The Sound of our Guns is the sound of Freedom?

[bossydacow]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/04/27/bush.nra.reut/index.html

the NRA sucks ass.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by bossydacow
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/04/27/bush.nra.reut/index.html

the NRA sucks ass.
Why does it suck ass. Yes we do have the constitutional right to own guns. This is just an organization that supports the 2nd Amendment. What is wrong with that?

[evil zach]

The NRA is nothing but a group of hypocrites. They combat gun controll with the constitution (the second amendment only aplies to milita and other military units by the way) but their own constitution states that NRA presidents may only serve for 2 terms. When chaelton heston's 2 terms are up, what do they do? they change their own consitiution so he can run for a 3rd.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by evil zach
The NRA is nothing but a group of hypocrites. They combat gun controll with the constitution (the second amendment only aplies to milita and other military units by the way) but their own constitution states that NRA presidents may only serve for 2 terms. When chaelton heston's 2 terms are up, what do they do? they change their own consitiution so he can run for a 3rd.
whats wrong with amending a constitution heston was a good guy, so they changed it. no harm no foul. and the second amendment is for everyone. not just militia or military. i know you are trying to prove, but its wrong

[evil zach]

are you sure about that?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amen dmentii
kew words being, a well regulated militia

[evil zach]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
whats wrong with amending a constitution heston was a good guy, so they changed it. no harm no foul. and the second amendment is for everyone. not just militia or military. i know you are trying to prove, but its wrong
The fact is, they have constantly argueed that the constition can not be modifed to accomodate gun controll laws, then they turn around and change their own constition.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by evil zach
The fact is, they have constantly argueed that the constition can not be modifed to accomodate gun controll laws, then they turn around and change their own constition.
we dont live under the NRA consitution, so why should we care? stop trying to bring up useless info to try and proove a point.

[evil zach]

If they are going to argue that the US constituin should not be changedm, then they should ste the example by not changing their own.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by evil zach
If they are going to argue that the US constituin should not be changedm, then they should ste the example by not changing their own.
irrelavant

[therealhebm]

hey i have no problems with people having guns. but the NRA has to come kicking and and screaming every time a sensible gun law ie: background checks at gun shows is proposed. yes guns serve a protection purpose, but the majority of americans w/ guns use them for hunting(myself& dad included). we have one rifle, and thats all we really want or need in our home. gun control dosent deprive people of their rights to bear arms bro it just helps keep guns out of nutjobs hands, and the nra are assholes for not recognizing that. that said, charleston heston has the coolest voice ever, its just so damn...cool.

[evil zach]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
irrelavant
explain its irrekevence.

[BrandNewRock05]

Correct. I am for gun control. That doesnt mean eliminating guns. I should be able to own a hand gun or rifle for my own protection. No body should be able to own a bazooka or AK-47. And NO felons should be able to be within 15 miles of a gun, unless a cop had it pressed to his temple. That is what fair to me is.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by evil zach
explain its irrekevence.
whats irrekevence?

[evil zach]

We both know that you know what I mean, but you chose to avoid the question. Could that be because you have no answer?

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by evil zach
We both know that you know what I mean, but you chose to avoid the question. Could that be because you have no answer?
Sorry, I was just poking fun at your poor typing skills. It is irrelavant because they do not control the US constitution. So who cares? They are entitled to an opinion just as much as any other organization. Why dont you complain when liberal organizations preach humanity, then turn around and support abortion. Does that seem fair?

[evil zach]

There is nothing in the US constition that outlaws abortion. I'm not aware of any liberal oganizations that have argued that the us constitution can't be changed but changed their own, but if I did, I'd complain aboutthem too.. I don't care if we don't have to live under the NRA constituion. Its still a prime example of hypocracy. I'm not denying the fact that they are enitieled to thier opinion, but their opinion need to remain consitant if they want to be taken seriously.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by evil zach
There is nothing in the US constition that outlaws abortion. I'm not aware of any liberal oganizations that have argued that the us constitution can't be changed but changed their own, but if I did, I'd complain aboutthem too.. I don't care if we don't have to live under the NRA constituion. Its still a prime example of hypocracy. I'm not denying the fact that they are enitieled to thier opinion, but their opinion need to remain consitant if they want to be taken seriously.
you are right. they are hypocrites. so are a lot of liberals. but i have to go now to the dmv, so ill be back later

heres a tasteful french joke to keep you busy while i am gone.
Q: Did you hear about the new French tanks?
A: They have 5 gears...4 in reverse, and one forward gear just in case they're attacked from behind!

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
Why dont you complain when liberal organizations preach humanity, then turn around and support abortion. Does that seem fair?

um, yeah. illegalizing abortion means forfeiting a woman's right to her body. A fetus is not a person.


and the NRA sucks ass because they are against gun control, which is the most ridiculous thing ever. and they are responsible for electing Bush, I guess.

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by cal1082
i got to hear a speech given from a girl who i guess is about 20 now. She was suppose to be aborted when she was a fetus but something went wrong and it didnt work. When she was born she had a physical defect from the abortion, and now goes around talking about how wrong abortion is. I dont see how someone can say abortion is right when you see a living person who survived it.
Yes a women does have a right to her body, but when she becomes pregnant she shares her body with someone else.

well the obvious solution is to better the abortion operation technique so that something like this doesn't happen again. And, how many times has something like that ever happened? If it was frequent I think I'd hear alot more about it since I go to catholic school where we discuss the pro-life philosophies often.

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by cal1082
You wouldnt want them being born like this girl and living a life.

not if no one wanted them to live a life. What's the point? Children are precious, they are our future. They should be brought in the world with love - not regret. If no one wants them, how can they possibly live a good life?

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by HateJimmyCarter
adoption you stupid bitch

good, then you can adopt. and so can everyone else here who is pro-life. I'd like to have my own kids and not be responsible for someone elses.

It is equally selfish to assume that YOU can decide what a person must do with their body.

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by cal1082
It's your body until you are pregnant, after that it's you and your baby's body..

no it isn't. The woman can function without the fetus, the fetus cannot live with out the mother's body. The fetus should have no rights. it is entirely dependent on the woman.

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by cal1082
So why should we be able to kill 1 month olds. What if a single women had a child and decided she didnt love the baby anymore. The baby is still dependent on her for survival, like eating and breast feeding. Why should she have to keep the baby?

because a 1 month old doesn't depend on the care of the woman that held it in her belly. Breast feeding isn't mandatory

[amishman]

Wow, now this thread has become an abortion debate, anyway. Guns should be controlled but not removed completely. Think about it, if all guns are removed, then the people have no power against the government (I realize it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but that is why the amendment is the way it is).

Originally posted by HateJimmyCarter
Thank you. And bossydacow, you stupid fat bitch, lick my sweaty nuts

And you will get nowhere arguing by insulting people. By saying this, I am expecting a witty commit from you like, "lick my nuts."

[bossydacow]

and, this essay explains why abortion is not murder:
Why Abortion is Not Murder
Robert P. Tucker, Ph.D.






Philosophers rightly insist that the very first thing people ought to do when discussing any controversial issue is to define the terms being used, so that they may begin by speaking in neutral language which does not contain any assumptions or hidden agendas. In order to avoid the fallacy of "circular reasoning," conclusions must never be used as the starting points for discussions.

If it is defined neutrally, in medical terms, an "abortion" must be described as "the intentional termination of a pregnancy." Nothing more, nothing less. Anything beyond that definition is an assumption or a conclusion which must be argued for, and which should not be used as a premise!

Most people are not philosophers or ethicists; and so they do not begin with definitions. The result, unfortunately, is that their discussion deteriorates into shouting matches, logic becomes overwhelmed by rhetoric, tempers flare, and nothing constructive gets accomplished.

In our society, "murder" is something no one condones, everyone condemns, and all of us want to prevent. Labeling any action "murder" cannot start a discussion; it can only end debate. If abortion turns out to be "murder," the debate is over, the case is closed, and Roe vs. Wade is not only irrelevant, but unacceptable.

But is abortion "murder"? That is a question! The answer must be argued for, and not merely assumed. Because this is a public, social policy issue, the criteria for analyzing it cannot be the same as those used in personal, private morality or in religion or in law. Remember: the United States is a pluralistic, secular democracy whose citizens practice many different religions, and observe vastly different personal moralities. Granted, we are a people of laws; but we also know that, sometimes-as in the case of slavery-laws are not always ethical.

So, before we assume that abortion is "murder," let us determine just what criteria any action must meet before it qualifies as "murder," and then, let us ask if abortion meets those criteria.

It is my contention that for something to be labeled as "murder" it must meet at least all of six criteria:

Number one: to be "murder" an action must involve "killing." Something that was alive before the act must be dead as a result of the act. Meeting this criterion alone is insufficient reason to label something a "murder," however, because we often kill things in situations where no one would ever think of uttering the term "murder." We kill germs with disinfectants, and weeds with defoliants. We kill insects and rodents and cows and pigs and never get charged with murder. We even kill each other in accidents, in war, in self-defense and no one screams out the dreaded "m"-word. "Killing" is not the problem: we do it all the time.

Number two: to be "murder" an action must involve the killing of "life." I mention this obvious fact in order to get the word "life" into the discussion. Notice, I did not say, "a life." I did not because the term "a life" has been misused by many people who have turned it into a stealth term: a euphemism they have secretly substituted for a different, much more important term, a term which represents the last, the most difficult to meet, and yet, the most crucial of all these six criteria.

Number three: to be "murder" an action must involve the killing of "human" life. When you kill bacteria by gargling Listerine, you have not committed murder. When butchers slaughter pigs for hot dogs and cows for steaks, they have not committed murder. If the life you kill is porcine, bovine, feline, canine, or anything other than "human," then your action cannot ethically be described as "murder."

Number four: to be "murder" an action must involve the "intentional" killing of human life. Imagine two scenarios. In each one you hurriedly back your car out of your driveway. In one scenario, you fail to notice that your elderly neighbor has just walked behind your car. In the second scenario you notice that someone you despise has just walked behind your car. In both scenarios you back your car over the victim and kill him. In the first case you did so by accident, and in the second case you did so intentionally. No one would doubt that the second killing was a "murder"; but, whatever else they might call it-an accident, a tragedy, a misfortune-no one would label the first scenario a "murder" precisely because it was not done intentionally.

Number five: to be "murder" an action must involve the intentional killing of "innocent" human life. As history shows, intentionally killing human life is not an ethical problem. We do it all the time, and usually congratulate ourselves on a deed well done. We do it in wartime. We do it in capital punishment, and we do it in self-defense. English versions of the Old Testament may say, "Thou shalt not 'kill,'" but the meaning really is: thou shalt not "murder," because killings-in war, in capital punishment, and in self-defense-were long ago recognized as ethically justifiable forms of killing. The term "murder" was used to refer to forms of killing which were considered ethically unjustifiable. What is it about war, capital punishment, and self-defense which justifies killing? It is the fact that none of the deceased individuals was "innocent": all had become a "clear and present danger" to the lives and welfare of others, and as such, each had relinquished whatever "right to life" he or she had previously possessed.

Number six: to be "murder" an action must involve the intentional killing of innocent human life which is a "person." This is the sine qua non, the absolute key, essential element of the whole definition. If the innocent human life which is intentionally killed does not constitute a person, than no "murder" has been committed.

But what is "personhood"? Some ethicists list more than a dozen criteria for defining "personhood." But I believe there are just three which are absolutely necessary: they are "consciousness," "self-awareness," and "memory." In order for me to be a person, to be "Robert," it is essential that I possess the ability to experience "consciousness"-by which I mean an awareness of my environment. I must also have the ability to recognize the difference between my environment and myself, which is what I mean by "self-awareness." Despite temporary lapses into unconsciousness and loss of self-awareness due to sleep, sedation, and so on, I remain the "person" I am only so long as I am able to return to consciousness and self-awareness with the memory of my own past intact.

What is it that gives someone consciousness, self-awareness, and memory? It is only one thing: a brain. . With a mature, fully functioning human brain, there can be consciousness, self-awareness, memory, and "personhood." Without a brain, personhood is absent.




I cut out parts of it because it is long, to read the whole thing go to: http://www.dbcuuc.org/sermons/001001.htm

[amishman]

Originally posted by bossydacow
and, this essay explains why abortion is not murder:
Why Abortion is Not Murder
Robert P. Tucker, Ph.D.

I encountered that very thing in Ethics last year. And personally, I think it is a load of crap. I think people try to apply science to this debate so that emotions can be removed from the debate. It is easier to abort an "embryo" than a "person."

And argument of "personhood" is even more crap, by that definition, no one becomes a human until 3-4 years of age.

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by amishman
I encountered that very thing in Ethics last year. And personally, I think it is a load of crap. I think people try to apply science to this debate so that emotions can be removed from the debate. It is easier to abort an "embryo" than a "person."


a medical procedure is science though.
My emotions aren't removed from the debate at all. I honestly do not see a fetus as a person. thats all. Thats why when people find out they are pregnant they don't say, "We have a baby", they say we are going to have a baby."

[amishman]

Originally posted by bossydacow
a medical procedure is science though.
My emotions aren't removed from the debate at all. I honestly do not see a fetus as a person. thats all. Thats why when people find out they are pregnant they don't say, "We have a baby", they say we are going to have a baby."

I know people who say that, maybe it's because the child was wanted and expected. Here's another point, if a woman had a miscarriage, I'm sure she would feel depressed. I'm almost positive about that previous comment, because my mom and aunt both had miscarriages and both were huge tragedies. Also, what sex are you?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by evil zach
The NRA is nothing but a group of hypocrites. They combat gun controll with the constitution (the second amendment only aplies to milita and other military units by the way) but their own constitution states that NRA presidents may only serve for 2 terms. When chaelton heston's 2 terms are up, what do they do? they change their own consitiution so he can run for a 3rd.

i'm actually gonna have to agree with zach on this one...for the most part anyway.

also, why don't you guys start another abortion thread...fetus's can't fire guns.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by HateJimmyCarter
Can a 1 month old live by themselves if they are dropped off by themselves in the middle of nowhere?


maybe, if they are raised by wolves, but again, this doesn't belong in this thread, start a new one...

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by yeat182
maybe, if they are raised by wolves, but again, this doesn't belong in this thread, start a new one...
he's gone...dont waste your breath. but he is right

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by HateJimmyCarter
HOLY SHIT! YOU ARE A STUPID BITCH? The child depends on the mother until about age 3.

obviously not as stupid as you. A 1 month is NOT dependent on THE WOMAN THAT HELD IT IN HER BODY. Thats why there are safe homes for women to leave the baby after it is born. If a child was dependent on the woman that carried it until it was three, then why can people adopt new borns?
Once again, because I know you have trouble comprehending what you read: a 1 month is not dependent on the woman who carried it. It no longer need the womb of the particular woman that conceived it. a fetus needs to be in a womb. Even if it is 26 weeks along, it only has a 50% chance of surviving outside of the womb under intensive medical care. Anytime before that, and they cannot live at all. It isn't until week 30 that it is more possible for it to live outside of the womb, and it would be premature.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by bossydacow
obviously not as stupid as you. A 1 month is NOT dependent on THE WOMAN THAT HELD IT IN HER BODY. Thats why there are safe homes for women to leave the baby after it is born. If a child was dependent on the woman that carried it until it was three, then why can people adopt new borns?
Once again, because I know you have trouble comprehending what you read: a 1 month is not dependent on the woman who carried it. It no longer need the womb of the particular woman that conceived it. a fetus needs to be in a womb. Even if it is 26 weeks along, it only has a 50% chance of surviving outside of the womb under intensive medical care. Anytime before that, and they cannot live at all. It isn't until week 30 that it is more possible for it to live outside of the womb, and it would be premature.

START A FUCKING ABORTION THREAD!!!!

[bossydacow]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cal1082
[B]Since you put science into abortion, i'm gonna put some morals in religion in it. [B]

my religious faith tells me abortion is immoral. and I think it is immoral (but not murder). But my religion says alot of things that are still legal are immoral as well. Like, swearing, pre-marital sex, and lets not forget the 7 deadly sins that will turn us away from God: Pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed and sloth. None of those are illegal. and those sins will supposedly send us all to hell.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by bossydacow
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cal1082
[B]Since you put science into abortion, i'm gonna put some morals in religion in it. [B]

my religious faith tells me abortion is immoral. and I think it is immoral (but not murder). But my religion says alot of things that are still legal are immoral as well. Like, swearing, pre-marital sex, and lets not forget the 7 deadly sins that will turn us away from God: Pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed and sloth. None of those are illegal. and those sins will supposedly send us all to hell.


You can talk all you want about religion when it comes ot abortion, but my problem about it is that its basically murder for financial reasons or because its a nuisances, and i cant justify that.

[bossydacow]

Deuteronomy 30:19 "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death,
blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both you and your seed may live..."

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by cal1082
exactly it says choose life.

thus implying that it is indeed a choice. Furthermore, Religion has every authority to tell its followers to not have an abortion, government does not. That was God saying choose not to have an abortion. Not everyone believes in God.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by bossydacow
thus implying that it is indeed a choice. Furthermore, Religion has every authority to tell its followers to not have an abortion, government does not. That was God saying choose not to have an abortion. Not everyone believes in God.
it is not your choice to kill someone else. sure its your body, but it is theirs as well. and if you dont want to take care of your stupid mistakes, then there is adoption

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by cal1082
of course you have a choice, if you didnt there wasnt a choice there wouldnt be an argument. It's telling you to choose life though. Also yes the government has teh right if they believe that the baby is a human.

and thats the whole point. Its whether a fetus should have equal rights to the woman whose body it inhabits. And I think that no, it shouldn't.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by bossydacow
and thats the whole point. Its whether a fetus should have equal rights to the woman whose body it inhabits. And I think that no, it shouldn't.
too bad your mom didnt abort you

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
too bad your mom didnt abort you

my mother doesn't believe in abortion. But if she had aborted me, it wouldn't matter. I'd have gone straight to heaven. Do you really think aborted babies are sitting up in heaven crying about not getting to live on earth, inherit all the characteristics of human nature, and grow attached to things that really don't matter? Hell no, they are on an entire different plane of intelligence than we are.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by bossydacow
my mother doesn't believe in abortion. But if she had aborted me, it wouldn't matter. I'd have gone straight to heaven. Do you really think aborted babies are sitting up in heaven crying about not getting to live on earth, inherit all the characteristics of human nature, and grow attached to things that really don't matter? Hell no, they are on an entire different plane of intelligence than we are.
how do aborted babies go to heaven? they didnt have a chance to accept christ as god, therefore not going to heaven

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by bossydacow
my mother doesn't believe in abortion. But if she had aborted me, it wouldn't matter. I'd have gone straight to heaven. Do you really think aborted babies are sitting up in heaven crying about not getting to live on earth, inherit all the characteristics of human nature, and grow attached to things that really don't matter? Hell no, they are on an entire different plane of intelligence than we are.

how could you have gone to heaven? You said aborted babies aren't humans, and if your not a human you have no soul to go to heaven with.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
how could you have gone to heaven? You said aborted babies aren't humans, and if your not a human you have no soul to go to heaven with.
or simply they havent accepted christ

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
how could you have gone to heaven? You said aborted babies aren't humans, and if your not a human you have no soul to go to heaven with.

I was answering the question the way a Christian would.
Animals have souls, they can love, and they arn't human, and animals don't go to heaven.

To Brandnew:

If the fetus was a human, it wouldn't be like God would tell them they can't come in. They wouldn't be culpable. But fetus's are not human.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by bossydacow
I was answering the question the way a Christian would.
Animals have souls, they can love, and they arn't human, and animals don't go to heaven.

To Brandnew:

If the fetus was a human, it wouldn't be like God would tell them they can't come in. They wouldn't be culpable. But fetus's are not human.

As to the animal thing, animals dont have souls and they can only be taught to love and they dont go to heaven there creation was not for a higher life it was for our enjoyment.

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
As to the animal thing, animals dont have souls and they can only be taught to love and they dont go to heaven there creation was not for a higher life it was for our enjoyment.

Just as we can be taught to hate,we are also taught to love.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by bossydacow
Just as we can be taught to hate,we are also taught to love.

I dont really get your point as it has to do with animals, because humans and animals can not be compared to each other.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by bossydacow
Just as we can be taught to hate,we are also taught to love.

Ya be we have the will power to change and/or ignore what we are taught. Bad parents raise good children, and good parents raise bad children. When a person trains a dog bad, its bad for life because it has an inability to change, which is what seperates us from them.

[evil zach]

wowzers! Another abortion thread! $5 says this one goes nowear too!

You all know my views on abortion. I don't need to restate them

[yeat182]

NOT AN ABORTION THREAD!!!!FETUS'S CAN'T SHOOT GUNS!!!!START A DIFFERENT THREAD!!!!

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by evil zach
wowzers! Another abortion thread! $5 says this one goes nowear too!

You all know my views on abortion. I don't need to restate them

it was actually getting in to something different if you had read it.

[evil zach]

I didn't. my bad

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by yeat182
NOT AN ABORTION THREAD!!!!FETUS'S CAN'T SHOOT GUNS!!!!START A DIFFERENT THREAD!!!!

i started this thread and I can make it into anything I want. So there! Would you perfer we talk about guns? I hate guns. They truly scare the shit out of me. I support gun control laws. I wish people didn't go hunting, but its a personal choice people make.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by bossydacow
i started this thread and I can make it into anything I want. So there!

Damn straight!



on a different point gun control and gun banning are different things, i m for control but 100% against banning, because banning leads to high and higher personal crime rates.

[yeat182]

they should outlaw hand guns, you should only be able to own rifles. you can protect your house and family just as well with a rifle, and you can't really conceal a rifle and walk around town with one stuffed down your pants, like you can with a hand gun.

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by yeat182
they should outlaw hand guns, you should only be able to own rifles. you can protect your house and family just as well with a rifle, and you can't really conceal a rifle and walk around town with one stuffed down your pants, like you can with a hand gun.

my stupid governor thinks its a good idea to abolish the concealed gun law. he's an asshole. Are your guys states doing that too?

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by yeat182
they should outlaw hand guns, you should only be able to own rifles. you can protect your house and family just as well with a rifle, and you can't really conceal a rifle and walk around town with one stuffed down your pants, like you can with a hand gun.

Concealed hand guns and side armies are legal in some places, mostly rural, and is it fair that city dewellers (liberals) should tell these people what they can and cant have, when the crimes rates in these places are much lower per person then they are in the bigger cities?

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by bossydacow
my stupid governor thinks its a good idea to abolish the concealed gun law. he's an asshole. Are your guys states doing that too?

WHat state are you in, MO.

[bossydacow]

Minnesota

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
Concealed hand guns and side armies are legal in some places, mostly rural, and is it fair that city dewellers (liberals) should tell these people what they can and cant have, when the crimes rates in these places are much lower per person then they are in the bigger cities?

why should anyone carry a concealed weapon?

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by yeat182
why should anyone carry a concealed weapon?

Why shouldnt they?

[evil zach]

Its unesseary and threat to public safty.

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
Why shouldnt they?

well, okay: say a bunch of guys decide to go to a Vikings game. They have a too many beers, get wasted, the Vikings lose and now they are pissed at some fans of the opponent who are estatic at their teams win. So drunk guys happen to have a weapon in his coat pocket, takes it out, bang bang, opponents fan is dead.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by evil zach
Its unesseary and threat to public safty.

How is it a threat to public safety? Its those that have unlicensed guns that are a threat.

Where you live its not nessasary (?), but i know there are urban areas of my city i wouldn't go to, and if i had to on a daily bases because of work or something i would want something for protection, because people down there dont judge life the same way i choice to and are willing to kill for the slightest thing.

Also most of these areas you'd be hard pressed to get a cop ot help ya, there either busy or dont go down there either.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by bossydacow
well, okay: say a bunch of guys decide to go to a Vikings game. They have a too many beers, get wasted, the Vikings lose and now they are pissed at some fans of the opponent who are estatic at their teams win. So drunk guys happen to have a weapon in his coat pocket, takes it out, bang bang, opponents fan is dead.

No law allows weapons in stadiums, schools, churchs, gov. offices, courts, theaters, OR BARS ect.


What if that same druck fan decided to run some people over with his car, should we out law cars? A car is a MUCH deadlier weapon then a gun.

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
No law allows weapons in stadiums, schools, churchs, gov. offices, courts, theaters, OR BARS ect.


What if that same druck fan decided to run some people over with his car, should we out law cars? A car is a MUCH deadlier weapon then a gun.

who the fuck would want a gun on them at all times? Does anybody really feel that unsafe? Cars arn't made for the purpose of killing or injuring things.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by bossydacow
who the fuck would want a gun on them at all times? Does anybody really feel that unsafe? Cars arn't made for the purpose of killing or injuring things.

Obviously people who carry guns real that they are unsafe or need the protects, who am i to tell them they dont.

Cars arent made to be harmful but they still are, and conceled carry laws make an individual go through alot more training and back ground checks then the DMV does, any one can drive a car not every one can carry a gun.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
Obviously people who carry guns real that they are unsafe or need the protects, who am i to tell them they dont.

Cars arent made to be harmful but they still are, and conceled carry laws make an individual go through alot more training and back ground checks then the DMV does, any one can drive a car not every one can carry a gun.
guns dont kill. stupid people kill. if you require someone to take a gun safety course to minimize gun accidents, the world would be a better place. if you dissallow gun carrying all together it will not stop the crazy man from shooting you. if he wants to shoot you, he will break the law by carrying a gun, i mean he already has attempted murder/murder racked up against him, whats a concealed weapon charge going to be?

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
Obviously people who carry guns real that they are unsafe or need the protects, who am i to tell them they dont.
.

or they just want to kill someone.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by bossydacow
or they just want to kill someone.
doubt it

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
doubt it

why not? Do you feel unsafe where you are from? And is shooting someone the right solution to your problem?

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by bossydacow
or they just want to kill someone.

thats quite the stretch.

[bossydacow]

and the only threat to you would be another person with a concealed weapon, so by legalizing it, it would only create more problems.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by bossydacow
why not? Do you feel unsafe where you are from? And is shooting someone the right solution to your problem?

To a point yes there are lots of parts of KC where white people shouldn't go. And if i had to work down there, i would think about getting a gun.

It may not be the right solution in your book, but i would rather they get shot/die then me, i didn't bring this on my self they DID.

There are consequences for every action.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by bossydacow
and the only threat to you would be another person with a concealed weapon, so by legalizing it, it would only create more problems.
did you read a word i wrote. make it neccesary to take a course on gun safety. carry around a gun handling card. the crazy people will carry guns no matter what. they dont care if its illegal

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by bossydacow
and the only threat to you would be another person with a concealed weapon, so by legalizing it, it would only create more problems.

First off concealed carry is legal in alot of states so were not really discussing wheather to legalize it or not, its there and most likly will allows be there.

Second the main threat comes from those that have unlicesened guns, dont know how to use them, and are going to use them for criminal activites.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by cal1082
yeah i'm sure banning guns will make them hard to get a hold of illegaly, like drugs. If you want a gun you're still gonna be able to get one no matter what.
in australia they took away guns, like completely. crime rate went up because of that. criminals were forced to buy guns off of the black market, mafia-like involvement, make him a deal he couldnt refuse, bam bam, crime rate goes up

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by cal1082
We should ban knifes too. I was thinking if you ban guns everyone will carry concealed knives instead and use them on each other.
lets ban forks too, how bout it?

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by cal1082
yeah i'm sure banning guns will make them hard to get a hold of illegaly, like drugs. If you want a gun you're still gonna be able to get one no matter what.

so I guess we should legalize all drugs than too?


and I'm talking about concealed weapons. Not just things you can cause pain with.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by bossydacow
so I guess we should legalize all drugs than too?


and I'm talking about concealed weapons. Not just things you can cause pain with.
so your face cannot be banned.....damn

[evil zach]

who are you to say what sombody else can do or not do to THEIR body?

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by evil zach
who are you to say what sombody else can do or not do to THEIR body?

the governmetn tells all the time what we can and cant do with our bodies: prostitution, tatoos, indecent exposure, selling of orgins........ect. How is not allowing murder any different?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
How is it a threat to public safety? Its those that have unlicensed guns that are a threat.



licenses don't kill people, guns kill people

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Safetyin#


Where you live its not nessasary (?), but i know there are urban areas of my city i wouldn't go to, and if i had to on a daily bases because of work or something i would want something for protection, because people down there dont judge life the same way i choice to and are willing to kill for the slightest thing.

Also most of these areas you'd be hard pressed to get a cop ot help ya, there either busy or dont go down there either.

those areas that you won't go into are dangerous because people carry concealed weapons, if they didn't then it wouldn't be nearly as dangerous.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
No law allows weapons in stadiums, schools, churchs, gov. offices, courts, theaters, OR BARS ect.


What if that same druck fan decided to run some people over with his car, should we out law cars? A car is a MUCH deadlier weapon then a gun.

i can't break into someones house and hit them with my car...or threaten to hit a bank teller with my car if she doesn't give me all the money in a bank.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
guns dont kill. stupid people kill. if you require someone to take a gun safety course to minimize gun accidents, the world would be a better place. if you dissallow gun carrying all together it will not stop the crazy man from shooting you. if he wants to shoot you, he will break the law by carrying a gun, i mean he already has attempted murder/murder racked up against him, whats a concealed weapon charge going to be?

so why not ban hand guns, and allow people to only own rifles?

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by yeat182
i can't break into someones house and hit them with my car...or threaten to hit a bank teller with my car if she doesn't give me all the money in a bank.

Actually you can break into a home or business with a car, that is why they have cement piliers in front of most stores now.

And you also cant stop a thief without a gun, a rapist, a murder, a "terrorist" maybe (what a strech), a car thief, a child abductor, ect...............

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
the governmetn tells all the time what we can and cant do with our bodies: prostitution, tatoos, indecent exposure, selling of orgins........ect. How is not allowing murder any different?

tattoos?

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by yeat182
tattoos?

Must be 18 to get one.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by cal1082
Do you actually think banning guns will keep people from being shot. All that will do is put guns in the hands of criminals.

so would your solution be to give everyone guns?

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by yeat182
so would your solution be to give everyone guns?

No training those that have them. Which for the most part is whats done.

[yeat182]

if that is how it is now, then why is there such a problem?

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by yeat182
if that is how it is now, then why is there such a problem?

Because liberals are saying that the common man doesn't need guns, and who are we to argue with them.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by cal1082
would you rather pass a law that wouldnt work, or put harsher penalties on the gun laws that already exist?

i would rather outlaw concealed weapons, and make hand guns illegal, and require people who want to own rifles to pass more extensive background checks and require some sort of certification to get a license. what use are harsher penalties when someone has already shot and killed someone? they will punish those responisble but won't bring back the dead, why not try and prevent needless killings and accidents?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by cal1082
here's another.

http://stars.csg.org/spectrum/1997/spring/sp97spe28a.pdf


you "forgot" to post the opposing viewpoint

http://stars.csg.org/spectrum/1997/spring/sp97spe29.pdf

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
Actually you can break into a home or business with a car, that is why they have cement piliers in front of most stores now.

And you also cant stop a thief without a gun, a rapist, a murder, a "terrorist" maybe (what a strech), a car thief, a child abductor, ect...............


i didn't say you couldn't break into some where with a car, i said you can't break into someone's house with the intention of hitting them with your car, like you can break into someone's house with the intention of shooting them. people use cars to knock down walls to get into a home or buissness, not with the intention of using the car to hurt someone directly.

and you can stop a thief with:
1. a dog
2. a baseball bat
3. a frying pan
4. your fist
5. a knife
6 . your car
7. your car keys
8. your shoe
9.etc.
10.etc.
11. etc.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by cal1082
if not than what would be the problem in carrying them?

because not having guns would lower violence.

[yeat182]

how can you say that people carrying around hidden weapons is a good thing? it doesn't solve the problem of people who already carry around hidden weapons, and will still do so whether or not they have a license for it.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by cal1082
You can use that weapon to protect yourself, out of all the people who took the time to go out and get certified, pay a fee, and finally get to carry a handgun the majority of them a law abiding citizens. It's the criminals who break the laws already on the book who are the problem. Like that article said after the comlumbine shootings there was this huge outrage over gun control, but the thing is the 2 students who did the shooting broke so many gun laws already on the book. If the laws would have been enforced in the first place maybe this particular incedent wouldn't have happened. Enforce the gun laws we have and then complain about new ones.


those criminals will just break this law, and still carry illegal concealed weapons, so how does making it legal solve the problem?

also, its great to say that the columbine shooters broke a ton of laws on the books, but it doesn't change the fact that a lot of innocent kids died. those laws did nothing to protect them, they only serve to punish someone after the fact

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by evil zach
who are you to say what sombody else can do or not do to THEIR body?
because if you drive when hopped up on speed or coke or meth or something, you could kill someone. thats why. you are a hazard to yourself and others.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by cal1082
What are you talking about those laws did nothing to protect them? Those laws were suppose to keep the guns out of the 2 killers hands. They werent enforced though. I have a big problem with creating more gun laws when we're not enforcing the ones we have.


Those laws were suppose to keep the guns out of the 2 killers hands.

my point is that even if you make it legal to have a concealed weapon as long as you have a license, it does nothing to prevent the criminals who already carry concealed weapons from doing so. all it does is proliferate the number of hidden weapons on the street.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by cal1082
I see what you're saying but...
If it does nothing to prevent the criminals who already carry concealed weapons than why pass the law? Because it would keep less guns off the street? I don't think criminals go out of their way as it is to register to carry a firearm, so if it is illegal for average citizens to carry a firearm that just leaves criminals carrying firearms.

the answer isn't to have more guns out there, it is to have less. the reason why it is easy for a criminal to get a gun is because there are so many out there, not simply because the laws don't work. they don't work because there are way, way to many guns on the street.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by cal1082
i guess the diffrence is that i think there will always be guns out there no matter what. They'll be smuggled in over our borders no matter what, and the reason why is because the laws are not enforced, just like alot of other gun laws.

yet another reason we need more protection on our borders...

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by yeat182
yet another reason we need more protection on our borders...
good call on that, damn cubans

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by yeat182
i didn't say you couldn't break into some where with a car, i said you can't break into someone's house with the intention of hitting them with your car, like you can break into someone's house with the intention of shooting them. people use cars to knock down walls to get into a home or buissness, not with the intention of using the car to hurt someone directly.

and you can stop a thief with:
1. a dog
2. a baseball bat
3. a frying pan
4. your fist
5. a knife
6 . your car
7. your car keys
8. your shoe
9.etc.
10.etc.
11. etc.

Not one of those things is going to stop a thief with a gun.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by yeat182
the answer isn't to have more guns out there, it is to have less. the reason why it is easy for a criminal to get a gun is because there are so many out there, not simply because the laws don't work. they don't work because there are way, way to many guns on the street.

So your point is to punish/harm the lawbiders because of what the criminals might do? that seems fair.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
So your point is to punish/harm the lawbiders because of what the criminals might do? that seems fair.

the point is, there is absolutley no need to allow people to conceal weapons.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
Not one of those things is going to stop a thief with a gun.


if there are no guns, all of those will stop a thief

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by yeat182
if there are no guns, all of those will stop a thief

How could i disagree with that? But it will never happen, criminals will always have guns, so the only thing the laws you support will do is harm lawbiding citizens. Is that fair?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
How could i disagree with that? But it will never happen, criminals will always have guns, so the only thing the laws you support will do is harm lawbiding citizens. Is that fair?

the same thing can be said about the speed limit. law abiding citzens may be perfectly capapble of driving 80 miles an hour on the highway, but some people can't drive that fast without causing an accident. so in the interest of public saftey, the speed limit is set 65. it isn't meant to punish those that can handle higher speeds, but meant to protect everyone on the road from those that can't. same with outlawing hand guns. it isn't meant to punish people who use guns for hunting or protection, there really is no need to hunt with a pistol in the first place, and as for protection, a rilfe is just as effetive as a hand gun. it is meant to protect the public.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by yeat182
the same thing can be said about the speed limit. law abiding citzens may be perfectly capapble of driving 80 miles an hour on the highway, but some people can't drive that fast without causing an accident. so in the interest of public saftey, the speed limit is set 65. it isn't meant to punish those that can handle higher speeds, but meant to protect everyone on the road from those that can't. same with outlawing hand guns. it isn't meant to punish people who use guns for hunting or protection, there really is no need to hunt with a pistol in the first place, and as for protection, a rilfe is just as effetive as a hand gun. it is meant to protect the public.
Being law abiding has nothing to do with driving ability. Chances are drug dealer can drive at 80 better than soccer mom

[yeat182]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
Being law abiding has nothing to do with driving ability. Chances are drug dealer can drive at 80 better than soccer mom


no, if you are law abiding you must still drive at 65 whether or not you are capable of driving faster, the law isn't meant to punish those that can drive faster, but to protect the public from those who can't. just like a gun control law isn't meant to punish those who use guns responsibly, but to protect the public from those who can't.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by yeat182
the same thing can be said about the speed limit. law abiding citzens may be perfectly capapble of driving 80 miles an hour on the highway, but some people can't drive that fast without causing an accident. so in the interest of public saftey, the speed limit is set 65. it isn't meant to punish those that can handle higher speeds, but meant to protect everyone on the road from those that can't. same with outlawing hand guns. it isn't meant to punish people who use guns for hunting or protection, there really is no need to hunt with a pistol in the first place, and as for protection, a rilfe is just as effetive as a hand gun. it is meant to protect the public.

but what you forget with all these arguements is that there are already laws about/against gun control and who can own and operate one.

You act like you can walk up to store, walmart, and just buy a gun, which isn't the way things work.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
but what you forget with all these arguements is that there are already laws about/against gun control and who can own and operate one.

You act like you can walk up to store, walmart, and just buy a gun, which isn't the way things work.


yes i understand all of that, and these laws we have don't work, so why pass laws that allow more guns on the street? more guns isn't the answer...

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by yeat182
yes i understand all of that, and these laws we have don't work, so why pass laws that allow more guns on the street? more guns isn't the answer...

The laws do work there just no enforced, why make new laws when we don't enforce the ones we have?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
The laws do work there just no enforced, why make new laws when we don't enforce the ones we have?

i would think if gun owners truley cared about keeping their right to own guns, they would be the first ones to make sure these laws were enforced.

but also, these laws should be enforced, but that still is no reason to pass a law allowing the right to carry concealed weapons...there is still no legitimate reason for that.

[yeat182]

how can people carrying hidden weapons possibly be a good thing?

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by yeat182
i would think if gun owners truley cared about keeping their right to own guns, they would be the first ones to make sure these laws were enforced.

but also, these laws should be enforced, but that still is no reason to pass a law allowing the right to carry concealed weapons...there is still no legitimate reason for that.

Thats the point there are those in gov. (there names start with an L) who want the gun laws we already have to fail and do every thing in there power to make the fail (budgets).

They want to rid the USA of guns because, 1. they think there smart then us 2. They know better whats best for us 3. They see us as children 4. Its a threat to them and there plans for making the USA into a socalist regime 5. Gun put some authority in the hands of the people while "L" think the authority should be with the all mighty government.

kind of got off the subject a little, but the problems with gun control laws are not the laws themselves but the idiots we elect to "enforce" them.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by yeat182
how can people carrying hidden weapons possibly be a good thing?
You've taken this a little beyond "hidden weapons".

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Safetyin#
but the problems with gun control laws are not the laws themselves but the idiots we elect to "enforce" them.


so you expect that if the law allowing concealed weapons passes, the requirements will suddenly be enforced? you've said it yourself, they don't enforce the laws they have now, and you want add another.

[Safetyin#]

Originally posted by yeat182
so you expect that if the law allowing concealed weapons passes, the requirements will suddenly be enforced? you've said it yourself, they don't enforce the laws they have now, and you want add another.

Im not sure where your coming from, but in my state concealed carry is LEGAL. And has been for more yrs then ive been around.