(May 2, 2017 at 8:36 pm)Nanny Wrote:

(May 2, 2017 at 12:22 pm)Brian37 Wrote: It's always the drunk driver who does it over and over, then crashes only to realize it only takes one time.

The gun owners who DONT brag about how good they are with guns are the ones I think take ownership seriously and I would trust far more owning one. The ones who talk like Dirty Harry, are far more likely to get stupid while owning one.

Keep thinking you are hot shit buddy, I hope your false sense of security doesn't get you needlessly injured or killed.

You do understand that cops and military are trained in stress use of a firearm and most civilians are not trained in stress use of a firearm. Hate to burst your bubble buddy, you are STILL far more likely to injure yourself or someone you know while handling a firearm than you would be successfully defending yourself from a stranger aiming a firearm at you.

There is alot more to defending yourself successfully with a firearm than your good intent. Cops and military have to constantly train for use of a firearm under stress. It isn't a simple as target shooting. 

How many hours a week do you train for stress use of a firearm? Target shooting is not the same thing.

---

OH FUCK OFF, 

This is just more paranoid bullshit on your part. NEVER in anyone of my posts here have I ever said "get rid of all firearms". Now PUT UP OR SHUT THE FUCK UP! QUOTE ME WHERE I SAID "GET RID OF ALL GUNS"..... You wont find that I have never advocated a ban on all guns. SO FUCKING KNOCK IT OFF.

Saying we don't need to make as many, and saying we need a better vetting process is NOT a call for an all out ban. 

You sound just as fucking paranoid as the car companies in the 1970s when Nadar said cars have a problem.

Nobody is trying to dictate to you moron! If anything 1 profit lobby is holding our entire nation hostage. MOST Americans INCLUDING MOST GUN OWNERS want a universal background check. 

Liberals own guns too. 

You are the one who thinks you know whats best for say, the victims of Newtown or Pulse "sucks to be you".  So anyone objecting to our gun laws doesn't have a right to vote? 

You are not making one fucking pragmatic argument moron. Don't even pretend you are.

I am not going to repeat this again. 

I DON'T WANT ALL FIREARMS BANNED............. But I do have the right to vote, don't like it, TOUGH SHIT.

If we didn't have a gun injury/death problem in America nobody would be bitching. But in a free society voting occurs and gun makers and the NRA don't have the right to dictate to everyone. Now, you can work with us, we'd love that, but no, we've done the "do nothing, sell more" crap, and the last time the right cared about gun injury was when Reagan got shot, since then the right have gone insane and been hijacked by nuts. If the NRA was still the safety non profit org it started out as, I would have no problem with it. But is is nothing more than a heat shield for gun factories. Much like big tobacco created a "smokers rights" lobby in an attempt to avoid being called out for their bad  marketing.

IF YOU WANT A GUN nobody is stopping you IDIOT. All the sane want is better laws so that people DONT have the ability to get guns if they are mentally ill, domestic abusers, or anti government or religious terrorists. Maybe you find things like VA tech or Roof acceptable, "just because", but I don't.

My voting is my right and my voting DOES NOT mean I am dictating to you. GROW THE FUCK UP.

Wow. Must've struck a nerve. 

You are wildly polemic with limited vocabulary. Happy trolling to you.

Yea, so Roof was my imagination? Newtown was my imagination? Pulse was my imagination? Va Tech was my imagination? Columbine was my imagination?

Yea glad a "bullshit" bothers you more than gun violence.

I think you should get your priorities in order.

(May 2, 2017 at 8:14 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Knock it off. So I suppose your PM on ANOTHER website didn't mean shit to you? 

It meant a lot to me. Just to bring this out in the open, I apologized to you for acting like a dick to you. I decided to act like an adult and try to be courteous to everyone. Nothing has changed on my part. If we met face to face I would act as nice as I possibly could to you.

Quote:No I would NOT say it to your face, because you are displaying immaturity. If you said "Mohammed married little girls" to Atlas, would that give him the right to beat the shit out of you?

If you wouldn't say it to my face then why say it here? And for the record, I would not harm you in any way regardless of what you said to me. I would simply turn my back to you and start walking away.

Quote:Taking trash? You mean like talking about my mom whom you didn't know personally because you didn't like her financially supporting me?

Exactly. That was some childish shit I said and I am deeply sorry for it. I decided to change. I apologized and I thought you accepted.

Quote:So all that burying the hatchet on the OTHER website was bullshit?

Nope. I want to have civilized conversations with you. Can you cut out the insults? We can joke around and challenge each other but the name calling should stop.

Quote:When you say "I know what I am doing" I am NOT disputing your intent. I am saying your gun training you have is NOT the same as having the same training as a cop or combat. YOUR EGO is my problem, not your desire to live.

And I don't have a problem with you feeling this way. I don't agree with you but I accept how you feel about it.

Quote:YES I am blunt about it. So? If we were face to face, could I trust you to leave it at a "fuck you Brian" and you walk away? If your desire to get physical with me over rides any realization that you'd be the one arrested not me, because I am NOT interested in a physical confrontation, then you are a FOOL. 

I don't know why you insist on implying that I want to harm you. I don't even insult you anymore. I would never hit you or do anything else to hurt you. Is there a reason why you can't accept that?

Quote:"You wouldn't say that to my face". Yep, so by your logic the Hebdo attackers were justified because someone picked on MO.

---

I have NO interest in having power over you KUSA. I do have an interest in the totality of the society I live in and the government I live under. You not liking my word choice is your baggage. Didn't we BOTH agree that other people in other parts of the world have it worse than you and I do?

Just because other people have a harder life than us doesn't justify you calling me names.

Quote:I am not about to coddle your insecurities. I am NOT out to get you despite what you might think.

I am anything but insecure. This is not about you getting me. This is about you acting like a civilized person.

Quote:I am NOT for an all out ban on all firearms. I am for PRAGMATISM without egos. I don't see that pragmatism in the way you respond. All I see is "me me me" "I have the right to" and you keep failing to see your attitude, NOT YOUR RIGHTS is what I am talking about.

I don't believe you quite frankly. And your version on pragmatism is different than mine.

Quote:Stop playing false martyr.

I guess this is you being hyperbolic because I wouldn't lay down my life to win an argument with you.

(May 2, 2017 at 8:46 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(May 2, 2017 at 8:36 pm)Nanny Wrote: Wow. Must've struck a nerve. 

You are wildly polemic with limited vocabulary. Happy trolling to you.

Yea, so Roof was my imagination? Newtown was my imagination? Pulse was my imagination? Va Tech was my imagination? Columbine was my imagination?

Yea glad a "bullshit" bothers you more than gun violence.

I think you should get your priorities in order.

What are you talking about? 

Pandora's box is open. There's no putting stuff back in. I made my decision in part based on the insanity you describe! You've got it all backwards. 

How do you get from my initial post to here? Interesting.

(May 2, 2017 at 8:49 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(May 2, 2017 at 8:14 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Knock it off. So I suppose your PM on ANOTHER website didn't mean shit to you? 

It meant a lot to me. Just to bring this out in the open, I apologized to you for acting like a dick to you. I decided to act like an adult and try to be courteous to everyone. Nothing has changed on my part. If we met face to face I would act as nice as I possibly could to you.

Quote:No I would NOT say it to your face, because you are displaying immaturity. If you said "Mohammed married little girls" to Atlas, would that give him the right to beat the shit out of you?

If you wouldn't say it to my face then why say it here? And for the record, I would not harm you in any way regardless of what you said to me. I would simply turn my back to you and start walking away.

Quote:Taking trash? You mean like talking about my mom whom you didn't know personally because you didn't like her financially supporting me?

Exactly. That was some childish shit I said and I am deeply sorry for it. I decided to change. I apologized and I thought you accepted.

Quote:So all that burying the hatchet on the OTHER website was bullshit?

Nope. I want to have civilized conversations with you. Can you cut out the insults? We can joke around and challenge each other but the name calling should stop.

Quote:When you say "I know what I am doing" I am NOT disputing your intent. I am saying your gun training you have is NOT the same as having the same training as a cop or combat. YOUR EGO is my problem, not your desire to live.

And I don't have a problem with you feeling this way. I don't agree with you but I accept how you feel about it.

Quote:YES I am blunt about it. So? If we were face to face, could I trust you to leave it at a "fuck you Brian" and you walk away? If your desire to get physical with me over rides any realization that you'd be the one arrested not me, because I am NOT interested in a physical confrontation, then you are a FOOL. 

I don't know why you insist on implying that I want to harm you. I don't even insult you anymore. I would never hit you or do anything else to hurt you. Is there a reason why you can't accept that?

Quote:"You wouldn't say that to my face". Yep, so by your logic the Hebdo attackers were justified because someone picked on MO.

---

I have NO interest in having power over you KUSA. I do have an interest in the totality of the society I live in and the government I live under. You not liking my word choice is your baggage. Didn't we BOTH agree that other people in other parts of the world have it worse than you and I do?

Just because other people have a harder life than us doesn't justify you calling me names.

Quote:I am not about to coddle your insecurities. I am NOT out to get you despite what you might think.

I am any but insecure. This is not about you getting me. This is about you acting like a civilized person.

Quote:I am NOT for an all out ban on all firearms. I am for PRAGMATISM without egos. I don't see that pragmatism in the way you respond. All I see is "me me me" "I have the right to" and you keep failing to see your attitude, NOT YOUR RIGHTS is what I am talking about.

I don't believe you quite frankly. And your version on pragmatism is different than mine.

Quote:Stop playing false martyr.

I guess this is you being hyperbolic because I wouldn't lay down my life to win an argument with you.

This is what you are not getting.

DON'T MISTAKE bluntness with you being a victim.

I don't think it meant a lot to you. I do think you are hiding from your own cognitive dissonance.

I am NOT out to get you. When you defend guns with "I know what I am doing" I hear the same blind loyalty as I do from religion. YOUR INTENT is not the issue. YOUR RIGHTS are not the issue. I DON'T HATE YOU, but when you talk like it is doomsday when someone objects to your line of reasoning YES it pisses me off.

You just argued a scenario of "what if" a knife were introduced, IN THIS THREAD. I didn't argue that YOU DID, you got pissed when I responded to why even in that case that is bad logic.

You react to my objections the same way a theists flips out when you point out that they are not the only religion on the face of the planet. 

You need to consider the problem is not me in the same way a theists needs to consider the problem isn't atheists, but bad use of logic.

I could give one fuck less about your good intent. I am sure you would NOT want to hurt yourself or accidentally shoot someone you didn't intend to. I am saying you respond as if nothing will ever go wrong and with guns, that is simply dangerous.

(May 2, 2017 at 8:51 pm)Nanny Wrote:

(May 2, 2017 at 8:46 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Yea, so Roof was my imagination? Newtown was my imagination? Pulse was my imagination? Va Tech was my imagination? Columbine was my imagination?

Yea glad a "bullshit" bothers you more than gun violence.

I think you should get your priorities in order.

What are you talking about? 

Pandora's box is open. There's no putting stuff back in. I made my decision in part based on the insanity you describe! You've got it all backwards. 

How do you get from my initial post to here? Interesting.

As for why I carry concealed? Because I can't take my 870 with me everywhere I go. 

(April 28, 2017 at 8:25 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Ardent gunners use "Good Guy With A Gun (GGWAG)" to rationalize carrying firearms where it's wildly inappropriate. Nobody needs a gun in Starbucks.

I don't know if some in this thread would agree, but I do agree with you. Hunting and even home defense I am fine with, within reason. You don't need big clips or spray weapons to do either. And I would say, unless your job requires you to carry a firearm in public, probably not a good idea to do so.

And again, in this entire thread, I still have yet to see any of my detractors quote me as saying I want to get rid of all firearms. They will never see me say that. 

It is the delusional entitlement mentality I object to. Not gun ownership itself.

Right now I am entitled to having the guns I own.

(May 2, 2017 at 9:31 pm)KUSA Wrote: Right now I am entitled to having the guns I own.

And?

Regulations are not bans. You do understand that even the founders WROTE LAWS REGULATING the size of muskets and musket balls? So by your logic, cell phones should be regulated by the same laws as rotary phones?

And just because you own one legally doesn't mean every time you pick one up for ANY reason, you will have a Hollywood outcome where the hero saves the day.

With rights come responsibility. Again, the way you talk and argue, you don't demonstrate to me that you see guns as anything more than a hobby. You argue the same lack of pragmatism as "So what if I staple my nuts to the wall"

My best friend from Oklahoma grew up with guns. He supports gun ownership, but unlike you, he accepts that the far right on this issue is nuts. Again, your intent is not the issue. He supports gun ownership, just not a free for all. He supports gun ownership AND a universal background check. He supports gun ownership, but also accepts you don't need big clips or spray rifles. Please top pretending that liberals don't own guns. 

My own dad had guns. I was 6 or 7 years old. He had no criminal record and bought his 38 legally. Despite that legal purchase, he got drunk off his ass, and fired the gun in the house with ME in the room. If it were not for my mom picking me up and rushing me out of the house, who knows.

Do you think drunk people should be handling firearms? No? I agree, so how many legal drunks with no criminal record buy firearms then end up getting stupid like my dad?

Now, when you say you express condolences for my mom, then DONT insult her with your narcissism on guns. I have a music box and low boy with BULLET HOLES in them and it was my mom who rushed me out of the house and most likely saved both of us from disaster. 

"Just because" is not an argument. Regulations are how you prevent "just because" from ending up in disaster. Regulations are why big oil finally was forced to remove lead from gas, and why cars now have mandated seat belts and air bags. Guns as a product DON'T  deserve blind value anymore than any other product sold.

Drunks drive cars too. Let's ban the fast cars so drunks don't drive them.

(May 2, 2017 at 10:09 pm)KUSA Wrote: Drunks drive cars too. Let's ban the fast cars so drunks don't drive them.

Yea and? When they do, they get there licence revoked. 

Nobody is calling for a ban on cars for saying drunk driving should be illegal. 

More fucking bullshit logic on your part. 

Smoking is also legal, and so is porn, but surely we should sell that to kids "just because"? 

All you are arguing is "legal at time of buy means you are qualified". 

Again, by that logic, my dad legally had the right to put my life in danger because he had no record when he bought the firearm. 

Legal at time of buy only means you have no record. By your logic my dad was qualified "just because".