y'all start posting anywhere but the Gungeon...
Well played sir.
You deserve a cartoon for the consistent effort to misrepresent other people's positions.
Enjoy:
How we're living today with firearms is not what the Founders intended or would have liked.
So you agree I am correct, firearms are cheap compared to the past?
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd" is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.
This has nothing to do with understanding why a man with 200 guns is more dangerous than a man with only 1 gun.
I have asked you countless times how a man with 200 guns is somehow dangerous enough that it would warrant restricting the number of firearms a person can own. You've come up with nothing.
No matter how many guns a man owns, he can only use maybe 2 of them at a time. There's no harm in a person owning dozens, or even hundreds of firearms because he can't possibly use them all to commit a crime.
Now you might say that someone with a lot of guns might be a target for theft. True, but so what? Are you saying we should restrict the rights of law-abiding people because someone might commit a crime against them?!?!
That's ridiculous.
Do you think paying taxes is your patriotic duty?
...for more effective enforcement of gun control?
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
You lose, geimu oba.
I have one full size bookshelf. I frequent a certain place, I'm sure you've heard of it, called the library.
I agree there are people who have bibliomania. So why can't you agree there are weapon hoarders? Are they waiting for ze Germans to come?
I also don't think my observation was "holier-than-thou nonsense" - so now you're admitting that some of it is getting a little ridiculous
"What good could you be doing if you weren't spending all your time in here beating your prohibitionist drum?"
You don't know me...I think any judgment you attempted to pass would probably come off as right-wing nonsense. I don't hide my identity. Who are you?
"Actually, I think you are woefully uninformed on the subject."
So tell me, do you post about anything here other than guns? 
Bullets were flying and Texas firefighters had to keep their heads down as fire engulfed a house, cooking off tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition stored inside.
MAGNOLIA (December 23, 2011)--A house fire near Magnolia in Southeast Texas cooked off tens of thousands of ammunition rounds, keeping firefighters from battling the blaze.
Magnolia County Assistant Fire Marshal Scott Burlin said the fire, at around noon Thursday, destroyed the old rural house about 40 miles northwest of Houston near Magnolia.
Click here to find out more!
-------
The owner, Bill Adams, said the house had been in his family since 1927 and contained hundreds of antiques reduced to ashes with the rest of the house.
Among the antiques were about 40 guns, for which Burlin estimated there were about 100,000 rounds of ammunition in the house.
http://www.kwtx.com/statenews/headlines/Thousands_Of_Rounds_Of_Ammo_Cook_Off_As_Rural_Texas_Home_Burns_136143168.html
Updated 3/2/2007 4:13 PM ET
NORCO, Calif. (AP) — More than 1 million rounds of ammunition, a cache of weapons and a tunnel were found at a man's California home after an explosive fire that forced a neighborhood evacuation, authorities said Friday.
Crews worked to fortify the tunnel, which measured 5 feet wide by 8 feet long, to ensure it was safe. It appeared to be at least 10 feet deep and led into a backyard, authorities said.
The fire Thursday afternoon at the home in Norco, about 45 miles east of Los Angeles, caused some of the ammunition to explode.
The man tried to run back into the house after firefighters arrived and had to be restrained by sheriff's deputies, Riverside County sheriff's Deputy Juan Zamora said.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-02-ammunition_x.htm
Published: Friday, December 9, 2011
Associated Press
WASHOUGAL -- About two dozen investigators looked for more human remains Friday at a home that burned with at least two people inside as gunfire kept firefighters away.
"We found rifles, handguns and thousands and thousands of rounds of ammunition," including some that did not explode in Wednesday's fire, said Clark County sheriff's Sgt. Kevin Allais.
There's no explanation yet why a man inside the house fired at people responding to the blaze. It was not a drug house, Allais said.
------
The owner is believed to be a self-proclaimed white separatist who was arrested in Bonner County, Idaho, in 1995 over allegations he threatened his ex-wife, The Columbian reported. Authorities in Idaho allegedly confiscated more than two dozen weapons, including six AK-47s and a grenade launcher.
http://heraldnet.com/article/20111209/NEWS03/712099831/-1/News
Hope your house doesn't catch fire! With all those rounds popping off the firefighters are going to say fuck it
And the fire department ain't going near that sucker. Small price to pay I suppose for the pleasure of abusing the American Constitution.
If you want one - you seem to be taking to these as like a dog to a mirror...
"Bill O'Reilly, Charles Krauthammer ... That's some really fine company you keep there. I won't harp on it if you make one promise: never commit an associational fallacy on here again."
Jon Stewart. It's you and your people who keep quoting Krauthammer on the supposed menace of gun control to total gun bans and then twisting the argument when I quote Republican Supreme Court Justices drawing a line in favor of some gun control and a former Chief Justice on the political machinations of the NRA and company. 
"I won't harp on it if you make one promise: never commit an associational fallacy on here again."
Make a donation to DU and I'll make you promises...
I'd rather read Eugene Robinson. I have no need to take you seriously if you're just going to try and associate me with scum such as Krauthhammer.
Enjoy a cartoon:
Holy fuck is right.
It'll be in the DSM one day as it should.
Nice try though...
The question isn't how many people bought them. The question is how easy it was to get one. Very easy it turns out, by mail order. You could get any gun by mail order back then. How about a semi-auto pistol for $30?
"Start buying him handguns and assault rifles...I start to question your intent. "
The photo you disagreed with was of a small bolt-action rifle.
What's the problem with handguns? My 12 year-old is quite good with a handgun.
As far as assault rifles, those require special licenses and aren't allowed to be owned by minors. So what's your problem?
Oh, you probably meant semi-automatic rifles with various features that cause a rifle to look "evil" to rabid anti-gunners like you so that they wrongly get called "assault rifles"...
A semi-auto AR-15 is a good weapon for a youngster. It uses an intermediate .22 caliber round, much less powerful than the usual hunting rounds, but still good for smaller game (small deer and down). Yes, an AR-15, M-16, etc., is .22 caliber. It is lightweight with low recoil, perfect for kids. The only problem is that they cost much more than what most people will spend on a gun for a kid.
When kids go to the range shooting this with their dad, what do you think their intent is?
When kids go to the range shooting this with their dad, what do you think their intent is?
If it's OK to teach your kid to hunt, does it matter if he hunts with an AR platform rifle, like the Remington R-25?
Or can he only learn how to hunt with a bolt-action rifle, or perhaps a muzzle loader?
Such is oftenest the young man's introduction to the forest, and the most original part of himself. He goes thither at first as a hunter and fisher, until at last, if he has the seeds of a better life in him, he distinguishes his proper objects, as a poet or naturalist it may be, and leaves the gun and fish-pole behind. The mass of men are still and always young in this respect. In some countries a hunting parson is no uncommon sight. Such a one might make a good shepherd's dog, but is far from being the Good Shepherd. I have been surprised to consider that the only obvious employment, except wood-chopping, ice-cutting, or the like business, which ever to my knowledge detained at Walden Pond for a whole half-day any of my fellow-citizens, whether fathers or children of the town, with just one exception, was fishing. Commonly they did not think that they were lucky, or well paid for their time, unless they got a long string of fish, though they had the opportunity of seeing the pond all the while. They might go there a thousand times before the sediment of fishing would sink to the bottom and leave their purpose pure; but no doubt such a clarifying process would be going on all the while. The Governor and his Council faintly remember the pond, for they went a-fishing there when they were boys; but now they are too old and dignified to go a-fishing, and so they know it no more forever. Yet even they expect to go to heaven at last. If the legislature regards it, it is chiefly to regulate the number of hooks to be used there; but they know nothing about the hook of hooks with which to angle for the pond itself, impaling the legislature for a bait. Thus, even in civilized communities, the embryo man passes through the hunter stage of development.
http://www.transcendentalists.com/walden_higher_laws.htm
Did you pick cherries much as a boy?
I'm actually getting close to just deciding to go full vegetarian. I like steak too much...
How about you SteveW...have you passed "through the hunter state of development?"
Either way, the quote didn't exactly mean what you thought it did. Hey! You learned something 
Still in that stage and just maybe ahead of those who didn't bother to venture even that far.
Thoreau was pretty "conflicted" about hunting (the real issue, here), and how it fits into "civilization." With his eating of moose meat, it is also clear that he is on his own threshold about civilization; he recoils from the act of killing, yet enjoys the fruits of that act.
(see: "A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers."
Going through a stage doesn't mean you give it up, or that when/if you give it up, you are automatically given a free pass into something more civil or "better." But you must have the wherewithal to at least open the door.
The denial of such is a "pity."
