Coach Tuesday Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Like I said, you just let me know when you can guarantee me that all guns will be removed from society, that none will be introduced by black markets in the future, that violent crime will cease to exist, and that those in positions of authority will never abuse that authority then I will gladly support a gun ban and peacefully surrender my firearms. Yes, because that ought to be the standard for passing a law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) Yes, because that ought to be the standard for passing a law. So you're telling me that you can't provide me an environment safe from violent criminals who don't respect gun laws, but you would like to remove my ability to defend myself from them with equal force? No thank you. I'll just go ahead and keep my guns regardless of what laws get passed. You can have the job of coming to try and take them from me. Edited December 17, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Brilliant. Why stop there? Let's arm the kindergartners, too. You know, I tend to lean and vote conservative, but I'm constantly amazed by the insane - I mean literally, credifiably insane - drivel that comes out of the mouth of certain politicians on the right. Evolution didn't happen. Global warming isn't happening. We need more guns, not less. Gay marriage is bad for families. The list goes on. This stuff isn't politics - it's lunacy. You've thrown alot out there that sounds like liberal talking points. Who's saying we need more guns not less? Isn't the debate on global warming really on "man-made" global warming and how a political "consensus" is driving it? Should I think all libs are as stupid as Hank Johnson and his worries about Guam tipping over or Nancy's proclamations that natural gas isn't a fossil fuel? Should I believe Obama isn't qualified to be president because he claimed Hawaii was part of Asia and not the 57 states? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 Like I said, you just let me know when you can guarantee me that all guns will be removed from society, that none will be introduced by black markets in the future, that violent crime will cease to exist, and that those in positions of authority will never abuse that authority then I will gladly support a gun ban and peacefully surrender my firearms. How about... You can keep all of your guns of whatever type you like and I'll fully support you in your paranoia. Just let me know when you can guarantee me that no guns will be stolen from law-abiding citizens, that no legally-purchased guns will be used to kill innocent children or adults in the future, that violent crime involving legally-purchased guns will cease to exist, and that those paranoid folks in underground bunkers will never abuse their legally-purchased weapons then I will gladly support your right to purchase whatever guns you choose and peacefully surrender all of my objections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 How about... You can keep all of your guns of whatever type you like and I'll fully support you in your paranoia. Just let me know when you can guarantee me that no guns will be stolen from law-abiding citizens, that no legally-purchased guns will be used to kill innocent children or adults in the future, that violent crime involving legally-purchased guns will cease to exist, and that those paranoid folks in underground bunkers will never abuse their legally-purchased weapons then I will gladly support your right to purchase whatever guns you choose and peacefully surrender all of my objections. The SAT's must have been a nightmare for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 You've thrown alot out there that sounds like liberal talking points. Who's saying we need more guns not less? Isn't the debate on global warming really on "man-made" global warming and how a political "consensus" is driving it? Should I think all libs are as stupid as Hank Johnson and his worries about Guam tipping over or Nancy's proclamations that natural gas isn't a fossil fuel? Should I believe Obama isn't qualified to be president because he claimed Hawaii was part of Asia and not the 57 states? I am for everyone throwing out their talking points and trying to find a solution. Is more gun control needed? Dang if I know! I am all for discussing it though, without the NRA's lobbyist money buying the decision. I think that the drug lobby is more at fault here, though, but that is just my personal opinion http://www.cchrint.org/2012/07/20/the-aurora-colorado-tragedy-another-senseless-shooting-another-psychotropic-drug/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 The SAT's must have been a nightmare for you. Cute. How different is what I wrote from the original quote? You get 100 pts for getting your name right when answering that. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) How about... You can keep all of your guns of whatever type you like and I'll fully support you in your paranoia. Just let me know when you can guarantee me that no guns will be stolen from law-abiding citizens, that no legally-purchased guns will be used to kill innocent children or adults in the future, that violent crime involving legally-purchased guns will cease to exist, and that those paranoid folks in underground bunkers will never abuse their legally-purchased weapons then I will gladly support your right to purchase whatever guns you choose and peacefully surrender all of my objections. Here's the rub: You aren't "allowing" me to do anything. The term "allowing" means that you hold sway or dominion over me, and retain some ownership of me. Gun owners have the right to their weapons, not a privlidge. Those words have different meanings. Furthermore, the only way to remove them from my possession is to commit a violent act and property crime against me. Why don't you go ahead and come on my property with the intention to commit that violent act and property crime, and see how that works out for you? Edit: I also believe it's appropriate to point out that you've called me a paranoid because I want to protect myself and my family from violent crime in a thread about a terrible violent crime. Obviously violent crimes happen, else you wouldn't be taking the position you have, which, while wrong headed, is inspired by violent crime. How does my position make me paranoid, where as yours does not? Edited December 17, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Here's the rub: You aren't "allowing" me to do anything. The term "allowing" means that you hold sway or dominion over me, and retain some ownership of me. Gun owners have the right to their weapons, not a privlidge. Those words have different meanings. Furthermore, the only way to remove them from my possession is to commit a violent act and property crime against me. Why don't you go ahead and come on my property with the intention to commit that violent act and property crime, and see how that works out for you? Edit: I also believe it's appropriate to point out that you've called me a paranoid because I want to protect myself and my family from violent crime in a thread about a terrible violent crime. Obviously violent crimes happen, else you wouldn't be taking the position you have, which, while wrong headed, is inspired by violent crime. How does my position make me paranoid, where as yours does not? TYTT- I actually support your right to bear arms. The way you go about talking about it is wrong though and very unpersuasive. "Come and get it" doesn't solve anything. You aren't paranoid about wanting to protect your family- that's commendable. You come off as paranoid about not wanting to give up guns. I think psychiatric drugs are a bigger problem than guns. Apparently there is a tie in with what happened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
49er Fan Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 No one has a problem with the guns in your home, Tasker. But almost everyone will have a problem if your guns leave your home with someone you did not intend, for a malevolent purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 Here's the rub: You aren't "allowing" me to do anything. The term "allowing" means that you hold sway or dominion over me, and retain some ownership of me. Gun owners have the right to their weapons, not a privlidge. Those words have different meanings. Furthermore, the only way to remove them from my possession is to commit a violent act and property crime against me. Why don't you go ahead and come on my property with the intention to commit that violent act and property crime, and see how that works out for you? Edit: I also believe it's appropriate to point out that you've called me a paranoid because I want to protect myself and my family from violent crime in a thread about a terrible violent crime. Obviously violent crimes happen, else you wouldn't be taking the position you have, which, while wrong headed, is inspired by violent crime. How does my position make me paranoid, where as yours does not? Hahahaha!!! Nothing like a good internet tough guy post to brighten my day. Thanks for that! You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands! When will the Russians be parachuting in do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 You guys do realize this nut case...Killed his own mother and STOLE her guns. He did not acquire them legally. Just a small little fact fact lost in the madness. That's just a minor detail that doesn't fit in with the lib agenda and thus doesn't exist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 No one has a problem with the guns in your home, Tasker. But almost everyone will have a problem if your guns leave your home with someone you did not intend, for a malevolent purpose. I will add this- gun owners should take precautions, such as using gun safes. However, it is no more their fault if somebody steals their gun, than if somebody steals their car or TV set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Hahahaha!!! Nothing like a good internet tough guy post to brighten my day. Thanks for that! You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands! When will the Russians be parachuting in do you think? When are you going to drop the Michael Moore bit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) Hahahaha!!! Nothing like a good internet tough guy post to brighten my day. Thanks for that! You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands! When will the Russians be parachuting in do you think? You make fun of "internet tough guys" to someonee who was trying to make a rational point but then spend the rest of your post acting like one yourself. Nice. Edited December 17, 2012 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Hahahaha!!! Nothing like a good internet tough guy post to brighten my day. Thanks for that! One more, I love the irony of you complaining about "internet tough guys" in a thread you created, titled "Whatcha gonna do with your little pop guns?" Funny stuff. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 One more, I love the irony of you complaining about "internet tough guys" in a thread you created, titled "Whatcha gonna do with your little pop guns?" Funny stuff. . I didn't realize the hyperbole in the thread title would make my point fly over your head. My bad. You make fun of "internet tough guys" to someonee who was trying to make a rational point but then spend the rest of your post acting like one yourself. Nice. Was his rational point "you're not the boss of me" or "come and try to get my guns and see what happens"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Was his rational point "you're not the boss of me" or "come and try to get my guns and see what happens"? Actually, the point was that you have neither convinced me that you can guarantee my family and I a safe environment in which I would feel comfortable surrendering my firearms, nor do you have the authority to remove them from my possession against my will. A secondary point was that your apparent belief that you should be able to wield the tyranny of the majority against me, imposing your will on my individual, and otherwise peaceful desires, infringing on my most basic rights, and punishing me for a crime committed by another only serves to reinforce my main point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 Actually, the point was that you have neither convinced me that you can guarantee my family and I a safe environment in which I would feel comfortable surrendering my firearms, nor do you have the authority to remove them from my possession against my will. A secondary point was that your apparent belief that you should be able to wield the tyranny of the majority against me, imposing your will on my individual, and otherwise peaceful desires, infringing on my most basic rights, and punishing me for a crime committed by another only serves to reinforce my main point. You're certainly sporting the right avatar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Yep. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, in an interview on "Fox News Sunday," defended the sale of assault weapons and said that the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School, who authorities say died trying to overtake the shooter, should herself have been armed. "I wish to God she had had an M-4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out and she didn't have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands. But she takes him (the shooter) out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids," Gohmert said. Yeah, great idea. So under this clown's leadership, every school in the country - which are already completely strapped for state education funds - would have to provide weaponry and shooting training to school principals? Could you imagine the job interviews? "Tell me your background." "Well I love kids. I have three of my own, and I was vice-principal for 7 years at -" "That's fine. Can you handle a Colt M4 carbine? That's what we have at our school." So true. So true. I agree. Kinda like where I work... The place was built in 1960... Is a DoD installation. The original security manual for the field site listed two revolvers and a riot gun on site. What ever happened to those weapons is a mystery... The old timers say that they "disappeared" many years ago. What I am saying... Is, more guns, more probability that there will be an accounting error... God knows where the stuff ends up... Even if it is a few weapons... Pandora... Meet open box and the shoot 'em arms race of the wild wild west! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts