Guns/Weapons Discussion

[realeasygoing]

Michael Moore is a big fat liar!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually you should believe nothing that man says. He is a blatant liar. I have never seen a movie so filled with lies. I mean he calls his production company propaganda films.

There was once a time when I thought I needed to own them because the government was evil and would ultimately control our every move. Well the Democrats let the Republicans get away with passing the Patriot act and getting us in to a foolish war.

Now who about all you gun hater or gun owner haters doing something intelligent for once! Instead of making guns illegal make them useless!!! How you ask easy instead of sponsoring a stupid company like handgun control why don’t you create a company that will give people a good alternative to a hand gun?

That’s right inventing something that is a non-lethal alternative to a handgun (and yes it has to be better than a Tazer or a stun gun). I am sure some of you even have the brains to but your to busy be Brady bill supporters to get it together.

I tell you what if Michael Moore loves Canada so much he can go live there and pay there taxes. But I have lived in a lovely socialized government before and I want my money that I work for!

I have had my house broke into in a country where I couldn’t own a gun. I had to fight the perpetrator naked (I had just walked out of the shower) fearing my loved ones life and my own. Oh what call the police sorry folks in that country that don’t come for house break-ins.

When you have to go thru that you tell it’s not OK to own one.

 

[alasdairm]

i own guns to excersize my 2nd ammendment right as well. you excersize your 1st ammendment by speaking your mind. why can't i do the same by owning a gun?

i guess we just see it from a different perspective. i have never exercised my right to free speech just because i can - i.e. the fact that the speech is protected was not the reason for the speech. people protest the war (for example) - that's why they're speaking. the protection of the 1st admendment is the context in which that speech is made.

and so i see it with guns - i just think "because i can" is a weak reason for owning a gun. as i said - you can own a hot air ballon, why don't you have one of those because you can?

i've said it before here on bluelight many times but i also believe that many gun owners cynically spout the letter of the 2nd amendment with no thought whatsoever for the spirit of that amendment. not really what the framers had in mind?



alasdair

 

[E-llusion]

Guns are for wimps

 

[smiles828]

i guess we just see it from a different perspective. i have never exercised my right to free speech just because i can - i.e. the fact that the speech is protected was not the reason for the speech. people protest the war (for example) - that's why they're speaking. the protection of the 1st admendment is the context in which that speech is made.

and so i see it with guns - i just think "because i can" is a weak reason for owning a gun. as i said - you can own a hot air ballon, why don't you have one of those because you can?

i don't own a hot air balloon because i don't want one. i own guns because i want to.

lets say we were in iraq in 2000. do you think you would be able to say what you say about the government without reprocusions? ya, didn't think so. you say what you say because you can. you have that constitutionally protected right.

i've said it before here on bluelight many times but i also believe that many gun owners cynically spout the letter of the 2nd amendment with no thought whatsoever for the spirit of that amendment. not really what the framers had in mind?



alasdair

the spirit of the ammendment was there so that if something happened(i.e. invasion) we would be able to protect ourselves, our families and our nieghbors. so if you take that right away, how can we protect those around us?

 

[smiles828]

Guns are for wimps

i somewhat agree. i'd rather feel my Strider BT sink into someones heart. and get my hands dirty.

 

[alasdairm]

i own guns because i want to.

finally.

the reason you own a gun is not the 2nd amendment. the reason you own a gun is because you want a gun. thanks for an honest answer.

why you want a gun goes from here...

lets say we were in iraq in 2000. do you think you would be able to say what you say about the government without reprocusions? ya, didn't think so. you say what you say because you can. you have that constitutionally protected right.

let's say you were a tree and i was a car. we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. "let's say..." is just a distraction.

the spirit of the ammendment was there so that if something happened(i.e. invasion) we would be able to protect ourselves, our families and our nieghbors. so if you take that right away, how can we protect those around us?

letter of the law vs. spirit of the law again.

the 2nd amendment grants the right to bear arms because of the necessity of "A well regulated Militia". are you part of a well-regulated militia? in what sense are the thousands of individual gun owners in the us who use the 2nd amendment as an umbrella, a well regulated militia.

there's a lot of wanting cake and eating it in the gun debate...



alasdair

 

[smiles828]

finally.

the reason you own a gun is not the 2nd amendment. the reason you own a gun is because you want a gun. thanks for an honest answer.

yes, one of the many reasons.

let's say you were a tree and i was a car. we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. "let's say..." is just a distraction.

i was just trying to give you a visual.

letter of the law vs. spirit of the law again.

wait a minute. what did you say?

"i've said it before here on bluelight many times but i also believe that many gun owners cynically spout the letter of the 2nd amendment with no thought whatsoever for the spirit of that amendment. not really what the framers had in mind?"

oh yeah, thats right. you were talking about the spirit of the second amendment.

there's a lot of wanting cake and eating it in the gun debate...

mutch like there is with the anti gun debate.

 

[Deepsea]

I own several firearms, and do practise shooting at least four times a week. I get a military discount on ammunition though, so it all evens out.

As for the legal side, I can legally own them, so nothing you people says matters to me. The moral argument is total bullshit anyways. I only use mine to defend myself when I'm in foreign lands anyways. I doubt anyone would try robbing me on the street, and I can more than defend myself with or without a firearm if such a situation were to arise. I do prefer to have the firearm in the house for family protection though.

Another thing, what's the deal with a thread about guns turning into a liberal ass wiping with whining included?

 

[alasdairm]

wait a minute. what did you say? oh yeah, thats right. you were talking about the spirit of the second amendment.

right. the framers had in a mind a 'well-regulated' militia to secure the republic in the event of any one of a number of situations (including, no doubt, malicious action against the citizens by the government itself). and for this reason, they granted you the right to own a gun.

fast forward to 2005 where some dare-i-say-it insecure, testosterone-fuelled hick wants to shoot at shit/people with his gun for kicks/hate/whatever. he could not be further from the idea the framers had in mind and he knows it. but he trots out the "it's my legal right" line with a cynical smile.

that's what i mean about the spirit vs. the letter. he's happy to exploit the second part while conveniently ignoring the first. cake and eat it.

...so nothing you people says matters to me.

so, in return, why should anybody listen to you? a little mutual respect goes a long way here.

...liberal ass wiping with whining included

nice attitude. a little mutual respect goes a long way here.

if the best you can do is "stop whining", that speaks volumes about the strength of your argument.

alasdair

 

[pillsnapa]

It's a nice piece.

 

[smiles828]

right. the framers had in a mind a 'well-regulated' militia to secure the republic in the event of any one of a number of situations (including, no doubt, malicious action against the citizens by the government itself). and for this reason, they granted you the right to own a gun.

fast forward to 2005 where some dare-i-say-it insecure, testosterone-fuelled hick wants to shoot at shit/people with his gun for kicks/hate/whatever. he could not be further from the idea the framers had in mind and he knows it. but he trots out the "it's my legal right" line with a cynical smile.

that's what i mean about the spirit vs. the letter. he's happy to exploit the second part while conveniently ignoring the first. cake and eat it.

well, you are right about the framers not intending on !*$# running around and shooting kids for sneekers.(my response to your hick statement) when someone breaks the law, their constitutional rights are, or should be, taken away. when your:

"fast forward to 2005 where some dare-i-say-it insecure, testosterone-fuelled hick wants to shoot at shit/people with his gun for kicks/hate/whatever. he could not be further from the idea the framers had in mind and he knows it. but he trots out the "it's my legal right" line with a cynical smile."

scenario happens. the perpatrator ends up in jail. just like he should.

btw, that was probably the dumbest scenario i have ever heard.

 

[alasdairm]

btw, that was probably the dumbest scenario i have ever heard.

somebody shooting somebody is the dumbest scenario you've ever heard. you need to widen your horizons...

alasdair

 

[Deepsea]

^^ Maybe you should start your own thread.

so, in return, why should anybody listen to you? a little mutual respect goes a long way here.


nice attitude. a little mutual respect goes a long way here.

if the best you can do is "stop whining", that speaks volumes about the strength of your argument.

alasdair

That's great. I do not strive for anyone's respect. I give it willingly, so I expect the same. The point of my post was to say that the moral issues do not matter, because the majority of the country agrees to gun ownership, so it's legal. Since it's legal, and it will remain so for quite some time, I'll express that opinion openly. Respect has been given when deserved in this instance.

My comment on whining was justified:

do you like guns? do you think guns are bad? If you have a gun, what kind of guns is it? do you use your gun to kill people or do you just go down to the shootin range and release some aggression?

There was nothing in the original poster's question about the legallity, or the morality of the issue of firearm's ownership. It's been horribly dragged off topic, and it's an embarassment, that people of the liberal/gun control crowd can't stay out of the thread and let people that do care for them to discuss their interests. We let you guys talk about your whatever it is you're interested in. Why can't you guys leave our threads alone? That would be respectful, since you decided to bring that issue up, I feel, I can disrespect anyone posting off-topic in this thread, because the topic has nothing to do with legallity. Yet, you feel you have the right to debate it in every thread with guns being the topic, because you feel it's your right to behave dispectful and that we are immoral because of our interest. Take some of your own advise please.

As for the original poster, I own several firarms. I have one M4gery built with a RRA upper, and a Colt lower. I also have a M4gery lower atatched to a 20" Bushmaster's Varmint upper. I have two Kel-Tec P11s, one is converted to a P40. A Glock 26 9mm. I'm looking for Para Ordnance Carry 12 right now. I want it in stainless and with the black wrap-around grip.

 

[alasdairm]

I give it willingly, so I expect the same.

we'll have to agree to disagree in that case - i feel that some of your posts earlier in this thread suggest that you simply pay lip service to respect

Why can't you guys leave our threads alone? That would be respectful, since you decided to bring that issue up, I feel, I can disrespect anyone posting off-topic in this thread, because the topic has nothing to do with legallity. Yet, you feel you have the right to debate it in every thread with guns being the topic, because you feel it's your right to behave dispectful and that we are immoral because of our interest. Take some of your own advise please.

our threads?

in what sense is this your thread? i think, at most, 2 people can claim ownership and they are sd and spikemike.

this is a public discussion board and anybody is free to post in the thread. the forum moderators will decide what's on and off-topic and take appropriate action. if a discussion online goes off in a direction you did not expect and you can't handle that, you need to seriously consider your participation in online discussion.

who said you are "immoral because of your interest"? i know i didn't. in fact nobody did. when you start just making stuff up and putting words in people's mouths, that says an awful lot about the strength of your argument.

this: http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showpost.php?p=3584513&postcount=60

is a thread about iraq but you're discussing vietnam. planks in eyes and specks and all that. take some of your own advice please...



alasdair

 

[Deepsea]

we'll have to agree to disagree in that case - i feel that some of your posts earlier in this thread suggest that you simply pay lip service to respect

Respect to you is most likely laying there while someone robs your house, and giving into demand's of totalitarian ideals, because it's safer for your public image as a compassionate person. I'd rather send soldier's into battle then people to concentration camps when it's too late to do something about it. Respect is not something you give to someone who has not the respect you have already given them freely.

our threads?

It was directed at gun owner's. Are you a gun owner?

this is a public discussion board and anybody is free to post in the thread. the forum moderators will decide what's on and off-topic and take appropriate action. if a discussion online goes off in a direction you did not expect and you can't handle that, you need to seriously consider your participation in online discussion.

The Moderator's in this forum, well most of this board are rarely on-line, and very slow at correcting most of the things I have seen here.

who said you are "immoral because of your interest"? i know i didn't. in fact nobody did. when you start just making stuff up and putting words in people's mouths, that says an awful lot about the strength of your argument.

Is it my fault I do not fear openly stating my opinion's, and you play patsy to emotions, and PCness of the conversation, and would rather use suggestive approaches to give your true thoughts, or you silent objections of anyone's morality because you see ownership immoral, but can not fathom openly stating it? Just admit it, you think any tool invented to kill is horrifying.

this: http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showpost.php?p=3584513&postcount=60

is a thread about iraq but you're discussing vietnam. planks in eyes and specks and all that. take some of your own advice please...

alasdair

Ah, you read that one as well, it's the discussion of the death's and their value on the conflict. In that case pespective proper to the environment is needed, and as such the actual happenings and the difference of the Viet Nam conflict and the conflict in Iraq were necessary for everyone to understand the justification of the deaths.

My whole point in that thread is that the small number of deaths was needed in the conflict to bring it to a conclusion, otherwise many more deaths would happen without the open ended nature of a military based conflict, rather than a politcally based conflict.

Viet Nam is the prime example of what happens with a conflict when you limit the military's ability to fight in the way it is trained to. More deaths and more uneeded suffering. Politics got in the way. When politics get in the way of the military's ability to fight, then more people are going to die, and the conflict will last even longer. Rather than have politics involved in the conflict, they should be more involved before the situation of conflict occurs. The people themselves need to be more involved.

Since you once again dragged this thread off-topic with your tripe, I'll end it here. I do take my own advice, in this thread I remained offended that people can not leave a debate to a thread that is proper for it, and have people with equal interests post their interests without other's moralistic BS being placed in their face.

Public boards still do require some sort of civility, and with civility comes respect, you have shown none in that aspect.

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

I hate guns because of what they do. That said I have a semi-auto benelli montefeltro 20g shotgun for self defense. It is kind of fun to shoot at non-living things out in the country. If I hear stange noises of someone coming in my house and they don't answer when I say "who is it" in a very serious tone I will shoot them. I tell anyone who might visit me that I have it, and to knock or ring the doorbell. I live in a somewhat rough area, so I don't take any chances. I wish the US had stricter gun laws. I've never been broken into in my current house, but my parents house was broken into 3 times. My dad is a veteran, and held one guy at gunpoint until the police came. Bleh..I feel paranoid for having it, but I don't want me or anyone I live with to be screwed over by some psycho.

 

[alasdairm]

Respect to you is most likely...

you know nothing about me.

It was directed at gun owner's. Are you a gun owner?

i am not a gun owner. indeed, the thread title doesn't say anything about gun ownership. it talks about gun lovers. that said, i'm no lover of guns either. however, this is a public forum and i'm free to give my opinion whether i own/love guns or not.

again, if you can't handle this straightforward truth, you need to reconsider your participation online.

The Moderator's...well most of this board are rarely on-line, and very slow at correcting most of the things I have seen here.

if you see something which needs correction, you are encouraged to click 'report'. you know, change the lightbulb instead of moaning about the darkness...

Is it my fault I do not fear openly stating my opinion's...
......because you see ownership immoral, but can not fathom openly stating it? Just admit it, you think any tool invented to kill is horrifying.

the fact is nobody said gun ownership is immoral and if you have to make stuff up - which you demonstrably are - to support your argument, that totally devalues your contribution.

you seem to think you know a lot about me. let me make it crystal clear.

i do not think gun ownership is immoral.

i do not believe that any tool invented tot kill is horrifying.

In that case pespective proper to the environment is needed...

ah i see. it's different when you do it? i thought so.

Public boards still do require some sort of civility, and with civility comes respect, you have shown none in that aspect.

that's right. i'm a bluelight troll, incapable of being civil. my 3+ years here are just a trail of insults and inflammatory nonsense...

alasdair

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

You logic is so..trollish, go back under your bridge .

 

[chrissie]

The Moderator's in this forum, well most of this board are rarely on-line, and very slow at correcting most of the things I have seen here.

No, I am often online as are the other moderators. Perhaps I just find no fault in discussing guns and gun ownership in a gun thread. By discussion I do not mean something that is one-sided. I see no fault in questioning the reasoning behind things. If you do not wish to discuss what someone is saying, do not answer them.

 

[smiles828]

somebody shooting somebody is the dumbest scenario you've ever heard. you need to widen your horizons...

alasdair

actually, i was stating the scenario you pointed out. reread it, then you'll see what i meant. it was a pretty detailed scenario.