What's new
By:

Welcome to 'Murica

Short of revoking the 2nd Amendment, will never happen short of civil war, it will never change. Gun ownership as is is here to stay. Good or bad, right or wrong that fight is over. But people want to pretend it isnt and still focus on that instead of areas that they possibly could improve.
 
BabyPeterzz said:
How many more of these things have to happen before the country decides it's time to try something different?
Click to expand...

i wonder how many dictatorships need to happen before the world sees guns are essential to ones own protection.

look at syria, those people have no way to defend themselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

let ISIS and Assad try something like that with a armed [populace with the mentality of texas.
when **** hits the fan i'd rather stay and fight then become a refugee
 
I own guns and lots of ammo.
I have a very healthy respect of them.
They are locked up with no possibility of my kids getting to them.
If someone enters my home intending harm to my family I will use them.

I see no reason to tell someone they cannot defend themselves.
It's very unfortunate that bad people do bad things and it's not realistic to assume we can adequately evaluate a person prior to allowing them to purchase a gun.

I don't think it happens in my lifetime, but if America were to ban guns, it wouldn't change what I own and how I would intend to use them.
 
ONE LOVE said:
How so? Admittedly I've never been to a mormon convention.
Click to expand...

Although OL has already quoted me and at the time I thought my post was funny, I edited it in light of the shootings today.
My apologies for being truly insensitive to the victims and their families.
 
Last edited:
JimLes said:
It took a civil war to end slavery. You gotta break some eggs to make an omelette.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that extremely terrible view. Not only that but it pretty much ends any moral argument you may have had.
 
Stoked said:
Good luck with that extremely terrible view. Not only that but it pretty much ends any moral argument you may have had.
Click to expand...

what's the root of your moral argument?

It seems to me that the answer to that question lies in your pessimistic psychology: the war is over and people can't/won't change.




Something has to be done. It'll have to happen in small steps, but it is possible for regulators to get their hands on the taps of the gun flow. Slowly, they need to ratchet it down.
 
NAOS said:
what's the root of your moral argument?

It seems to me that the answer to that question lies in your pessimistic psychology: the war is over and people can't/won't change.




Something has to be done. It'll have to happen in small steps, but it is possible for regulators to get their hands on the taps of the gun flow. Slowly, they need to ratchet it down.
Click to expand...

Most gun advocates, including Jimles, are upset about the loss of life. They should be as it is a terrible thing. They want to prevent it, a worthy goal. But his post was in support of a method that would result in a massive loss of life to accomplish. So he loses, in my eyes, his moral high ground. IF that is his position.

But I agree that there are some steps that can and should be taken. They have been discussed at length in other threads and I see no need to go over them again. But push to far towards the restriction of guns and the courts will slap you down.
 
On a side note I am just waiting for the right wing media to start screaming about the growing attacks on Christianity as a result of this Oregon shooting.
 
I think that future generations (and our current younger generations) are/will be falling out of love with guns, little by little.

That makes me happy.
 
NAOS said:
what's the root of your moral argument?

It seems to me that the answer to that question lies in your pessimistic psychology: the war is over and people can't/won't change.




Something has to be done. It'll have to happen in small steps, but it is possible for regulators to get their hands on the taps of the gun flow. Slowly, they need to ratchet it down.
Click to expand...

Stoked said:
Most gun advocates, including Jimles, are upset about the loss of life. They should be as it is a terrible thing. They want to prevent it, a worthy goal. But his post was in support of a method that would result in a massive loss of life to accomplish. So he loses, in my eyes, his moral high ground. IF that is his position.

But I agree that there are some steps that can and should be taken. They have been discussed at length in other threads and I see no need to go over them again. But push to far towards the restriction of guns and the courts will slap you down.
Click to expand...

I asked for the root of YOUR MORAL ARGUMENT on this matter. (And then I pointed to the pessimistic psychology as a likely route to the answer.)
 
NAOS said:
I asked for the root of YOUR MORAL ARGUMENT on this matter. (And then I pointed to the pessimistic psychology as a likely route to the answer.)
Click to expand...

I haven't got into any moral argument on my side.

I have said that the courts have ruled guns are staying. That fight it over.

But I even went on to agree that there are some things that still can be done. Just not the banning or guns (short of a civil war type event) So doesn't that undermine your "pessimistic psychology" argument?

I have no real desire to discuss this again.
 
fishonjazz said:
I think that future generations (and our current younger generations) are/will be falling out of love with guns, little by little.

That makes me happy.
Click to expand...

Honestly I see a slightly different thing. I see mainly two different camps. They are growing farther and farther apart as time goes on. One of the issues in that growing divide is guns. They are still wildly popular in many places.

On a wider scale, at what point does the ideological divide become to great to over come? then what?
 
Let's be more elaborate here and not rely on personal attacks. Here you are some interesting articles related with the story:


https://nypost.com/2015/10/01/oregon-gunman-singled-out-christians-during-rampage/

In this article:
President Obama issued a plea for greater gun control and bemoaned that America is “the only advanced country on Earth [that] sees these kind of mass shooting every few months.”


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...mpqua-college-in-oregon-10-dead-gunfree-zone/

ucc-gun-free-575x462.png



In the meantime Obama advocating for more gun control:

https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/7...ama-vows-another-try-gun-regulation?mref=home


Draw your own conclusions. My thought is that a responsible ownership of guns is synonym of liberty. IMO the appearance of wackos lately is what has encouraged other wackos to go about their evil ways and go out in shooting sprees. All in all responsible ownership gives the people of this country more liberty and power over the government and more control over their personal security. I've had someone break into my house once and I can assure you that it's not a pretty feeling. We didn't own any weapons at the time but fortunately my dad and I (I was living with my folks at the time), along with my dog were able to intimidate the burglar and have him run away.
 
Dude posted about it on 4chan and people were basically egging him on to do it/applauding him. Sad society we live in.
 
Howard said:
Dude posted about it on 4chan and people were basically egging him on to do it/applauding him. Sad society we live in.
Click to expand...
What is 4chan?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top