Let's have that conversation on Guns, okay?

[darin]

Spot on. Liberals...read this. Change your point of view because your point of view is not just dangerous, it's wrong.


http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2012/12/17/lets-have-that-conversation-about-guns-n1468596/page/full/

First, let’s talk about some common ground. It was not news to anyone that the creep in Newtown had mental problems. I am not discounting his evil, but the fact is he clearly had mental issues. Can we agree that we need to look carefully at whether society can do a better job dealing with people like this before they crack up? Doesn’t it make sense to deal with people who might be a threat instead of depriving millions of innocent, law-abiding Americans of their rights?
Let’s return to the fact that we have nowhere near enough guns on the streets. In many states, concealed carry laws have been changed to allow citizens the ability to defend themselves nearly everywhere. The bloodbath liberals expected never materialized. Instead, crime fell. It turns out that ordinary American citizens don’t turn into to sociopaths in the presence of a Glock 19.
Let’s talk about how all American citizens should share this right, because many don’t. In California, I need my local sheriff to sign off that I’m competent. I served 25 years in the military with two tours in hostile fire zones. I carried weapons in uniform deployed to fires, earthquakes and riots. I oversaw the weapons training of thousands of soldiers. The government even spent tens of thousands investigating me, and then gave me a security clearance.
California considers me unfit to carry a gun outside my home. This is ridiculous.
Since we are conversing about guns, let me share some gun insights since liberals often don’t know anything about them (Memo to the Media: Please learn what an “automatic” weapon is and isn’t. Please.) First, I don’t like carrying guns. I’ve spent several years of my life carrying guns and I don’t enjoy it. They are heavy and dirty and you are always aware you have it and you must behave accordingly. Guns are a pain. I would only carry one because the pain of watching people butchered while I looked on helplessly is immeasurably worse.
Let’s also talk about this assumption that a citizen with a handgun out in public is no match for a creep in a vest with a long weapon. True, I’d rather have a long weapon myself, but I’m pretty sure that as I try to make a head shot his full attention (and his gun fire) are all going to be focused on me instead of on some kid. I doubt anyone with a concealed carry permit wants to get shot, but while it may not be in tune with the tenor of these selfish times, I’d prefer that if someone had to get shot it be me facing the enemy instead of a civilian shot in the back.
Let’s talk about “gun free zones” too. Liberals love talking about “science” and “logic,” yet their magical thinking when it comes to guns is staggering. Let’s call “gun free zones” what they are – killing zones.

[aboutime]

dmp. Honestly talking about guns here, would be as successful, or beneficial to Liberals who hate guns, as trying to talk with Jesse Jackson about how he has managed to Distort....for Money, the Racial, Discrimination, and Bigotry problems that he NEEDS to perpetuate the Divide of Americans.

In other words. Your attempts are to be welcomed, and applauded. But we all know. They fall on Deaf Ears.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

A great posting in my opinion. Americans should have a truthful and serious debate about guns without all the government/leftist/liberal lies and propaganda tossed in the mix to muddy the waters so to speak. . One must be knowledgeable about guns, their history and their valid uses to be able to make correct decisions about such. A gun is a tool, it does not get up and walk around by itself slaying people. Teach a thing called "personal responsibility" and the gun problem as presented by the anti-gun people goes away.--Tyr

[pete311]

dmp, that is fine. Now what is your solution for dealing with people before they crack. What is your plan? We either take away weapons or deal with the people. Deal with people is fine. What is the plan?

[darin]

dmp, that is fine. Now what is your solution for dealing with people before they crack. What is your plan? We either take away weapons or deal with the people. Deal with people is fine. What is the plan?


So - you agree with the piece? AWESOME! Very liberated of you to not be closed-minded.

Already against the law in most places for those who 'crack' to have legal access to firearms. Sometimes those who crack steal weapons though.

[Robert A Whit]

Suppose that using a gun to commit a crime, upon found guilty, being swiftly executed?

Execution should commence by 30 days.

I mean all crimes, Not necessary to kill or shoot anybody.

Can the left live with that?

[tailfins]

These guys are GREAT and EFFECTIVE at preventing crime. Should we invite them here and pass the same laws they operate under?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Emblema_CDR.svg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Suppose that using a gun to commit a crime, upon found guilty, being swiftly executed?

Execution should commence by 30 days.

I mean all crimes, Not necessary to kill or shoot anybody.

Can the left live with that?

No way would the leftists/liberals/dems go for such swift and decisive action. They preach that coddling the criminals is the correct path to take.
Of course if that were reality they would twist it to include people that used a gun for defense of life, hearth and home. So it could never be a solution IMHO.-Tyr

[fj1200]

no way would the constitution...

ftfy

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

ftfy , that hurts my refined sensibilities. truth is not a good thing.

^^^^ Why do you say that??-;)--Tyr

[fj1200]

^^^^ Why do you say that??-;)--Tyr

I try not to ignore the Constitution even when it doesn't say what I want it to say. Call me silly. :rolleyes:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I try not to ignore the Constitution even when it doesn't say what I want it to say. Call me silly. :rolleyes:

As do I... Call me crazy but I believe I said it wasn't a solution. Should I have listed the many reasons why to satisfy your curiosity? I gave the informed readers here the benefit of the doubt about already having the basic understanding of the Constitution and the Rule of Law. -Tyr

[fj1200]

As do I... Call me crazy but I believe I said it wasn't a solution. Should I have listed the many reasons why to satisfy your curiosity? I gave the informed readers here the benefit of the doubt about already having the basic understanding of the Constitution and the Rule of Law. -Tyr

You're "not a solution" involved laying everything at the feet of the "leftists/liberals/dems..."


No way would the leftists/liberals/dems go for such...

... when a simple, "wow, that's unconstitutional man," would have sufficed and been more correct. Acknowledging that our justice system is imperfect and would result in an untenable number of people being put to death for a crime for which they were innocent would have been nice as well but I know that it would not have been forthcoming.

[fj1200]

... basic understanding of the Constitution and the Rule of Law. -Tyr

Did you figure out that you called the Founding Fathers a bunch of leftists/liberals/dems yet? :poke:

[DragonStryk72]

So - you agree with the piece? AWESOME! Very liberated of you to not be closed-minded.

Already against the law in most places for those who 'crack' to have legal access to firearms. Sometimes those who crack steal weapons though.

Actually, it was against the law in CT, as it so happens, which is why the shooter was turned down for a firearm.


Suppose that using a gun to commit a crime, upon found guilty, being swiftly executed?

Execution should commence by 30 days.

I mean all crimes, Not necessary to kill or shoot anybody.

Can the left live with that?

When was the last time you got nailed for speeding, Rob? Cause that's your death date. When was the last you didn't yield properly? Death. When was the last time that you forgot to hit your signal? Death.

I'd be amazed if anyone makes it past having a learner's permit.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

As do I... Call me crazy but I believe I said it wasn't a solution. Should I have listed the many reasons why to satisfy your curiosity? I gave the informed readers here the benefit of the doubt about already having the basic understanding of the Constitution and the Rule of Law. -Tyr

^^ Quite obvious that this bolded comment above either went way over your head or else you conveniently chose to ignore it. Why should I explain' the Constitutional basics when I wanted to make a point about leftist/lib/dem coddling of criminals? You splash a damn lot of paint to cover a single plank in a very long wooden fence Hoss. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Why should I explain' the Constitutional basics when I wanted to make a point about leftist/lib/dem coddling of criminals?

First, you could demonstrate your own knowledge of the Constitution, and second, coddling is not the issue when Constitutional protections are.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

First, you could demonstrate your own knowledge of the Constitution, and second, coddling is not the issue when Constitutional protections are.

First , you demonstrate/explain why and how any member here must prove expertise in any subject that they care to discuss.
Your insulting demand proves nothing and I have more than adequate knowledge of the Constitution while not being a Constitutional scholar . If I need help on the subject I'm perfectly capable of researching it and google makes it quit easy to do so. Coddling is the damn issue when I discuss it Hoss, simply because you chose to address it by replying. If its irrelevant and silly don't declare it to be none existent or wrong unless you want to discuss it. I offered my opinion ,then you tell me what part I may discuss about it! I don't think so! It is well known that the dems seek to coddle criminals while the Republicans seek greater punishment for them. If you do not want to discuss it then don't but you'll not get by with telling me that I can not or that I should not. I DO NOT let anybody tell me what my opinion is or how I may discuss a topic.
I have no need to jump to your tune or attempt to get your respect on my knowledge of the topics discussed here. In short , my opinions /posts here are not in anyway dependent upon your approval or respect of me. I post not to buy admiration but rather to get others to consider and to see the truth that I see. Its their right and ability to reject it or not. -Tyr

[fj1200]

First , you demonstrate/explain why and how any member here must prove expertise in any subject that they care to discuss.

Who said "expertise"? A rudimentary understanding would be nice. Demonstrating knowledge builds credibility but I understand your crusade against BO and "leftist dems" has a higher order to you. As far as googling I think we're still waiting for your investigation regarding BO's EOs. ;)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Who said "expertise"? A rudimentary understanding would be nice. Demonstrating knowledge builds credibility but I understand your crusade against BO and "leftist dems" has a higher order to you. As far as googling I think we're still waiting for your investigation regarding BO's EOs. ;)

Sure thing, I'll get right on that after you prove to me that you have even rudimentary reading comprehension skills.
For I now see clearly you either do not or else choose to ignore contents in my posts that explained my reasons for not listing basic Constitutional considerations in my reply.
Stop the condescending bullshit dude. It serves no purpose other than enlarging your own HIGHLY INFLATED EGO IMHO.
Your insult that I know not even the rudimentary basics concerning the Constitution deserves no civil reply yet I gave you one. Now piss off , I dont take being repeatedly insulted by you to be civil discourse.
Prove your own superior intellect and integrity and maybe then we can talk about why I should respect /consider your suggestions/demands or insulting blather. -Tyr

[fj1200]

^My responses prove my comprehension abilities as I have you backtracking all over the place in defending how you did really know about all that Constitution stuff. :cool:

And FWIW I didn't insult your rudimentary abilities as the part of your post that I quoted was a request in the general ("how any member here") and not the specific. :)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

^My responses prove my comprehension abilities as I have you backtracking all over the place in defending how you did really know about all that Constitution stuff. :cool:

And FWIW I didn't insult your rudimentary abilities as the part of your post that I quoted was a request in the general ("how any member here") and not the specific. :)

You confuse my civility in answering your rude reply with backtracking and you declare that your reading comprehension skills adequate, bullshat.
Pretending that you are a clueless a dumbass may entertain you but it does nothing for me.
Or is it really pretending on your part? -:laugh:--Tyr

[fj1200]

... you declare that your reading comprehension skills adequate...

No, I declare them exemplary. :cool:

EDIT:

That was civility? :dunno:




















:poke:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No, I declare them exemplary. :cool:

EDIT:

That was civility? :dunno:

No doubt that you do. Too bad you do not care to show it when posting here.-:laugh2:--Tyr



Yes it started civil but lost my patience when you repeatedly declared me to be as ignorant as you seem to be .. - :laugh:-Tyr

[taft2012]

4179

[fj1200]

Yes it started civil but...

Good stuff but I'm the most civil poster here. :thumb:

[SassyLady]

Good stuff but I'm the most civil poster here. :thumb:

Seriously? I never, ever, ever win anything around here!!!

:smackface:

[fj1200]

Seriously? I never, ever, ever win anything around here!!!

:smackface:

Oh, we've got a whole set of awards around here just for you. :disco: