This was spoken of years ago ... where does it stop?
This was spoken of years ago ... where does it stop?
I saw that sign at our school. I wrote under it "We have something in common"
School was all in an uproar.
I couldn't hurt a kitten. Cause they're cute...
But a fly? FUCKER'S DEAD.
People are not ruled by their memories.
Knives that are only good as weapons are already illegal, aren't they?
But yes. It could, in theory, "not stop" until every object that is used exclusively to hurt other humans is restricted or banned. How terrible.
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth





Banning knives that are only good as weapons does nothing. Once can go to k-mart and buy a gaint kitchen knife or meat cleaver, and do some nasty damage. Why in the hell is that a picture of a pocket knife there, or am I looking at the red one wrong? Some knives actually have uses other than killing. Next they will want to ban razors.
One more cup of coffee for the road,
One more cup of coffee 'fore I go
To the valley below....
Slowly moseying my way to the exit.
A Blogging?
Of course, there are objects that have uses OTHER than killing people that CAN kill people. Your hands for one - nobody is suggesting cutting them off. (Sorry, these are now restricted). However, that like saying there is no difference between a hunting rifle and an assault weapon because you could inflict damage with the hunting rifle. Yes, but the hunting rifle DOES have other use. You might be buying for some purpose OTHER than to shoot people. You might actually buy a meat cleaver to cleave meat. Knives of all kinds have been banned for a long, long time - nigh on 70 years - in certain environments (schools for example), because although you may need a hunting knife to hunt, you really have no reason to have it in school, right? Which is not to say that it is the only way you can hurt someone in school.
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth





I would argue the hands (and more importantly yet, the brain controlling those hands) are far more dangerous than any object those hands possess.Originally Posted by Jenny
After all, an assault weapon or switchblade sitting by itself in a drawer is essentially harmless until a person with malicious intent or incompetence puts their hands on it.
On the other hand (pun not intended), an object made for other purposes other than killing but which can be used to kill (deer rifle, kitchen knife, box cutter, automobile, baseball bat, rat poison, gasoline, amonium nitrate fertilizer, etc.) is very dangerous once a person with malicious intent or incompetence gets their hands on it. Hence the anti-gun control credo, "Guns (or knives) don't kill people. People kill people."
Former SCJ now in rehab.
Yes, but despite the charming notion that handguns sit around in a drawer until some unsuspecting raccoon toys with it, there is still no reason to have a handgun, switchblade, assault weapon if you're NOT planning to kill someone with it. If the intent is truly to let it sit in a drawer, from whence comes the resistence to NOT having it sit in a drawer? Never made sense to me.
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth





With respect to a handgun, I can think of one very good reason, in fact, its the primary reason most people own them, to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their property from thugs intent on doing harm.Originally Posted by Jenny
Banning something does not make that something dissapear into the abyss where it can't be used by anyone. If you take the right of law abiding people to own such weapons away you have created a dangerous enviroment of disarmament where only criminals will possess them.
Look at this logically. Do you really think that someone who intends to take a human life, or otherwise cause serious physical harm really gives a rat's fink about a comparitively small fry weapon possession law?
With respect to gun control laws, the feeling is mutual.Never made sense to me.
Former SCJ now in rehab.
Same could be said about mace.Originally Posted by Jenny
Many cities with gun control laws have also outlawed stun guns, mace, and pepper spray.
It is simply a plan to make you, the individual, vulnerable to a predator with greater natural power (or illegal power.)
Now that doesn't make sense.
From
To legally carry mace or any chemical irritant in Massachusetts, you must obtain a valid firearm identification card (FID)—a process which, in Cambridge, requires proof of U.S. citizenship, proof of Cambridge residence, fingerprinting and background checks. There is a fee of $25 for the license and an extra $20 fingerprinting fee.
Liberalism with "weapon control" at it's best!
Last edited by Deogol; 11-07-2006 at 10:06 AM. Reason: A little example hee hee
Certainly. But that argument would be much more compelling if there wasn't ample, plentiful, plethoratical evidence that that particular use is not wildly effective.Originally Posted by doc-catfish
Again - this argument would be more compelling if we didn't have ample, plentiful etc. evidence that wasn't happening. That limiting the distribution of guns actually seems to make them harder for criminals to get as well.Banning something does not make that something dissapear into the abyss where it can't be used by anyone. If you take the right of law abiding people to own such weapons away you have created a dangerous enviroment of disarmament where only criminals will possess them.
No. I would assume - and I'm not sure of this, but it seems logical - that the strict laws on distribution (as I said) mean less guns around, which means fewer guns running around illegally. At least, that seems to be the case in most of the Northwestern world. So it's not that the arguments don't make sense; they do. But they are sophitical insofar as they do deny extant reality.Look at this logically. Do you really think that someone who intends to take a human life, or otherwise cause serious physical harm really gives a rat's fink about a comparitively small fry weapon possession law?
Deogal: I thought you had me on ignore. Whatever happened to that? It's not like me or my mode of expression has greatly changed. You can ask around. In any event, I would refer you to the above. That simply doesn't seem to happen. And I agree about the thing with mace. Because making mace widely available as a defensive aid, also makes it widely available as an offensive one. To me that seems perfectly obvious. What is to stop some predator from buying the freely available mace and using it on you? If you are carrying around a weapon what is so wrong with having some catalogue of who purchases the weapons, along with some mode of identifying them if said weapon (that again, has no purpose except to hurt another human being. We're not talking about kitchen cutlery here) is used for what we might call "bad" purposes? Of course we want that.
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth
I only have a few people truly on ignore. I mean that while I read your responses, I merely shake my head and think "What a gamboon."
But hey - I realize you are far to the left and living outside of reality and people who read this hopefully will realize how unrealistic your outlook is when they are not allowed to carry mace when leaving the strip club on those cold dark nights without paying a bunch of money and having their background scrutinized.
I mean - do you really think the police are going to OK a fire arms card to a person with a pot bust on their record? Or any other number of possible trouble most free spirited types get into with authority?
Even if it is simply for a bottle of mace?
You are simply wishing for how reality would be instead of dealing with how reality is. You have middle class suburbia naive written all over you.
My tits have destroyed many a man's bank account. They've caused billions of our men's potential children to die mercilleslly through suffocation by Kleenex. Ban them immediately!
"Have you ever been to American wedding? Where is the vodka, where's marinated herring?" - GB
"And do the cats give a shit? No, they do not. Why? Because they're cats."-from The Onion
Originally Posted by Mia M





As the saying goes
When you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns...
The news from Scotland........ Seems the Importation of Illegal firearms by criminals to arm criminals is becoming a profitable business......
Here is a book with many stories of honest ordinary people protecting themselves and the loved ones with firearms against criminals intending to hurt, maim, kill, or rape them
Check out the other six books in the listed on the page too.
I am looking for the archive of all the stories that were printed in the front of Guns & Ammo............
Oops Scratch that it was American Rifleman
Armed Citizen is the name of the column. this is a collection of stories gathered from news reports around the nation showcasing Private Citizens protecting themselves from crime.





Who said anything about planning to kill some one? Why do you WANT to kill someone anyway?Originally Posted by Jenny
yes the intent is to let the firearm sit idle in the drawer. It is insurance you may not need it but, it is good to have it.
The STG 44 also known as the MP 44 is the only weapon titled an Assault weapon.
SturmGewehr .............. the Army doesn't use this term for anything in it's inventory, I know of zero Police agencies that use this term for anything the might field. So it remains a word generated by the Anti gun establishment since presumably it sounds scarier to the uniformed and more easily misled public.



Ban alcohol, tobacco, butter, bacon, and everything else that's potentially harmful while you're at it!
Edit- and ban Katrine's tits. (You can send them to my house for safekeeping.)
Now THAT should be your new sig. & You did a public service, Miss!Originally Posted by Katrine
Well, some people just make me really mad.Originally Posted by ArmySGT.
Again - isn't there fairly ample evidence that this particular brand of insurance is ineffective and prone to backfiring? (No pun intended).yes the intent is to let the firearm sit idle in the drawer. It is insurance you may not need it but, it is good to have it.
Okay. I mean I accept the correction, and I'm sure it is very meaningful to you, but the specific nomenclature of different kinds of guns is not all THAT important to my meaning.The STG 44 also known as the MP 44 is the only weapon titled an Assault weapon.
I actually don't know what any of this means.SturmGewehr .............. the Army doesn't use this term for anything in it's inventory, I know of zero Police agencies that use this term for anything the might field. So it remains a word generated by the Anti gun establishment since presumably it sounds scarier to the uniformed and more easily misled public.
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth





Which is why I ask that you spend sometime doing some research. Learn about firearms ownership. Before you endorse judgements intended to strip away rights based on wild emotional reactions.Originally Posted by Jenny
Oh and it means Assault Weapons is an invention of another though to often irresponsibly exercised Right the Freedom of the Press. It sells more Papers. Thank you Mr Hearst.
Originally Posted by ArmySGT.
Really... if there is any right that should be curbed because of abuse... it should be freedom of the press.![]()
And I am serious about this - paparrazzi stalking and terrorizing people, tabloids repeatedly lying, hell - some news organizations flat out blindsiding the public with false biased information (Rathergate.)
People have actually died because of this nonsense, there have been traffic accidents, and the Republic has been harmed because few decent people want to become involved in it's leadership.
Throw in a bunch of nonsense about curbing other rights - like gun ownership - I dare say it is actually on the path to destroying the constitution.
Dude!
You totally did that on purpose so I couldn't conveniently quote you!
Wow, that's a loaded question. I would question why you say "citizen" instead of person (you know, first thing). Most rights are afforded to persons; only certain rights (like voting) being limited to citizenry. Further, part of the whole contention is whether firearms (does that term make you happier?) are the most effective way of making the citizenry safe, or whether they are in fact making it more unsafe. So, yes - I think that people have the right to be safe. It is the methodology that is in question here.Do you not believe that a Citizen has the Right to Defend themselves? That a citizen does have the Right to Defend themselves with the most effective means necessary? 911 won't be able to do anything but record your screams if that is your personal protection.............................
Yeah, that the thing - in most countries, in most places this isn't really a right. So it's hard to get all that worked up about your "right". THAT seems to me to be the wild emotional reaction, not limiting the use of weapons (no assault this time) intended only to hurt or kill other people. We're not talking about a right to a fair trial here. It's not like "controlled hand guns today, Big Brother tomorrow".Originally Posted by ArmySGT.
So you dislike the term Assault Weapons. Very well. I dislike the term "pro life" (also an invention, by the way). I don't use the term, but I don't pretend that when other people use it, it isn't a legitimate signifier. In any case, I think you could be overestimating the "emotional effect" of the terminology. But I do thank you for letting me know.Oh and it means Assault Weapons is an invention of another though to often irresponsibly exercised Right the Freedom of the Press. It sells more Papers. Thank you Mr Hearst.
What language would you use to differentiate a gun that is intended to be used for killiing people as opposed to (for example) killing deer, or starting a race? The hell with research; I'll just ask.
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth
Not intending to change your silly rose colored notions of the world Jenny, but when the black male entered my house in Vegas and attacked me with a knife... I believe the thing that sent his scummy ass packing out my door was my .40 cal P99 pointed at his ugly mug. You can dream of "Lollipop Land" and the "Kumbaya We All Get Along Kountry" all you please but here in the real world that ain't "Mister Rogers Neighborhood" I'll take my chances with bringin the gun to the knife fight!
I think you will find in those countries there are a lot of things that are not a "right."Originally Posted by Jenny
In fact, in most countries, there are not a lot of rights to anyone... except for those with the guns.





OK I know guns kill a lot people. Yet I think we should not get rid of them! Come on now! If people want to get stuff when it is illegal. They will get it! Look at drugs for example. It so legal yet most of the country is on them! I believe we should enforce more education about guns. Maybe some type of guns should be limited to the public. Chicago had a no hand gun policy! Yet people die so often her from an handgun shooting! So banning guns will not do anything, to crimmals when they get them illegaly! It just make it more differcult for innocent people to defend them selves agaisnt crazy crimmals. I believe we should always keep the right to bare arms. Our fore father was not stupid. Humman nature will never change. Violence dose not solve promblems. Neithier dose taking away the right to bare arms. Violence dose not solve promblems, But the majority of this nation do not seem to think so! How do you protect yourself from people like that? If we educated people about guns. How to hide them from children. Like using a gun safe(my dad has one) To keep it lock and away from children.
If you want the present to be differant from the past, study the past.
Baruch Spindza
It is what it is, not what you want it to become, that's important -- at least for now. Today, remember that things worth having are worth waiting for!
The Stars
Minds are like parachutes: They only function when open.
Thomas Dewar
Dont throw away the old bucket until you know whether the new one holds water.
Swedish Proverb
Oh! So that's what it's like in the Real World that I've heard so much about! I had no idea. You see, I live in a Fraggle Palace. On the moon. I know nothing of the real world except what I'm told. Preferably by condescending pricks.Originally Posted by DJ Maimed
So thanks! This has been super-educational!
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth





To really understand the ramifications, take a look at the crime rates in US states that already have strict gun control versus crime rates in states where virtually every homeowner is packing ! The stats show that states whose strict gun control laws virtually assure that potential victims will be unarmed thus unable to effectively defend themselves have significantly higher crime rates than states where the potential victim may actually be better armed than the criminal !
(snip)"4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don't.
True. The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns."(snip)
Bookmarks