Why all guns should be banned forever.

[OpSomBlood]

I'm getting tired of these cavemen Republicans telling us that they should be allowed to own guns. This is ridiculous! Nobody needs a gun! If there were no guns, there would be no crime!

For example, look at the Assault Weapons Ban. These idiots are trying to tell us that you need to own a cop-killing machine gun to survive. Everybody knows that if a burglar or rapist or serial killer breaks into your house, you should just hold real still and be quiet. I learned in Jurassic Park that if you don't move, they can't see you.

Of course, this presents a problem for how you move to the phone to call the police to come rescue you. I personally solve this problem by keeping my cordless in my hand at all times. Dialing 911 always gets the friendly police officers to my house in less than ten seconds. But I tell them to wait outside because I don't want their evil baby-killing guns on my property.

Nobody needs a gun! I mean, it's so simple!

As for other kinds of guns, I don't really care much about the details. I know that guns are designed to kill people and that's all I need to know.

Please help me add to this list of reasons why nobody should ever be allowed to own a gun. "My safety is more important than your freedom"...didn't Benjamin Franklin say that?

[rumguy]

1. wrong - without guns we'd all be powerless in the face of the fascists

plus, people like to hunt and target practice...

in addition, the black market would always be around, for criminals...

[library_max]

33. What is your gun going to do for you "in the face of the fascists"?

Do you plan to take on the US military with it, assuming that there is actually a fascist takeover of the US?

What "power" does your gun give you, exactly?

[OpSomBlood]

50. There's no way armed citizens could ever fight our military.

It would be a lopsided battle, so we should all just give up and save everyone the bloodshed.

It's not as though certain countries in the Middle East or Southeast Asia have done it or anything...

[library_max]

56. Yeah, you're right!

The Kurds used them against Saddam Hussein and look how they kicked his ass!

[Wickerman]

question

anything to this post but flamebait? Let me know what you intend with this thread and perhaps it won't get locked.

[Liberal Classic]

4. You mean

There are posts that aren't?

*ducks*

:evilgrin:

[trumad]

2. Don't touch the Constitution

that's what I say....

[library_max]

34. Fortunately, you don't have to.

All the relevant SC cases indicate that the Second Amendment applies only to the armed citizen militia. And there ain't no such animal any more.

[Columbia]

105. Really?

"All the relevant SC cases indicate that the Second Amendment applies only to the armed citizen militia."

What cases are these? You do know that the actual Supreme Court has only ruled ONCE with anything regarding the 2nd right? And that ruling dealt with a weapon and had nothing to do with membership in a militia.

U.S. Supreme Court

Nos. 95-1478 and 95-1503

JAY PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA, PETITIONER 95-1478 v. UNITED STATES RICHARD MACK, PETITIONER 95-1503

on writs of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

June 27, 1997

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US...

Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.

[library_max]

125. Miller ruled that the Second Amendment applies only

in the context of the armed citizen militia. There has been no subsequent case that was not based on Miller. There has been no case that upholds the right of the individual private citizen to purchase or possess firearms based on the Second Amendment. I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend.

[mosin]

3. Guns are bad, mm-kay?

2. Guns are noisy and dirty and contribute to air pollution.
3. Lead poisoning can cause cancer and reproductive difficulties in adults and developmental difficulties in children. (That's why I don't let my kids eat my reloading supplies.)

[coltman]

6. My kids all reload...

and are perfectly healthy.Mort just had his eyes checked and he has 20/20/20 vision.lol

[mosin]

12. Reloading

I was just kidding along with OpSomBlood. Reloading is a fantastic adjunct to shooting. My kids are just a bit too young. My son would probably still try to eat the bullets. :) My daughter helps me out a bit. She thinks the presses are cool. She's a good shot with a .22 rifle too.

The biggest source of lead poisoning for reloaders is the brass tumbler. Many people don't realize how much lead dust those things produce.

[coltman]

18. For sure..

been rollin' my own now for 30 something years.Sure would be interested in chatting or e-mailing , damn few Dem. loaders on the web. What cals. you load.

[mosin]

23. Calibers

In terms of volume, it's mostly .40S&W, with some .38Sp/.357Mag and .45ACP thrown in.

I also load .44Sp/.44Mag, 10mm, 7.62 Nagant, 7.5x55 Swiss, .308Win, 7.62x39, and 7.62x54R in small volumes.

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

48. Cool! Fellow reloaders!

9mm, 10mm, 38SP/357Mag, 44MAG, 40S&W(by default from the 10mm), 45 ACP, .308 WIN, .243 WIN, 6.5x55 SWEDE, .223 Rem, 7mm REM MAG, .300 WIN MAG, 7.63x39.

Volume is 90% of: 9mm/10mm/45ACP/.223 Rem.

[OpSomBlood]

49. This is garbage, there's no such thing as a Democrat gun enthusiast.

Liars.

[library_max]

74. Now now, Coltman agreed with you.

"Sure would be interested in chatting or e-mailing , damn few Dem. loaders on the web."

[PopeyeII]

186. Reloader here too

12 gauge, .223, .308, 9mm, .38, .357, .44mag, .45ACP................................

Lots of engineering, physics, math, and machine shop stuff involved. Too complex for some so they bash it.

Do any gun haters know what a chronygraph is?

[MrBenchley]

5. What would wickless weenies do without them?

They're the only long hard thing these guys ever come near anymore....

[OpSomBlood]

9. It's so true!

You are absolutely right! Ownership of a machine that fires projectiles via a controlled powder explosion is directly corellated with penis size! I think there was a study done at Johns Hopkins that proves this.

[tandot]

7. If you don't like guns, don't own one...

[library_max]

35. If you don't like getting shot by some gun-happy idiot . . . ?

[tandot]

37. I would be more worried about some drunk driver

running me over, or someone running a red light because they were too busy chatting on their cell phone.

Or some pick-up driving, Bush-loving freeper forcing me off the road because he doesn't like my John Kerry for President bumper sticker.

People have the right to own guns and most wouldn't give that up for anything. If we prohibit gun ownership only those redneck fascists and criminals will have them. Because that group of people gives a sh*t about laws.

[library_max]

42. People need cars. They don't need guns.

Criminals and redneck fascists get their guns the same place everybody else gets them, or they get them from people who get them from those places. Cut off the source, cut off the guns. What do you think, "criminals" can just make guns appear out of thin air?

[OpSomBlood]

43. It's very debatable whether or not people "need" cars.

n/t

[boxster]

95. You've apparently never lived in a rural location or on a farm.

Try getting from a ranch in western Nebraska, South Dakota, Kansas, etc., to a grocery store or gas station without a car/truck.

If the nearest town is 50 miles away, what are you going to do? Walk?

[tandot]

45. So, you would tell every gun owner to turn in all of his/her guns

and they would do that? And the criminals would follow suit and flood police stations, trying to return their guns? How do we control other countries and their gun supply?

Did prohibition reduce alcohol consumption? Pot is illegal and people still use it.

How about working on the issues that causes gun violence and violence in general?

[library_max]

72. Can you grow guns in your back yard?

Can you whip up a batch of bathtub guns?

There's such a thing as customs to deal with other countries and their gun supply. Search dogs are trained to sniff for gunpowder anyway, and metal detectors can find guns - no new technology or procedures needed.

Don't you think most law-abiding gun owners would turn their guns in? Then begins the process of getting the rest. I concede that it will take a long time, but worthwhile things often do. Rome wasn't built in a day. And the ridiculously large number of guns in society isn't exactly the fault of us who have been advocating more gun control all along, now, is it?

[DoNotRefill]

90. "Can you grow guns in your back yard?"

Can't grow them, certainly can make them. It's not hard to do.

I KNOW most law abiding gun owners will NOT turn in their guns. How? California's AW registration program. They had a FIVE PERCENT COMPLIANCE RATE, and that was just registration, NOT confiscation. Let's say that you imposed your plan, and it had DOUBLE the compliance rate that California had. (10% instead of 5%) Where are you going to put those 90 MILLION new criminals?

Americans are a pig-headed, individualistic group of people. That's a GOOD thing. We tend to ignore laws we think are stupid. Hence the million+ people already in prison for drug offenses.

Is this supposed to be some kind of public works project? Put the entire nation to work building prisons and guarding the gun-owning population?

[library_max]

128. Well then, they're not law-abiding gun owners, are they?

Confiscation and fines would be sufficient. No need for prison sentences. As I've said frequently, it would take time, but worthwhile things usually do. Also, where in Hades do you get the figure that there are 100 million gun owners in the US?

You keep saying that it's not hard to make a functioning gun. Have you ever made one? If so, what are its characteristics - rate of fire, range, accuracy, etc.? If not, on what do you base your statement? Because you can find people spouting all kinds of nonsense on the Internet - doesn't mean any of it is true.

[FeebMaster]

145. You've been shown plenty of evidence

that guns aren't difficult to build never-mind the smuggling, but what I'm really wondering, still, is how you think you're going to get guns banned in the United States when you seem to have no idea what the current gun laws do. Do you think some Senator is just going to introduce a bill to get guns banned one day and it's going to pass?

[library_max]

190. I've been shown plenty of bull

on both subjects. I wouldn't call it evidence any more than I'd call your plan a plan. Any nut can post any nonsense on the internet. We had a whole thread on home gun building, and not one shred of evidence was presented that any of these so-called homemade guns was worth a tinker's damn. Nor was there any actual testimony from any actual person who had actually made one him- or herself.

[FeebMaster]

195. I love this new strategy all of our

gun control supporting friends seem to be using lately. Oh, you haven't built a machine gun yourself, it obviously can't be done" "Oh, your rights have never personally been violated by the police so the police aren't violating anyone's rights." It's priceless really.

Now let's assume for a minute that someone on this board has built an open bolt machine gun, like a sten or maybe a mac-10. As has been stated several times, open bolt machine guns aren't particularly complex weapons. Why would someone then come on to a public message board and then admit they've violated federal firearms laws? It is illegal to manufacture machine guns for civilian use since may 19, 1986.

That certainly doesn't change the fact people can and do build guns. You were even given a link to a guy who designed and built a machine gun at home and was subsequently thrown in prison for it. But I guess since he isn't posting here on DU it obviously never happened.

I'm still wondering how you plan to get guns banned in the United States given your apparent lack of knowledge about both guns and the current federal firearms laws.

[mosin]

46. "People need cars"

Who are you to tell me what I need or don't need? It is rather presumptuous of you to declare that "people...don't need guns."

Actually, I don't think people need cars. People got by for thousands of years without cars. I could get by quite well without cars. I'd lose some recreational opportunities and convenience, but I could get to and from work on the bus or on my bicycle. It's only about 20 miles one way.

Hint, if they ban guns, then I and anyone else with a gun will be a "criminal," by definition.

[boxster]

96. Ah, another person who's never lived on a farm/ranch or in a rural area.

Actually, I don't think people need cars.

In many parts of Montana, SD, ND, NE, KS, etc., the nearest town could be 50-100 miles away.

How do you plan on getting to the grocery store or gas station if you don't have a car? By walking?

Geez, people. Expand your horizons a little, please. Not everyone lives in "the big city".

[library_max]

130. They know that.

They know that people outside of a handful of major metropolitan areas need a car if they want to work, eat, etc. They just embrace any argument that helps them defend their guns.

[iverglas]

8. Let's ask Mikey

Hey Mikey!

He likes it!

[NorthernSpy]

21. interesting

Do you suppose?

I'll have to do a little re-reading, I guess.

[boxster]

10. "If there were no guns, there would be no crime"???!?

Oh, please. You cannot honestly believe this. Turn on the TV - crimes are committed every day without the use of guns.

Did O.J. have a gun? He managed to murder two people without one.

Not to mention that there are thousands of crimes that have nothing to do with an obvious weapon. It doesn't take a gun to commit vehicular homicide. Rapists rarely hold their victims at gunpoint. Not a lot of guns involved in embezzlement or conspiracy or petty theft.

How about assault? You can certainly beat someone to death without a gun.

How about speeding? Is that a crime? Not a lot of guns involved in speeding offenses.

Let me suggest that if you're going to try to make a point, don't make ludicrously out-of-touch statements like this. Crime will exist even if guns do not.

[OpSomBlood]

11. I don't want to hear this NRA propaganda.

This is ridiculous! How can you say that without guns there would still be crime? Don't you understand that the gun is what makes people commit the crime?

People obey the law only until they acquire the means to break it. That is the nature of human beings. I think Jung said that.

[Wickerman]

14. Ok, going a tad far, bringing Jung, however

inaccurately into this...

:grr:

[OpSomBlood]

24. It wasn't Jung?

Perhaps it was Jerry Lewis who said that. I always get them mixed up.

[Wickerman]

25. I see the problem, Lewis was big in France

Jung in Germany.

[boxster]

15. Sorry, but you're delusional.

People don't steal because of guns. People don't beat other people to death because of guns. People don't steal billions from their stockholders (like Enron, for example) because of guns.

Those are all crimes. None involve guns.

O.J. killed his ex-wife by slashing her throat. Did a gun make him do that?

Drunk drivers kill thousands of people. Do they shoot them first?

I certainly hope that your post is meant as satire or sarcasm, because if you honestly believe that guns cause all crime, you need to seek some professional help. I mean that most sincerely.

Edit: typo

Second edit: I presume this was meant as sarcasm. See post #27

[DoNotRefill]

91. YES. Guns made OJ kill Nicole!!!

They were whispering to him in his sleep....

[boxster]

97. Well, that explains a lot.

n/t

[DoNotRefill]

100. what's even worse...

is that the guns that were whispering to him in his sleep to kill Nicole were POLICE guns!!!!

[coltman]

22. Just like with drugs,right N/T

[OpSomBlood]

26. If we banned all drugs, there would be no drug abuse either.

Thanks for proving my point for me.

[library_max]

36. Oh my goodness, that "proved" your "point"?

I've obviously lost track of the new, lower standards of proof.

[mosin]

38. That's OK.

Gun control advocates have never needed proof before.

[library_max]

53. In my experience,

Many gun control opponents are deaf and blind to evidence presented by gun control advocates. Whereas these same enthusiasts also tend to believe that everything that happens in the universe is "proof" of the rightness of their own arguments. For example, in the case in point, the random remark of a DU poster about drugs.

[iverglas]

20. as long as we're suggesting

Let me suggest that if you're going to try to make a point, don't make ludicrously out-of-touch statements like this. Crime will exist even if guns do not.

Can I suggest that all the, um, dungeon irregulars among us try not to be quite so gullible, and attempt to distinguish genuine mutton from one of these fellows



? ... and maybe avoid feeding the latter.

[boxster]

27. I suspected as much, but you never know with this crowd.

There are some legitimately delusional people on this board, and it's often difficult to tell the wackos from the satirists, especially in a forum like J/PS that usually contains some pretty serious discussions.

Besides, I usually don't waste a lot of time following people around DU to try to determine which category they belong in before reading or responding to their posts.

[windstrider13]

13. Knee-jerk reaction to a problem

As an exercise in debate, I used gun control as a topic in a discussion list I set up for the freshman English classes I was teaching one year. The most thoughtful responses came from a trio of military students. Everyone else just came down to the argument that "guns were bad, so let's ban them, and everything will be happy once again."

Yup. No thought at all. Just a knee-jerk reaction.

Ok, so let's say we do ban guns. To make it fair in this fantasy scenario, you'd not only have to ban the guns, but destroy *all* of them as well, at the same time.

<<poof>>

So now that guns are gone, is crime erased as well? Nope.
Will people stop killing each other? Nope.

Crime and murder existed long before guns were invented. Erasing guns will not erase these problems. No, I don't know what will, so don't ask.

If people want to kill or commit crime, then they have a variety of options open to them: knives, swords, bows, crossbows, poison, their bare hands, etc.

I know that gun control is a hot-button issue with a lot of people, but try to at least think it through before posting anything about it.

Bryan

[mosin]

17. Uh oh

Now you've done it. You've tried injecting rationality into a gun control debate in the Gungeon.

:hi:

[HawkerHurricane]

16. Am I the only one who caught the sarcasm of this post?

Why are people answering it like it's serious?

[Wickerman]

19. Knee jerk reaction?

:shrug:

Obviously folks don't spend much time in the Gungeon and don't know the usual suspects.

[mosin]

28. Knee jerk reactions

I've been here long enough to find it amusing. I'm glad you're letting him play for a bit. ;)

[Pert_UK]

29. Just because you can be sarcastic.....

it doesn't mean that you can make any good points.

I happen to agree with you on some points - for example, people screaming for the AWB without actually knowing anything about it, and those who casually throw around terminology that they blatantly don't understand. Most people would agree that this is stupid.

But the trouble is that nobody else has ever, seriously suggested any of the other stuff you mention.

Essentially you're setting up an enemy that doesn't exist then knocking it down and claiming victory. I don't mean to be rude, but you actually ignore the good arguments in favour of better gun control and simply attack the indefensible gibberish, which is kinda like a lot of AWB advocates do.

[FeebMaster]

31. Good arguments in favor of gun control?

Like what? I don't think I've ever heard one.

[OpSomBlood]

32. Guns cause crime.

Just like marijuana causes drug addiction, guns are the gateway to violent crime. Ban them all.

[library_max]

40. Now wait a minute, that's not fair.

We know of whole classes of crimes that have nothing to do with guns. Take the drive-by stabbing as a classic example. And remember how President Kennedy was assassinated with a nine-iron? And all the bank holdups perpetrated with jars of hydrochloric acid? Of the tens of thousands of people killed violently every year in this country, how many of those incidents involved guns, after all? It couldn't have been more than sixty or seventy percent.

[OpSomBlood]

44. That's right, and the gun was to blame every time.

Those crimes only happened because of the existence of guns. Period.

With no guns, those things could never have happened. So ban them all.

[library_max]

55. No, no, don't be silly.

You don't need a gun for a drive by. Look at all the drive-by stabbings in the news. Victims are even killed by stray knife-wounds that come right through the walls of their homes. You certainly don't need a gun for that.

And look at all the successful assassinations in the US that have been performed with crossbows or blunt instruments. And all the killings that have been prevented because some wise citizen with a gun managed to shoot a protective force field around the intended victim to keep him safe from harm.

If you didn't have guns, what would the little tots play with? How would mailmen and meter readers get shot by accident? We HAVE to have guns! It's in the Ten Commandments!

[OpSomBlood]

58. That's right. So we should ban all guns and destroy them all.

According to my math, that should only take about 54 years to accomplish.

A small price to pay in exchage for our safety.

[library_max]

64. Yeah, and since it can't be done right away,

it isn't worth doing at all, right? After all, Rome was built in a day, wasn't it?

[FeebMaster]

61. You still haven't explained

how you expect to get guns banned in the United States.

[library_max]

78. Might help to take your fingers out of your ears.

Just a thought.

[FeebMaster]

84. That's hilarious considering the source. (nt)

[JohnLocke]

30. This is SARCASM, people!

:eyes:

[library_max]

39. What Franklin actually said was

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

How sad it must be to think of owning a gun as "essential liberty." Congratulations to OpSomBlood on seeing the light.

[mosin]

41. How sad...

How sad it must be to think of owning a gun as "essential liberty."

The right to keep and bear arms for defense and security is so essential that it was acknowledged in the Bill of Rights and in most state constitutions.

How sad that so many find it so easy to deprives others of rights they find distasteful.

[MrBenchley]

52. Good thing you've got Crisco John AsKKKroft on the case!

He's willing to tell any lie to protect gun industry profits!!

[OpSomBlood]

54. Yeah! See...John Ashcroft is pro-gun, so that means guns are EVIL!

EVIL I tell you! Ban them all!

[MrBenchley]

59. Whereas the politicans who favor gun control...

are liberal Democrats who are also in favor of other liberal causes. But hey, who but the screwiest right wing fuckwit would post mindless slurs against people like these?

[FeebMaster]

63. You should use this picture.

It's better.

[library_max]

57. The Second Amendment refers to armed citizen militias,

which have gone the way of the dodo. Every pertinent Supreme Court case says so. So there's no point in invoking the Bill of Rights.

[mosin]

65. armed citizen militias

which have gone the way of the dodo

You do like to make things up, don't you? No Supreme Court case says that.

Sing it with me (to the old Dr. Pepper jingle): "I'm militia. You're militia. He's militia. She's militia. Wouldn't you like to be militia too?"

there's no point in invoking the Bill of Rights.

I'm glad to see you acknowledge where you're coming from.

[library_max]

71. "I'm militia, you're militia, he's militia, she's militia,"

and saying it's so makes it so, right? Or perhaps you have a Supreme Court case to quote that establishes your interpretation in law? Or, alternately, an explanation of why, with all the fuss and feathers over Second Amendment rights we hear nowadays, there has never been a Supreme Court case establishing that the Second Amendment protects private ownership of firearms.

[OpSomBlood]

47. Franklin could never have foreseen modern advances in gun technology.

It's not as if he was a scientist or anything.

[library_max]

62. That doesn't matter!

What matters is that guns = freedom.

Guns = freedom.

See, I know it's true because it fits so well on a bumper-sticker. And just to prove it's true, I'm going to repeat it 100 times.

Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.Guns = freedom.

Gosh, I love informed and rational debate!

[tandot]

51. Actually the quote doesn't have "purchase"

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Which I interpret to mean:

If you give up the essential liberty to bear arms to obtain a little temporary safety (no guns = no crimes) deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[library_max]

60. Here's where you go off the rails.

The assumption that ownership of a gun is an essential liberty.

[mosin]

66. essential liberty

The right to own a gun is an essential liberty. The ability to use force in defense of freedom is the ultimate guarantor of liberty. Anything else is just banking on the good will of potential tyrants.

[library_max]

68. Which brings us back to you and your little gun or guns

versus the US military. Good luck with that.

[MrBenchley]

70. Funny, isn't it?

It seems like everyone of these "law-abiding responsible gun owners" has a wild "I need my popgun for the glorious revolution" fantasy bubbling just under the surface.

Of course, what isn't so funny is that every once in a while one of these charmers forgets that it is a fantasy and shoots the postman...or blows up a daycare center in a Federal building.

[tandot]

77. McVeigh didn't need a gun to blow up the Murrah building

And Al Qaeda used box cutters to hijack planes and kill about 3000 people (if it was really Al Qaeda who did that).

[library_max]

79. And nobody said there would be no more killings without guns.

But there are many kinds, including kinds that are a hell of a lot more common than the examples you cite, that would be quite impossible without a gun.

[MrBenchley]

81. And yet he spent years ratcheting around the gun show circuit

listening to loonies talk just that sort of demented shit...and in fact he didn't even stand out as particularly crazy in that milieu...

[OpSomBlood]

86. Yes, we must learn the lessons from the OKC bombing.

Timothy McVeigh used a bomb made of fertilizer, so we must ban all fertilizer. He rented a Ryder truck, so truck rental should be illegal. He used to hang out at gun shows, so ban the guns and the shows. He was a former soldier, so we should immediately disband the military.

Think of how many future bombings we can prevent if we just take these simple steps!

[MrBenchley]

88. Gee, the chief lesson to learn

is that the sort of people beating their meat in public over some glorious revolution are dangerous fuckwits.

[DoNotRefill]

92. It's for the children!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!! ;)

[tandot]

67. See, I think here is where YOU go off the rails

You have your opinion about guns, I have mine.

How about providing some proof on how prohibiting gun ownership would decrease crime? As I said in an earlier post, prohibition did NOT end alcohol consumption.

I can understand some people having an aversion against guns, maybe because of a personal experience. But blaming crime on guns is way too simplified.

[library_max]

69. Prohibition drastically reduced alcohol consumption.

And alcohol consumption, alcoholism, and DUIs ballooned up after the repeal of Prohibition. But Prohibition was a failure for the same reason as the "War on Drugs," because alcoholism is an addiction and because it was too easy to smuggle or make alcohol. The inevitable profits went to organized crime and corrupted law enforcement.

You can't whip up a batch of "bathtub guns." You can't smuggle a million bucks worth of guns in a briefcase. You can't make guns by letting apple cider get too old. You can't make guns by combining common pharmaceuticals in a garbage can. And nobody is addicted to guns. The analogy of guns to drugs or alcohol is false and useless.

And I am not blaming all crime on guns. Crime predates gunpowder. But I am blaming the thirty-thousand or so gun deaths per year on guns.

[tandot]

73. So, drinking alcohol makes me an alcoholic and drug addict

WOW.

Please provide links to back up your arguments and give us evidence to support your claims.

[library_max]

75. Wow indeed.

If that was what I'd said, I guess I would need to provide some links and give some evidence.

However, what I said was that the illegal profits of drug sellers and of moonshiners and speakeasies during Prohibition were largely fueled by addiction. If drugs and alcohol were not addictive (do I need to provide links to demonstrate that they are?), Prohibition and the War on Drugs might have worked. Or not, again because illegal drugs and booze are so easy to make and smuggle compared to guns.

[OpSomBlood]

76. You are absolutely right...it is impossible to smuggle guns into the US.

Because everybody knows that the fully-automatic machine guns used by drug dealers and gangbangers are all purchased at local gun shops.

[library_max]

80. No no, they're "criminals."

They can snap their fingers and just make guns appear in their hands. Any kind of guns they want. What applies to law-abiding citizens has no effect on criminals - everybody knows that.

[OpSomBlood]

83. See, now you're getting it!

That's why we have to ban semi-automatic rifles from legal gun shops...that way, it will prevent criminals from buying smuggled machine guns off the street.

It all makes sense if you just stop and think about it for a while.

[library_max]

132. Yes, I passed by three kids selling smuggled machine guns

on my way to work this morning. They really are everywhere. But I still don't see why criminals bother buying guns. They can just snap their fingers and make them appear. They're criminals, so they can do anything. They don't even have to obey the laws of physics.

[tandot]

82. And all of those criminals who already have stockpiles of

guns would turn them all in, too. And then the police is turning in their guns, because they don't need them anymore.

So, nobody would have guns and we all live in peace.

And as you said, OpSomBlood, "it is impossible to smuggle guns into the US. Our borders are impregnable.

/sarcasm off

[OpSomBlood]

85. What is this "sarcasm" thing?

Yes, if we made all guns illegal, nobody would need them.

Whenever I see the grip of a pistol on a police officer's belt, I get a shiver up my spine. Guns are so scary to me, and I want to make them all just disappear.

[DoNotRefill]

94. and once guns are illegal, we can make muscles illegal too...

since big brawny people would be able to beat up little scrawny people, and the weak couldn't defend themselves, so we'll HAVE to outlaw things that make people strong. It's for the children.

[OpSomBlood]

98. It's for the children...except the children with muscles, of course.

n/t

[DoNotRefill]

99. children with muscles should be in jail....

When muscles are outlawed, only outlaws will have muscles.

[library_max]

133. Yes, that's really the same thing.

After all, you need a gun to get out of bed in the morning. You need a gun to do any kind of useful work. You need a gun to chew and swallow your food. You need a gun in your chest to pump blood through your body. Without guns, you'd died in a matter of minutes. Riiiiiiiiiight.

Besides, you can always outrun a bullet, but you can never outrun someone who is stronger than you are. And a punch in the mouth is much less surviveable than a bullet through the head, chest, or gut. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[OpSomBlood]

166. You don't need a red Corvette to live, either.

There's lots of things we own that aren't essential for human survival.

[library_max]

191. And if red Corvettes

were the cause of thirty-plus thousand needless deaths per year, if they were used in hundreds of thousands of crimes every year, if there were whole classes of violent crime that could not be performed without a red Corvette, they'd be banned by now. Or do you perhaps think that you have a Constitutional right to purchase and own a red Corvette?

[FeebMaster]

197. Cause?

So guns cause those thirty-thousand deaths per year? I like how you include suicides, as if a person doesn't have the right to take their own life.

[DoNotRefill]

182. So massive muscles are required for life?

I have enough muscle to live. Any more muscle than I have should be banned, since it turns a person into a weapon.


The Governator doesn't need all of those muscles. He should be in jail until he's as disarmed as the rest of us are.

[library_max]

192. Three suggestions.

1) Explain how it would be possible to derive with the specificity required by legislation how much muscle weight per pound of body weight would define "massive," and how you would justify making a part of the human body illegal (or do you really think that your gun is part of your body?).

2) Explain how any amount of muscle could possibly be one-tenth as dangerous as a gun in anybody's hands.

3) No, I'd better skip 3). Don't want to get my message deleted.

[DoNotRefill]

93. Cite, please.

"Prohibition drastically reduced alcohol consumption."

I've read the exact OPPOSITE....that alcohol consumption INCREASED during prohibition. Back your statement up.

[Liberal Classic]

112. Prohibition drastically reduced public alcohol consumption

This does not mean that overall drinking was reduced. The general consensus at the time was that drinking was lessened somewhat, but in truth production and consumption of alcohol became less conspicuous. Early successes were touted as evidence the policy was working, such as fewer arrests for public drunkeness and disorderly conduct, and psychiastrists of the day proclaimed a sharp drop in alcohol related mental illness. However, verifyably statistics on just how much alcohol was produced and consumed was difficult to get, just as today with the figures of the rates of drug consumption.

Unintended consequences appeared immediately after passage and calls for repeal started as early as 1923. Congressional leaders proposed plans for closing thousands of miles of border and for naval blockades of coastal areas near Mexico and Canada, but nothing concrete ever materialized. The costs of maintaining prisons and police forces began to skyrocket, straining the budgets of local municipalities and counties. In order to combat bad press, treasury agents staged high-publicized raids on speakeasys, but these did little to actually combat organized crime which was becoming better armed and more violent. The prohibition era ended with the repeal of the Volstead Act in 1933 and the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which put a transfer tax on fully automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns, the favored weapons of the mob.

[library_max]

138. There you go. Thank you.

That ought to be good enough for the sarcasm thread. Also might be worth talking to your parents or grandparents who lived during the Prohibition era or immediately after, since public statistics wouldn't accurately record illegal behavior.

[Liberal Classic]

143. My grandfather was a bootlegger as a matter of fact

And met my grandmother in a speakeasy less than a mile down the road from where I now live. As far as I know he was a small time courier who shuttled white lightening under the running boards of his car. That a young tough could afford an automobile in those days says a lot by itself.

[DoNotRefill]

181. My maternal grandfather....

ran 'shine to the cities in Ohio.

When he was alive, he told me about it, and how sad he was when they repealed prohibition. He said making and running moonshine was the best paying job he ever had.

[iverglas]

87. well heck

Which I interpret to mean:
If you give up the essential liberty to bear arms to obtain a little temporary safety (no guns = no crimes) <you?> deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I'll just interpret it to mean that if you give up the essential liberty to drive as fast as you like to obtain a little temporary safety (no speeding = no car accidents), you deserve neither liberty nor safety.

After all, we all know that whole piles of car accidents are caused by things quite other than speeding, and that whole piles of people speed and never have an accident.

Tomayto, tomahto (or, some say the true Canadian compromise, tomatto).

We'll all just interpret anything we like however we like.

That kinda leaves us out of the great democratic discourse, and ensures that somebody else gets to decide how things will be interpreted for the actual purposes for which they're interpreted, but oh well. We'll both just know we're right.

[Redneck Socialist]

89. Props for

the most entertaining Gungeon thread in a dog's age. :P

[reformed_military]

101. Not so fast.

OpSomBlood said:

Dialing 911 always gets the friendly police officers to my house in less than ten seconds. But I tell them to wait outside because I don't want their evil baby-killing guns on my property.

Ha! Try this on for size.

Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: ``For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.'' The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a ``fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.'' Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

[coltman]

102. Thanks R_M

I bet I can use this many times.

[iverglas]

103. there's a Cdn case that would cover this

hahahahaha.

I studied it in first-year torts, way back when. My torts textbook has ended up in a box in the basement somewhere, and I've never managed to locate a reference to the case on line. I believe it was called MacLaren v. <somebody>.

A bunch of the guys were out boating on Lake Ontario, and -- totally illegally -- enjoying a two-four. That's a 24-pack of beer. One of them fell overboard. The one in charge of driving the boat started backing it up and failed to get alongside the overboard guy. The other guy on board, frustrated at how the undertaking was being botched by the driver, jumped in to save his friend. The whole thing was pretty much a keystone-sailors episode. The two in the water ended up dead.

As I recall it, the one who fell in first died of heart failure from the cold water, almost immediately, as did the second. But the second wouldn't have jumped in if the driver hadn't made such a hash of the rescue attempt. If the boat driver had done what you're supposed to do with boats -- circle, rather than back up -- and if he hadn't been pissed, he could have got the boat where it needed to go and guy #2 wouldn't have jumped in and died.

Anyhow, what the court decided was that while there is no general duty to rescue, there was a duty on the boat driver; he had a duty of care, and performing it negligently, thus prompting someone else to endanger him/herself, made him liable for the resulting damage.

Aha, there is something on line; and I remembered the disposition wrong. The Court found that the boat driver had *not* been negligent; but if he had been, he would have been liable.

http://www.sarbc.org/goodsam.html

The case of Horsley v MacLaren, 1970, represents a controversial example of the right to compensation. A guest (Matthews) on a power boat (the Ogopogo) owned by the defendant (MacLaren) fell overboard into Lake Ontario. MacLaren tried to rescue Matthews but was unsuccessful. Meanwhile, the plaintiff Horsley (another guest) attempted to save Matthews but both men drowned. The court held that MacLaren had a duty to rescue Matthews because of a special relationship - a power boat operator owed a duty of protective care to the passengers - and if negligent, MacLaren would be liable to Matthews (or his dependents).

Horsley, on the other hand, was a good samaritan with no duty to rescue Matthews. His only recourse was against MacLaren and his right to compensation depended on whether MacLaren had been negligent to Matthews, which the Supreme Court found not to be the case. Since MacLaren was not liable to Matthews, he could not be liable to Horsley.

In the US SC case, the people who phoned emergency services were assured that officers were on the way. If they had not had that assurance, they would not likely have wandered into the midst of the on-going crime.

The authorities in question could have said "well, we don't know when we can get someone there, if we bother to send anyone at all". But they didn't. They assured the caller that officers were on the way, thereby assuming a duty of care, and then they did nothing. They were negligent, on the face of it. They should have been held liable for the resulting damage unless they had some pretty good explanation to show that they were not negligent.

An analogy to help grasp the concept: when I was in practice, I had no duty to provide legal services to anyone at all. But once I told someone that I was going to provide those services, I had a duty of care to the client: a duty to provide legal services competently. Ditto anyone who agrees to perform a service, thereby assuming the relevant duty of care.

As for the US SC decision itself, of course I wouldn't accept that as the last word on this or anything else. Municipal authorities collect taxes and agree to provide services in return; they pretty obviously assume a duty to provide services to the best of their abilities. They have a duty not to be negligent in the performance of those services. I see complete and utter negligence in the manner in which the authorities in the case in question failed to perform any services at all after expressly undertaking to provide them.

Certainly police and fire authorities could not have an absolute liability to rescue members of the public. But I fail to see how they could not be held liable for negligence in performing the duty that they very plainly do have, the US SC notwithstanding.

[iverglas]

104. and an even better one

Nice illustration of the philosophical differences between the two societies, perhaps.

Laurentide Motels Ltd. v. Beauport (City), <1989> 1 S.C.R 705
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1989/vol1/html/1989scr1_0705.html
(A "delict" is the civil law counterpart of the common law "tort"; a "fault" is roughly equivalent to "negligence" in this case.)

A client's negligence led to a fire that damaged appellants' hotel complex in the city of Beauport. As soon as they arrived, the firefighters sprayed water from the fire truck onto the fire, but the water soon ran out owing to the impossibility of connecting with the hydrants. The latter, which were difficult to reach and covered with snow, were unusable because they were frozen or broken. It was not until some forty minutes later that water was finally obtained from the hydrants. The appellants brought an action for damages against the person who had set the fire and the respondent, alleging fault by the latter in fighting the fire, namely that its equipment had not been maintained and did not function properly, as well as fault by its employees in the performance of their duties.

The trial judge allowed the action and found the person who had set the fire liable for part of the damage and the respondent liable for the remainder. The trial judge blamed the respondent for its negligence in checking and maintaining the fire hydrants and its employees for a number of faults in the performance of their duties. The trial judge found that, on the evidence, the fire had almost been put out when the water ran out in the fire truck. He concluded that it was the lack of water coupled with the faults of the respondent's employees which had caused the remainder of the damage. He accordingly directed the respondent to pay the sum of $2,542,732.83 in damages. The Court of Appeal, hearing only an appeal by the respondent, reversed the Superior Court judgment.

The appeal at bar seeks to determine (1) whether the delictual civil liability of municipalities in firefighting is governed by public or by private law; (2) whether the fault alleged against the respondent makes it liable; and (3) whether the quantum of damages and the calculation of the additional indemnity should be varied.

Held: The appeal should be allowed. i.e. the City was held liable

Here, respondent's <the City> by-laws indicate that it exercised the discretionary powers conferred upon it by the Cities and Towns Act to establish a fire-fighting service and waterworks. There is no statutory provision either exonerating respondent from, or subjecting it to, liability for damage caused by its acts pursuant to its discretionary powers. Therefore, the question whether the civil law applies to determine the respondent's responsibility must be reasoned by the common law. Under the common law, arts. 1053 et seq. C.C.L.C. will apply if the acts or omissions alleged to have caused damage -- the failure to keep the fire hydrants clear and operational and the acts and omissions of the municipality's firefighters -- fall within the operational sphere of the municipality's activities.

The respondent could have, as a matter of policy, established some scheme of inspection and repair. The failure to make such a policy decision, however, does not allow the respondent to escape the application of the private law. Absent a policy decision to which the omission alleged to have caused damage can be attributed, the inspection and repair of the fire hydrants must be taken to be in the operational sphere, since they are the practical execution of the respondent's policy decision to establish the water system and to allocate personnel and money to maintain the system. The acts and omissions of respondent's firefighters, too, should be characterized as operational in nature. The responsibility of the respondent, therefore, falls to be determined by arts. 1053 et seq. C.C.L.C., and the trial judge's finding that the respondent was at fault under arts. 1053 et seq. C.C.L.C. was correct.

[MrBenchley]

106. You will notice

that these whoopsters NEVER propose that the 911 system ought to be better funded, or that more police officers ought to be hired, or any other practical common sense measure be taken.

It's always get yourself a popgun and play cowboy.

[Romulus]

107. short of assigning one officer to guard each residence

there will always be lag time between:

1) your awareness of there being a "problem"
2) your travel to a communications device
3) your operating the communications device
4) your establishing contact with the authorities through the device
5) your explaining the "problem" to the authorities
6) the authorities' analysis of your report
7) the authorities' establshing contact with a responding police unit
8) the authorities' explaining your "problem" to the responding police unit
9) the responding police unit's navigation time to your location
10) the responding police unit's on-scene analysis of the situation
11) the responding police unit's decision to act, and what that decision entails (i.e., wait for backup or slowly approach your location)

[MrBenchley]

108. Praise Jeebus you got your shooting iron!!

You can start shooting before you even know what the "problem" is....

[iverglas]

109. short of building a crocodile moat around your castle

and mining the lawns, and keeping boiling oil at the ready on the rooftop, and keeping your own private army on permanent alert in the back yard, the danger that is lurking just outside your door will sometimes get in.

So how come you aren't digging ditches and stocking them with crocodiles, and booby-trapping the property? Assuming you can't afford the army.

And if there are laws that say you can't, how come you're obeying them? Surely they're a violation of your right to life and your supreme inviolable inalienable unquestionable right to do whatever the hell you like to defend it.

[MrBenchley]

114. And you can hide under the bed

but brain damage is under the bed...(apologies to Donald Barthelme).

[coltman]

110. Respectfully MrBenchley...

Aren't we all ultimately responsible for our own safety and well being.

And for your popgun cowboy rationale ,it's a good thing you are anti-gun because it's this mentality that gets people hurt and killed.

responsible intelligent gun owner know one does not "PLAY POPGUN" with a real weapon.One does hone their skills on a range,just as any other sports enthusiast would hone their skills on their selected field of endeavor. Which is a good thing unlike those who like to wield the poison pen in an indiscriminate manner,and practice on the masses.

[MrBenchley]

111. Only if you live in the woods under a rock

otherwise it's a civilization...ring a bell? "We the people?"

"And for your popgun cowboy rationale ,it's a good thing you are anti-gun because it's this mentality that gets people hurt and killed."
Yup...between 80,000 and 115,000 Americans every year, hurt and killed by the sort of gaboon who just HAS to have a gun...and you'll notice the trigger-happy amongst us can barely contain their desire to plug somebody at the slightest excuse.

[coltman]

113. Benchley...

i was respectful to you and was called names in reply so you are not worthy of respect. Intelligent responsible adults are not "trigger happy" with their guns or their pens. Why should we who are responsible have to give our rights over to the likes of you who aren't?

[MrBenchley]

115. Intelligent responsible adults

generally don't subscribe to a wild west mentality...or want to allow a corrupt industry to set public policy...or need to peddle right wing horseshit about imaginary "rights" that do not exist.

[Liberal Classic]

117. Intelligent responsible adults

Can politely disagree on political issues without resorting to namecalling and profanity.

[MrBenchley]

121. Or they can speak plainly

and in a manner befitting the setting...

[Liberal Classic]

123. Perhaps I ought to have said

Intelligent responsible adults should politely disagree on political issues without resorting to namecalling and profanity.

[MrBenchley]

Or perhaps you ouight to have said

People ranting childishly about a supposed need to run around heeled don't fit very many people's definition of "intelligent repsonsible adults."

[Liberal Classic]

129. I think I'll stand pat

Does a condemnation of namecalling and profanity not meet with your approval? I maintain my position that intelligent and responsible adults can and should politely disagree on political issues without resorting to namecalling and profanity.

[MrBenchley]

131. I think it's just fucking terrific

and I wouldn't want you to change.

"intelligent and responsible adults can and should politely disagree on political issues"
If one ever pops up among our "pro-gun democrats" some far distant day, we'll see if it does. Who knows, a pro-Democrat one might even turn up someday, if God drops everything else.

[Liberal Classic]

135. Please let me ask you again

I wrote:


Does a condemnation of namecalling and profanity not meet with your approval? I maintain my position that intelligent and responsible adults can and should politely disagree on political issues without resorting to namecalling and profanity.


To which you replied:

I think it's just fucking terrific and I wouldn't want you to change.

I do not follow your answer. Would you care to elaborate?

Please let me ask you the same question again.

I condemn namecalling and profanity in this forum, a political debate forum. I believe that petty namecalling and profanity have no place in a political debate forum such as this. I know that intelligent and responsible adults are capable of polite disagreement, without resorting to petty namecalling and profanity and I sincerely believe that intelligent and responsible adults should politely disagree on political issues without resorting to them.

I have in the heat of the moment said some things to you of which I am not proud. Do you not feel likewise? I apoligize for any hurtful and insluting statements which I have made against you. They were likely said in anger, which comes all too quickly in some controversial topics. Do you likewise retract insulting statements you have made against me?

I call on the participants of this forum to think about what they're writing before hitting the post button, and to reject name calling and profanity. Intelligent and responsible adults need neither to communicate poltical arguments effectively. Do you, Mr. Benchley, also make the same call? Do you and I stand united in this?

[MrBenchley]

149. Ask any fucking thing you want....

"I believe that petty namecalling and profanity have no place in a political debate forum such as this."
Gee, let's see you tell op and his new little pal that. After all, I didn't call anyone an "idiot", richly deserved as the epithet is for some of our "enthusiasts." Far as I can see though, the only complaint we ever have here is when someone hands back to the bullets for brains bunch a bit of what they routinely hand out.

"Do you, Mr. Benchley, also make the same call? Do you and I stand united in this?"
As we used to say in Brooklyn, fuck that shit.

[Liberal Classic]

154. I'm going to ask you again

I believe in giving anyone a second chance.

I also ask that you please not take my apology and throw it back in my face.

I condemn namecalling and profanity in this forum, a political debate forum. I believe that petty namecalling and profanity have no place in a political debate forum such as this. I know that intelligent and responsible adults are capable of polite disagreement, without resorting to petty namecalling and profanity and I sincerely believe that intelligent and responsible adults should politely disagree on political issues without resorting to them.

I have in the heat of the moment said some things to you of which I am not proud. Do you not feel likewise? I apoligize for any hurtful and insulting statements which I have made against you. They were likely said in anger, which comes all too quickly in some controversial topics. Do you likewise retract insulting statements you have made against me?

I call on all of the participants of this forum to think about what they are writing before hitting the Post Message button. I also call on all of the participants of this forum to reject name calling and profanity. Intelligent and responsible adults need neither to communicate poltical arguments effectively.

Do you, Mr. Benchley, also make the same call for polite discourse?

Do you and I stand united in this?

[MrBenchley]

156. That answer wasn't clear enough?

As far as I can see, your proposal is that I should bend over and take it. Fuck that shit. I hand back what I get, with interest.

And I see no reason to stop calling right wing fuckwits right wing fuckwits.

[Liberal Classic]

157. I do not want to be guilt of mischaracterizing your positions

Are you categorically rejecting my call for civility?

[library_max]

196. I tried this too.

Got nowhere. Possibly a whole thread devoted to sarcasm and childish taunting (and yes, I know, my own posts are all over it) is not the best place to try to start a pledge for civility.

MrBenchley may be the single worst offender of the true regulars, but he's not the only offender or the only serious offender by a long shot. When you add up the insults and jibes and personal and ad hominem attacks on the other side, I believe he's more than counterbalanced.

By the way, it might be worth noting the phrase "poison pen" in the "respectful" message that started this civility subthread. I really think that many of us ignore the insults and personal attacks in our own posts because we are so sure we are right and, by extension, that our argumentation tactics are above reproach.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

120. Well, it didn't take long for someone to "loose" it

and what a flood of crap it was when it came loose.

"this is blue-collar working(?) America that wants the right to protect themselves and their families."
IS it now?

--90% of Americans want to close the gun show loophole
--86% want increased penalties for gun trafficking
--79% want background checks for ALL firearm transactions
--77% want an assault weapons ban....
--67% want ALL firearms registered

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=29642

"it sounds like you are trying to emulate the shrub now"
Not me, binky...that unelected drunk is pro-gun all the way...as so many really shitty politicans are.

[coltman]

124. so just because .....

I own guns, that means that I am against:

closing gun show loopholes
penalties for gun trafficing
background checks
assault weapon bans and registration of fire arms.
When and where did you hear me say any of that?
If you remember I said responsible- intelligent adults,I don't think any law abidding adult would have a problem with the laws that are justified. Why are you having a problem with "responsible-intelligent adults" you seem to keep forgetting that part of the equation.

the"unelected drunk and really shitty polittions who are "pro-gun all the way" are pro anything that will get them re-elected. Repukes have taken away more of my rights including guns than dems ever have and you are just promoting their agenda. Are you a lurker????

[MrBenchley]

127. Gee....I take it as I find it....

"Repukes have taken away more of my rights including guns than dems ever have and you are just promoting their agenda."
Not so....that would be our pro-gun "enthusiasts" who are promoting the GOP agenda. I'm quite happy and proud to stand with these folks.

[coltman]

134. so whats your point......

I know Kerry is a hunter I'll admit I don't know about the others, but,being so closed-minded and one sided on issues is what is dividing this party of the people.It is more an idea of the repuke party line of keep them fighting amoung themselves.
divide and conquer is basic.
What exactly is wrong with wanting to be able to legally own a firearm? Or legally being able to defend yourself ? Or just plain shooting holes in paper or clay pigeons?
More people are killed everyday in car accidents from stupid inept drivers than by guns.
More people are killed by corrupt industry, and we all know the gov. is killing us by the hundreds to promote your elitist agenda.
Have you ever even shot a gun?

[MrBenchley]

136. Thuddingly fucking obvious....

"being so closed-minded and one sided on issues"
Ahem...

--90% of Americans want to close the gun show loophole
--86% want increased penalties for gun trafficking
--79% want background checks for ALL firearm transactions
--77% want an assault weapons ban....
--67% want ALL firearms registered

[coltman]

139. don't you have an original thought of your own? n/t

[coltman]

140. you think that.....

any one who dissagrees with your thought waves has to be a repuke, but isn't that promoting the repukes agenda also because we can't disagree with them because it's unpatriotic.

[OpSomBlood]

142. Quite an interesting paradox, isn't it?

n/t

[coltman]

146. so you do think that....

anyone who disagrees with you is unpatriotic.
smells a little like bushco. to me.

[OpSomBlood]

148. He thinks that anyone who is pro-gun is not a "true" Democrat.

Same concept.

[coltman]

150. sorry didn't look at the poster...

thought you were benchley.

[library_max]

200. You understood that?

Could you please explain it to me, then? Please start with the number of the post in which MrBenchley used the word "unpatriotic."

[MrBenchley]

152. Not me....

Of course, I didn't accuse ANYONE here of being anything. I just pointed out that it's the GOP plugging this idiotic and dishonest "gun rights" agenda at the top of their scummy lungs.

[MrBenchley]

153. That RKBA "logic" or whatever the fuck it is....

The only way to oppose the Republicans is to bend over and spread cheeks for their ugliest far right wing splinter group. Actually working toward what the majority of Americans (and the overwhelming majority of democrats) want is playing right into their hands...in a pig's eye.

[coltman]

155. in post 127....

you acussed pro-gun enthusiast of promoting the gop agenda.

[MrBenchley]

158. Which they do with stunning regularity...

...often trying to dredge crap from right wing cesspools like Newsmax and similar cesspools to support their dishonest claims.

Since in post 124 you were posing as being pro-gun-control, what's it to you?

[Name removed]

160. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

163. Not even close to true...but it's hilarious to see you say so....

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[library_max]

202. You are aware, aren't you,

that RKBA has been in the Republican National Platform for decades, and that the NRA and the other significant gun lobbies and gun enthusiast fora are owned and operated by Republicans? You do know that, right? So it isn't ridiculous to say that the pro-gun position is a Republican position. Of course, it would be utterly against the rules of DU to accuse any poster of being a Republican him- or herself - or, say, a lurker.

[FeebMaster]

203. You are aware, aren't you

that the Republicans have been passing all kinds of gun control for decades, all of it worse than the AWB from the gun owner's stand point. You do know that, right? So isn't it ridiculous to say that the pro-gun position is a Republican position?

On edit:

You are also aware, I'm sure, that the only way the AWB will be renewed before it sunsets, is if Bush, a Republican, signs it. That would make almost every gun control law passed in the last thirty years a Republican gun law. All the Democrats will have left is the Brady Bill.

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

164. Nothing like an informed discussion with gun nuts...

sure wish there ever was anything approaching one. Instead, there's this same dreary idiocy, day in and day out.

"ugliest far rightwing splinter group= lurkers pretending to be dems."
Yeah, and they post mindless pro-gun crap here until they get detected and tossed. They even boast about it over in their idiotic cesspools.

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[coltman]

168. my answers are ...

a whole lot more intelligent than the mindless foul-mouthed drivel you are spewing. I don't have to swear to make a point, execpt when I really want YOU to understand.BTW I think the nra and the gop are one in the same ,I do not belong to either.
Tell me what is dishonest about my thread?
You are the one demanding a ban on guns not just control, so don't push that back one me.
People who have to swear to get their point across know they haven't got a leg to stand on so they have to grand stand and yell thinking if they act tuff they might scare someone into believing them.

[OpSomBlood]

169. You're missing the delicate intricacies of Benchley's position.

You see...Benchley thinks that guns are evil and that all gun owners are brainwashed NRA/GOP goons. He thinks that the AWB is one of the greatest pieces of legislation in American history.

Oh...and he also doesn't want to ban guns.

Don't try to figure it out.

[MrBenchley]

171. And that's why op had to start a piece of shit thread like this

and hide behind "ignore" (snicker)

[coltman]

173. boy you are just a real friendly guy huh benchley

[MrBenchley]

179. Friendly is as friendly does....

[Name removed]

183. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

184. The second I give a crap what you want

I'll send up a flare.

And yeah, I'm voting for Kerry....

[Name removed]

187. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

189. AH, that RKBA honesty....

Who was that demanding answers to a shitload of silly questions? I think it was the same one who now says "I didn't say I wanted anything from you...."

"I think anyone reading these post would ,if they were honest, say you Mr. Benchley have been bested!"
Of course you also thought that buffoon was spelled with an "a". Somehow I'll muddle along anyway.

[Name removed]

193. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

198. "that bully-repuke mentality"

and here they are at their klavern....

[coltman]

199. well time to get personal....

learn to post a pic there is nothing there, duh

[MrBenchley]

170. The same dreary crap

"You are the one demanding a ban on guns not just control"
Gee, then I'll bet you won't have any problem linking to that post. Give us the number.

"Tell me what is dishonest about my thread?"
Sure thing. Just show me the post where I said guns should be banned.

[coltman]

172. ok......

maybe because of all your antigun retoric I just assumed you were anti-gun.I mean anyone who spews on and on and on and on and on like you do on so many posts day in and day out and month in and month out , one would make the honest mistake of assuming you were anti-gun.I stand corrected.
Now show me where I was being dishonest in my threads.

[OpSomBlood]

174. He's anti-gun but he doesn't want to ban them.

And all gun owners are lunatics.

[Name removed]

175. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OpSomBlood]

176. It's not double-talk, it's just noise.

You just gotta have earplugs.

[coltman]

177. lol yeah they can get pretty loud

and irksome. I wish they would grow up and face the real world.

[OpSomBlood]

178. That would mean leaving their computer.

n/t

[Name removed]

180. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[coltman]

137. By the way...

you didn't answer are you a lurker?

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[coltman]

119. yeah but it's so much fun .....

to show them their ignorance.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[coltman]

126. yeah ,I think so too....

in fact I just asked him if he was a lurker... maybe just an idiot.:shrug:

[OpSomBlood]

141. Even most anti-gun people here steer clear.

He skips the foreplay and goes right to ad hominems, name calling and guilt by association. He has never demonstrated a desire to rationally debate the issue at hand.

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OpSomBlood]

147. No need for the personal attacks.

MrB spews enough for the both of you. No need to drop to his level.

[coltman]

151. not personal attacks just ....

astute observation.

[PopeyeII]

185. So nobody needs guns?

Then why do cops and the government still need them when mine are gone?

Simple answer: CONTROL!

I'm paranoid about the people who are paranoid about me.

[OpSomBlood]

188. Heh...that's one to remember.

"When people get paranoid about me, I get paranoid."

[library_max]

204. Chicken and egg problem, obviously. /nt

[Name removed]

194. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hrumph]

201. Really?

I needed one just a couple days ago and I'm glad I had it.

[Wickerman]

205. I shouldn't have let this flamebait go on as long as I did

my apologies for trusting folks to behave civilly