The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Joe Scarborough reverses his stance on gun control

Kulindahr said:
There's paranoia if I ever saw it. It shows me that your entire position is based on the paranoia that ordinary citizens can't be trusted.
Click to expand...

That's exactly how I see your position.

Mrs Lanza is a perfect example of a paranoid woman who built an arsenal of weapons for fear of her fellow Americans, be they citizens or government. It turns out the most dangerous thing in her life was her own child and the weapons she'd gathered to protect (and entertain) him.

Now 25 innocent families have paid a terrible price for her paranoia.

Restricting guns is not about a paranoia of Americans. It about recognising that ALL people are emotional, passionate, mixed up beings, prone to make mistakes and bad judgements. Sometimes things get too heated, sometimes they are overpowered by emotion, or sickness, or depression, or drugs, or insanity.

When those things go wrong and one of these people has access to a machine that is capable of raining rapid destruction on many lives in moments, we see carnage and devastation.

You live in the USA, Kulindahr. Nobody will ever take away your guns. You know it and I know it. All anybody is asking for here is to place a sensible limit on how powerful those guns should be, and your ability to qualify as competent to safely own and operate a weapon. Neither requirement denies you your 2nd Amendment right, so long as you are competent and of sound mind.
 
Kulindahr said:
There's paranoia if I ever saw it. It shows me that your entire position is based on the paranoia that ordinary citizens can't be trusted. It's part of an attitude that thinks there's some kind of elite privileged with the capacity to make decisions for everyone else.
Click to expand...

You say it's paranoia to think people can't be trusted with guns. I think it's paranoia to think people can't be trusted not to attack you. There is no "elite privileged", there are professionals. And then there are laws. And those professionals might not be there to save your life, but they are there to enforce those laws, and when they do that, your life doesn't need saving. YOU are the paranoid one here, not me. And refer to andy's post above mine, and this part in particular:
andysayshi said:
Restricting guns is not about a paranoia of Americans. It about recognising that ALL people are emotional, passionate, mixed up beings, prone to make mistakes and bad judgements. Sometimes things get too heated, sometimes they are overpowered by emotion, or sickness, or depression, or drugs, or insanity.

When those things go wrong and one of these people has access to a machine that is capable of raining rapid destruction on many lives in moments, we see carnage and devastation.
Click to expand...
 
Rolyo85 said:
You say it's paranoia to think people can't be trusted with guns. I think it's paranoia to think people can't be trusted not to attack you. There is no "elite privileged", there are professionals. And then there are laws. And those professionals might not be there to save your life, but they are there to enforce those laws, and when they do that, your life doesn't need saving. YOU are the paranoid one here, not me. And refer to andy's post above mine, and this part in particular:
Click to expand...

Gee, wow. So my friends who got raped didn't need saving?

What your view of the world would have me be right now is dead. If your utopian fantasy really worked, there would be no crime.

The evidence says that tens of millions of people have guns, millions of them carry one every day, and they don't shoot anyone. The evidence also says that people get assaulted, raped, shot, and killed, and the laws just sit there, ink on the page, and the police show up afterward to clean up the mess. Neither laws nor police offer protection to people except statistically.

My view is based on reality. Yours is based on the fantasy that writing a law will change the way criminals behave.

What this really is, is an argument over who should die. Your position would have innocent people die because they're only protected statistically. Mine would give innocent people a fighting chance.
 
Kulindahr said:
Gee, wow. So my friends who got raped didn't need saving?

What your view of the world would have me be right now is dead. If your utopian fantasy really worked, there would be no crime.

The evidence says that tens of millions of people have guns, millions of them carry one every day, and they don't shoot anyone. The evidence also says that people get assaulted, raped, shot, and killed, and the laws just sit there, ink on the page, and the police show up afterward to clean up the mess. Neither laws nor police offer protection to people except statistically.

My view is based on reality. Yours is based on the fantasy that writing a law will change the way criminals behave.

What this really is, is an argument over who should die. Your position would have innocent people die because they're only protected statistically. Mine would give innocent people a fighting chance.
Click to expand...

Whatever. I'm tired of this. Be on the side that kills children if that's the price for your feeling safer.
 
Rolyo85 said:
Whatever. I'm tired of this. Be on the side that kills children if that's the price for your feeling safer.
Click to expand...

But that's your side -- you're the one who doesn't want anyone to be there to stop the madman.

This has nothing to do with feelings -- that you think so merely reveals that yours is an emotional position, not a rational one. Rationally, if there are going to be attacks in public places, then there must be people in public places ready to respond to those attacks. Since police neither can nor should be everywhere, that means the armed citizen.
 
Kulindahr said:
But that's your side -- you're the one who doesn't want anyone to be there to stop the madman.

This has nothing to do with feelings -- that you think so merely reveals that yours is an emotional position, not a rational one. Rationally, if there are going to be attacks in public places, then there must be people in public places ready to respond to those attacks. Since police neither can nor should be everywhere, that means the armed citizen.
Click to expand...

I find it offensively cynical that you claim I want the children unprotected when it's YOUR beloved gun laws that got them killed. It's not just intellectually dishonest, it's also in incredibly bad taste.
 
And what's even more demented is your illogical refusal to acknowledge the fact that without guns, the children wouldn't need so much protection in the first place.

As proven by countries with strict gun control, where these things just don't happen. Another thing you're too afraid to address.
 
Rolyo85 said:
I find it offensively cynical that you claim I want the children unprotected when it's YOUR beloved gun laws that got them killed. It's not just intellectually dishonest, it's also in incredibly bad taste.
Click to expand...

Rolyo85 said:
And what's even more demented is your illogical refusal to acknowledge the fact that without guns, the children wouldn't need so much protection in the first place.

As proven by countries with strict gun control, where these things just don't happen. Another thing you're too afraid to address.
Click to expand...

"Strict gun control" is what the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto submitted to...
just before they were slaughtered.

That nearly half of American voters went for Romney is warning enough. As the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership say, "Never Again".

To try to turn the US into just another country where there are no rights, only privileges, by taking away firearms would require a reign of terror that would turn most non-owners into supporters of their fellow citizens instead of the then-illegitimate government.
 
Nobody thinks the US will ever have to give up all their guns. The police or army are never going to jackboot their way into your home and take your guns, no matter how much you try to dramatise your stance. Their will never be gun restrictions in the US like there are in countries like Australia or Britain.

But do you truly believe that limiting the size and capacity of weapons in the US is wrong? Do you truly believe that a suburban mother has the necessity for a modified M-15 military weapon in her home?
 
Donny Deutsch of all people ;) on Morning Joe said

"gun control" is a terrible term

it should be "assault weapon control"

for those who don't know, DD is a former big shot advertising executive

an insufferable pompous ass boor

but here he's right
 
So, there is no difference apparently between my antique lever action Winchester that my dad gave me and an AK-47.

Good to know.
 
opinterph said:
Did you mean lever-action?
Click to expand...

Oops.

I must be tired for my proofreading to miss that (not that it takes uch to be tired at this time of year; my body would have me sleeping twelve hours a day, hibernating, if I let it).

Learning to do that rate of fire with a lever action isn't easy, but once you get the trick it isn't hard to do.
 
Kulindahr said:
Learning to do that rate of fire with a lever action isn't easy, but once you get the trick it isn't hard to do.
Click to expand...

I've heard of individuals who could product astonishing rate of fire from bolt-action rifles, such as the Lee-Enfield; however, I wonder if the barrel of a .22 mag can withstand the heat generated from rapid fire.
 
Kulindahr said:
One of the guys in the Pink Pistols brought an AK once. With my level-action .22 mag, I could fire just about as fast as he could. If selecting consecutive individuals targets, I kept up.
Click to expand...

We're not seriously making the supposition that a mentally disturbed teenager is going to successfully kill as many people with a handgun as a weapon he can spray sustained fire with, are we?
 
xbuzzerx said:
We're not seriously making the supposition that a mentally disturbed teenager is going to successfully kill as many people with a handgun as a weapon he can spray sustained fire with, are we?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about, "sustained fire"? A handgun shoots one bullet per pull of the trigger. A rifle shoots one bullet per pull of the trigger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top