A very good man is dead.

[Txgoodoldboy]

That is not only mischaracterization, it's idiocy. I suppose all those people who rob liquor stores with guns are Republicans? I suppose car jackers are Republicans? And of course all the men and women in the armed services must also be Republicans. And of course, no Democrat owns a gun. I suppose if I want a gun to defend myself I have to be a Republican. Oh, and once I become one I can't be gay anymore because I'll be vilified on CE&P for doing so.

Way to selfishly milk a terrible tragedy!

That's one of the more moronic replies I've seen lately in this forum.
He didn't even comment on the "kill liberals" foolishness by Limbaugh!

BTW, Jav, you don't have to be a Republican; be what the Founding Fathers actually were: a libertarian.

Let's see, it is the Republican talking heads that are calling for the killing of liberals. They are encouraging right wing nut jobs to kill liberals. And by no one in the Republican party calling them on it, they are supporting it. Support=encouraging.

 

[Kulindahr]

Wow, my mother who supports gun control, because of a couple of nasty experiences with a gun toting father as a child, is now "pro-rape". No wonder I gave up any support for the "right to bear arms" shortly after I started reading your posts here, Kulindahr! Perhaps by your logic, if she was raped tomorrow, she would really be just asking for it, as she wouldn't be carrying a gun.

You should take that one up with the gals who got raped because they couldn't defend themselves, but know the gal who got attacked but not raped because she could defend herself.

It's a person's choice to carry, or not carry. Either way, you're responsible for the results. But you would only be "asking for it" if you went about wearing a sign saying "I'm defenseless" in an area where a rapist was known to be operating.

 

[Kulindahr]

^Thanks smelter, I simply didn't want to acknowledge his humanity. You're right, we really don't know what his motives were.

I wouldn't acknowledge any humanity. By violating the basic contract between people, to treat others with the respect you'd like, he resigned from the human race.

 

[Kulindahr]

Let's see, it is the Republican talking heads that are calling for the killing of liberals. They are encouraging right wing nut jobs to kill liberals. And by no one in the Republican party calling them on it, they are supporting it. Support=encouraging.

That's smear tactics worthy of Karl Rove.
You accuse someone who's merely refuting a point about gun-toting criminals all being Republicans of wanting to kill liberals, when that wasn't even mentioned. You might as well believe that gays who want equal rights with married heteros of being determined to destroy the country's children.

BTW, how many "Republican talking heads" can you cite as calling for liberals to be killed?

 

[Glafna]

There was a link to a numbered list of occasions when Republicans called for violence or talked about committing violent acts(either through a sick sense of humor or true homicidal thoughts) against liberals, Democrats, and some Dems were named. It's on the first page.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ Gotcha.

Now we balance that with a certain infamous former poster in this forum who advocated shipping right-wingers to North Korea, and hoping the ship sank on the way....

Both sides have such nut cases. By "talking heads", I presumed that actual spokesmen for the Republican Party were meant.

 

[RandomAccess]

That is not only mischaracterization, it's idiocy. I suppose all those people who rob liquor stores with guns are Republicans? I suppose car jackers are Republicans? And of course all the men and women in the armed services must also be Republicans. And of course, no Democrat owns a gun. I suppose if I want a gun to defend myself I have to be a Republican. Oh, and once I become one I can't be gay anymore because I'll be vilified on CE&P for doing so.

Way to selfishly milk a terrible tragedy!

Prove me wrong?


I thought not. Get as mad as you want, I'm not backing-off my original statement. Scratch a gun-nut who kills Democratic leaders, find a

. . .Psychotic, whacked-out, homophobic, religious zealot, right wing, Republican scumbag. . .

. . .or various combinations of same.

 

[jackoroe]

Prove me wrong?


I thought not. Get as mad as you want, I'm not backing-off my original statement. Scratch a gun-nut who kills Democratic leaders, find a

. . .or various combinations of same.

You've made an assertion, in fact a broad generalization, that you have no possibility of proving. You are, of course, free to stand by such a statement should you so desire.

The fact is we aren't sure why this subhuman did what he did to Mr. Gwatney, nor may we ever. I do any accept the notion that any one, other than the murderer is responsible for his actions. There has been no evidence proffered to this end, whatsoever. Merely emotional rantings.

And I reject, as asinine, any suggestion that the manufacturers of a legitimate, lawfully owned device, to wit firearms, are responsible for this tragedy. Nor has anyone shown a shred of evidence implicating the NRA in this murder.

Rather than argue from an emotional standpoint, look at the facts available to you.

 

[RandomAccess]

You've made an assertion, in fact a broad generalization, that you have no possibility of proving. You are, of course, free to stand by such a statement should you so desire.

The fact is we aren't sure why this subhuman did what he did to Mr. Gwatney, nor may we ever. I do any accept the notion that any one, other than the murderer is responsible for his actions. There has been no evidence proffered to this end, whatsoever. Merely emotional rantings.

And I reject, as asinine, any suggestion that the manufacturers of a legitimate, lawfully owned device, to wit firearms, are responsible for this tragedy. Nor has anyone shown a shred of evidence implicating the NRA in this murder.

Rather than argue from an emotional standpoint, look at the facts available to you.

Oh. Sorry. Forgot to say "IMHO."

 

[Glafna]

Now we balance that with a certain infamous former poster in this forum who advocated shipping right-wingers to North Korea, and hoping the ship sank on the way...

lol, I'd actually forgotten about him.... why'd you have to bring back the memories

 

[Glafna]

Agreed. Don't blame an inanimate object for a human choice. To do so does a disservice to the victims of violence. If some fool throws a brick off an interstand overpass and causes a massive pileup, you don't blame the brick. You blame the asshole who threw it.

It's both the accessibility of the firearms, as well as their use by the carrier which is the problem. You can't truly blame one or the other, because without the gun, he wouldn't have been able to kill, and without the man's own whacked reasoning, the gun wouldn't have been fired.

The thing I find is that anti-gun tend to blame the guns, while pro-gun tend to blame the people. Try looking beyond that, and see the middle ground. Their both to blame, for one can't be used in that way without another. Yes, I suppose that the gun could be used elsewhere, or the person could have used a knife, or w/e, but you see my reasoning I hope.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's both the accessibility of the firearms, as well as their use by the carrier which is the problem. You can't truly blame one or the other, because without the gun, he wouldn't have been able to kill, and without the man's own whacked reasoning, the gun wouldn't have been fired.

The thing I find is that anti-gun tend to blame the guns, while pro-gun tend to blame the people. Try looking beyond that, and see the middle ground. Their both to blame, for one can't be used in that way without another. Yes, I suppose that the gun could be used elsewhere, or the person could have used a knife, or w/e, but you see my reasoning I hope.

But then you're stuck with blaming Detroit for car crashes, MLB for beatings with baseball bats, Home Depot for bathtub drownings (yes, they happen!), and so on. Courts have long held that you can't put blame on an inanimate object, or its manufacturers, or anyone who encourages or celebrates its proper use.

Gangs once demonstrated that home-made devices can kill as well as guns; now with NRA-supported programs such as "Project Exile" (commit a crime with a gun, and automatically get an extra 5- or 10-year sentence, no parole), some are showing that such knowledge hasn't been forgotten. Take away guns, and warped minds will find other ways to deliver death.

And in the final analysis, you have to blame the individual: No gun can persuade someone to commit violence; the decision arises from inside a human mind, and responsibility lies where the decision is made.

 

[bighair]

You should take that one up with the gals who got raped because they couldn't defend themselves, but know the gal who got attacked but not raped because she could defend herself.

It's a person's choice to carry, or not carry. Either way, you're responsible for the results. But you would only be "asking for it" if you went about wearing a sign saying "I'm defenseless" in an area where a rapist was known to be operating.

Perhaps you could give me some way of contacting them to confirm that this is their own position or if it is just spin from the NRA? BTW You are not "responsible for the results" in the case of rape, whether you are armed or not. The rapist is. This is getting way too close to blaming the victim of rape because she (or he) is not packing heat 24/7.

 

[bluidecreek]

The right-wing can justify killing anyone that doesn't agree with them because they feel they have God's persmission. For example, it is rather ironic that they can justify bombing an abortion clinic in the name of God. Hmmm...murder in the name of God. A common right-wing theme. Does anyone else see the ridiculous irony and sickness in that way of thinking?

 

[Glafna]

Yeesh, try to find the middle ground and u get urself persecuted, lol.

So the accessibility of guns has nothing to do with the amount of murders in the states and Canada??

I remember reading awhile ago about The Judge... a revolver that could fire both magnum as well as shotgun rounds... the police in Toronto were afraid of the gun making it's way across the border.

 

[Kulindahr]

Perhaps you could give me some way of contacting them to confirm that this is their own position or if it is just spin from the NRA? BTW You are not "responsible for the results" in the case of rape, whether you are armed or not. The rapist is. This is getting way too close to blaming the victim of rape because she (or he) is not packing heat 24/7.

I doubt the NRA ever heard of them. I worked with two, went to class with the other two. I don't know where any of them are any more. But I do agree with them: anyone who wants to forbid citizens from exercising their inherent right of self-defense with the tool(s) of their choice is on the side of the attackers, whether it's robbery, assault, or rape.

Ah -- if only the rapist is responsible in the case of rape, then only the shooter is responsible with the gun. The responsibility lies solely with the perpetrator, not anywhere else.

 

[Kulindahr]

The right-wing can justify killing anyone that doesn't agree with them because they feel they have God's persmission. For example, it is rather ironic that they can justify bombing an abortion clinic in the name of God. Hmmm...murder in the name of God. A common right-wing theme. Does anyone else see the ridiculous irony and sickness in that way of thinking?

A "common right-wing theme"? Okay -- gimme citations of a dozen actual leaders in the Right in the U.S. who have advocated murder in the name of God. If it's a common theme, that shouldn't take you more than twenty minutes.



Really -- these caricatures are ridiculous. I've known plenty of right-wingers (I lived with a house of them in college), and none would have advocate murder in the name of God -- the death penalty for doctors "committing" abortion, yes, but they would also have the death penalty for anyone who bombed an abortion clinic and killed anyone in the process.

 

[bighair]

I doubt the NRA ever heard of them. I worked with two, went to class with the other two. I don't know where any of them are any more. But I do agree with them: anyone who wants to forbid citizens from exercising their inherent right of self-defense with the tool(s) of their choice is on the side of the attackers, whether it's robbery, assault, or rape.

Ah -- if only the rapist is responsible in the case of rape, then only the shooter is responsible with the gun. The responsibility lies solely with the perpetrator, not anywhere else.

Yes, it is one of the reasons that people like my "pro-rape" mother wants restrictions placed on the access of shooters to guns. Lots of people are quite responsible with guns, some are not, some are out to kill. Isn't it kind of sensible to get guns out of the hands of the dangerous ones whenever it is possible, rather than getting rid of all gun control like Libertarians (like youself, if I am not mistaken) appear to be advocating?

 

[RandomAccess]

Yes, it is one of the reasons that people like my "pro-rape" mother wants restrictions placed on the access of shooters to guns. Lots of people are quite responsible with guns, some are not, some are out to kill. Isn't it kind of sensible to get guns out of the hands of the dangerous ones whenever it is possible, rather than getting rid of all gun control like Libertarians (like youself, if I am not mistaken) appear to be advocating?

You're right. It's a crying shame that while people are quite appropriately tested and licensed to drive a car, any idiot with a grudge can get-hold of a "legal" firearm.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes, it is one of the reasons that people like my "pro-rape" mother wants restrictions placed on the access of shooters to guns. Lots of people are quite responsible with guns, some are not, some are out to kill. Isn't it kind of sensible to get guns out of the hands of the dangerous ones whenever it is possible, rather than getting rid of all gun control like Libertarians (like youself, if I am not mistaken) appear to be advocating?

There is no way to keep semi-humans from getting guns: I could make a sidearm or longarm myself with equipment ordered from Sears.
Since the bad guys can get them, the best course is to make them easily available to honest citizens, so they can fight back. To deter the bad guys, programs like the NRA-supported "Project Exile" have been seen to work fairly well: any crime committed when a gun is used (defined as being visible) brings an extra five, ten, or twenty years, depending on the crime -- with no possibility of parole, and in some versions no good time, so five years means five full years, ten means ten, and twenty means twenty.

You're right. It's a crying shame that while people are quite appropriately tested and licensed to drive a car, any idiot with a grudge can get-hold of a "legal" firearm.

Driving a car is not a right; owning your chosen means of self-defense is. To deny someone the exercise of that right is to tell him/her that in your eyes his/her life isn't worth a thing.
And it's quite appropriate that anyone who's been threatened, who has a violent ex-boyfriend, who works in an area with high crime, to be able to get a firearm the moment the danger is realized.
According to people who've been faced with a mortal threat, their possession and producing a firearm save one or more lives some quarter million lives per year -- sufficient argument from a pragmatic viewpoint to support having firearms available to all.

Of course, there's the Clinton approach, which was to tell criminals they couldn't buy guns -- but to make no provision whatsoever for arresting the ones who tried! Perhaps deputizing every gun store owner and some employees to make arrests for that purpose only would have actually put the roughly one hundred thousand felons Clinton claimed were prevented from buying guns while he was president behind bars.
The trouble with gun control is that there's not a single law in existence that has kept any crime with a gun from happening -- except the ones that punish criminals fr using a firearm. Cutting them off at the source, by arresting them the moment they try to buy one, makes far more sense than all the current gun control laws put together.