americans don't piss around.....they shoot!

Vagrant · Post by **Vagrant** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 7:04 am

NO excuse for 1st degree murders to live but, letting them go home for "special occassions" like birthdays [unsupervised] is insane. I believe a more recent administration ended the stupidity.

mrbigg · Post by **mrbigg** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 7:17 am

Vagrant wrote:NO excuse for 1st degree murders to live but, letting them go home for "special occassions" like birthdays [unsupervised] is insane. I believe a more recent administration ended the stupidity.

just as insane as making it easy for them to get guns when they get out! i have to agree with missaman on this one, yeah i feel for your buddy mr bonz, but what if someone shot you and paralized you forever, he does 15 years (probably less) gets out and is allowed to buy another gun?
meanwhile you can never walk again, and have strangers wiping your ass for the rest of your life? doesn't make sense..... i guess there is no easy answer, that's why the topic is always hot debate!

Teddy · Post by **Teddy** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 7:35 am

Mr. Bigg,

The argument for relaxing controls on gun purchasing only make sense to someone who really understands how easy it is to buy guns off the street.... especially for ex cons who will have learned a LOT about that sort of thing while they were enjoying their little "vacation" .
Mr. J-man is right..... the only people who benefit from gun control are the black-marketeers.

Gun control is no different to drug or alcohol control... it's always gonna cost much too much and achieve very little EXCEPT fuel the black market
apart from which... the people who have been to jail for their crimes are only a fraction of the actual criminals.... the rest haven't been CAUGHT yet.

Best wishes
Teddy

Vagrant · Post by **Vagrant** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 9:22 am

I made two conditions to felons owning guns; 1- the full sentance must be served. 2-A gun was not used in the offense , but I don't feel threatened by someone who did time for possession of the many outlawed items or substances].

ratstuph · Post by **ratstuph** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 10:01 am

Teddy-
Of the many challenges associated with a discussion of an emotionally laden matter, is the tendency for polarization. I've noted that many who speak (write) up herein, favor unlimited access to firearms. I've also noted that some never/rarely (including me) contribute to the discussion. For my part, I am mule-headed and don't often care to expend my energy trying to get others to view the world from my (the term "my" as used herein would be equivalent to: correct, appropriate, truthful, proper, accurate, etc...) outlook. I remain unconvinced by those who claim that we as Americans are mandated to be an armed society, and those who view firearms as too dangerous for the average plodding American to possess (although after tonight observing a doofus [sorry Mr. Bonz] chick driving while simultaneously talking on her cell phone and smoking a cigarette, I momentarily thought it would be preferable to arm dogs [please feel free to substitute you favorite non-human species] than humans). That is, we all too often get caught up in the extremes of "Our founding fathers," etc... (like any of us knows), or "If we 'control'" (probably means eliminate) access to guns, etc... I don't hear much REALLY USEFUL dancing on the slippery slope. Yes, you guys in Great Britain got hosed, as did our Northern neighbors. And things change over time; maybe, for y'all, eventually for the better. In the meantime, we here in the great democratic experiment (I think) would be better served to find where we do agree, than to merely fire fervently our pre-banned arms, or to severely scrutinize and confiscate might-not-be-really pre-banned arms and to congratulate with smug self-satisfaction those who share our views.
I don't pretend to have or know the answers however, were I the parent of either of the two (in the last year) children who were killed by "stray" rounds in the greater Minneapolis area, I think I would lack patience with either view. Which extreme will bring back their babies?

Ratstuph

Teddy · Post by **Teddy** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 10:39 am

Mr. Ratstuph,

It is indeed a highly emotional issue.... on the one hand you have those that firmly believe gun control actually affects the use of firearms for anti-social purposes and the other extreme believes that the private ownership of firearms is an absolute must for national security.

The point I'm trying to make from my little soap-box is that guns are so readily available on the black market that trying to control the SALE of them is a futile effort.... criminals will get whatever they want from a handgun to a machine gun. If the emphasis was shifted from "purchase" to "carry" (and the need to prove responsibility and capability before such permission was granted,) the "brain dead" would only be allowed to keep their guns at home... and absolutely everyone should be allowed to protect their home.

There are those who would insist on their right to possess ANY type of weapon for use on their own property.... I find it difficult to put up a logical argument against that.

There are those who would argue that a total ban on firearms would result in a safer society... there are PLENTY of arguments against that.

Trying to control the SALE of something simply doesn't work... all it does is change the supplier. The prohibition of alcohol should have taught the world that one.

I'll shut up now..
Teddy

ps I've smashed my soap-box also...

Bonzo · Post by **Bonzo** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:23 pm

Teddy wrote:Gun control is no different to drug or alcohol control... it's always gonna cost much too much and achieve very little EXCEPT fuel the black market
apart from which... the people who have been to jail for their crimes are only a fraction of the actual criminals.... the rest haven't been CAUGHT yet.

Mr. Teddy,

Very good.

Mr. Rat,

I'll bet your the type of guy who plants his ass right in front of the telly and sucks up all that spew from Dan Rather, Sam Donaldson, Paula Zahn (I'd rather have the clap and crabs than screw that bitch), the wannabe American Peter Jennings, basically ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, and the BBC to boot! The proof is in the pudding Rat-Man. Do some homework and don't let other people make your mind up for you. Mr. Teddy here has learned firsthand, and seen the results of gun control. It doesn't fu*king work! The 2nd ammendment is so simple and easy to understand, but the critics put their blinders on before reading it. Geez! Wheres my checkbook? The NRA needs another donation!

Best Regard's,

Bonz

missaman · Post by **missaman** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 6:23 pm

this is indeed an emotional topic. it seems to me that the gun laws we have to date have no effect on criminals. which is why any additional laws restricting gun sales are not going to help much . i would still favor more laws which lock up these guys up for good. i also agree with mr. vagrent that as long as the felon did his FULL sentence and did not have a history of violent behavior. that they could purchase firearms. debt paid.
or better yet decriminalize drugs
i don't care what they want to smoke,shoot,snort as long as it does not put me in any danger. most violent crime is probably drug related anyway
take the profit out of it and people won't be killing each other over what group owns what street corner.
so far today... my parrot flew out my open door and now resides in the oak tree in the back yord.... the dog stole my lunch which i left sitting on a chair.....and i've got 100 hours of H.U.D. paper work due monday.

blackjack · Post by **blackjack** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 6:26 pm

Who is willie horton and whats the story behind that

Take Care
blackjack

J-man · Post by **J-man** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 6:49 pm

Vagrant wrote:NO excuse for 1st degree murders to live but, letting them go home for "special occassions" like birthdays [unsupervised] is insane. I believe a more recent administration ended the stupidity.

In some cases I have to disagree with you Vagrant. I support capital punishment, but only on a case by case analysis. (granted, some people deserve to die for their crimes).

But letting them go home for "special occassions" unsupervised is totally insane you are right.

ratstuph · Post by **ratstuph** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 7:01 pm

Bonzo wrote: Mr. Rat,

I'll bet your the type of guy who plants his ass right in front of the telly and sucks up all that spew from Dan Rather, Sam Donaldson, Paula Zahn (I'd rather have the clap and crabs than screw that bitch), the wannabe American Peter Jennings, basically ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, and the BBC to boot!
Best Regard's,
Bonz

Mr. Bonzo-
Well you'd win part of that bet, that is my ass does get attached to my recliner which is situated for a perfect view of my television. However, I can't remember the last time I watched fully a national news broadcast. Who's Paula Zhan? Those who love and/or tolerate me rarely describe me as being easily swayed by anyone's view. I do lots of homework, read alot and well aware of how poorly "gun control" has worked here, and elsewhere. Other than the parrot in the tree and the dog snarfing his lunch, I am in accord with Mr. Missaman (and Mr. Vagrant). It is interesting how this turned into something of a personal condemnation when I suggested that we, in this country, have yet to find an answer that serves us well, when it comes to firearms. I don't get how writing a check to the National Rodeo Association is gonna make you feel better, but by all means please do. I always root for the bulls!

Ratsass

Bonzo · Post by **Bonzo** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 7:56 pm

ratstuph wrote:I remain unconvinced by those who claim that we as Americans are mandated to be an armed society, and those who view firearms as too dangerous for the average plodding American to possess

Mr. Rat,

This is why I suggested you do your homework.

(although after tonight observing a doofus [sorry Mr. Bonz]

No offense taken. In fact, I encourage it.

That is, we all too often get caught up in the extremes of "Our founding fathers," etc...

What is exteme about that? Without our founders, where would America be right now?

Yes, you guys in Great Britain got hosed, as did our Northern neighbors.

You got that one right.

And things change over time; maybe, for y'all, eventually for the better.

Not if the united nations of morons is involved.

In the meantime, we here in the great democratic experiment

This is still a Republic. I hate the word democrat.

I don't pretend to have or know the answers however, were I the parent of either of the two (in the last year) children who were killed by "stray" rounds in the greater Minneapolis area, I think I would lack patience with either view. Which extreme will bring back their babies?

Maybe if everyone was armed, those assholes shooting up the streets would think twice. If I saw someone spraying bullets, and I was armed, there would be a shootout. The cops are'nt always there, and besides, maybe I'm a better shot than most cops.

Sorry Mr. Vermin, but the reasoning is not really there. You get a D-

Try again.

Best Regard's,

Bonz

Post by **jim d,** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 7:58 pm

Paula Zahn, don't get me stated, too late you already have. When the first American POW's were captured in the war with Iraq, Paula Zahn conducted an interview with a woman who had been a POW under the Saddam Hussein regime in the 1991 Gulf War. Videos of this woman, arms broken, badly bruised face, and barely able to limp as she was being released from captivity were shown. At the same time Paula was describing her rape and torture by the Saddam regime. Immediately they panned to the woman (who is now a Colonel) and Paula asked her "What assurances do we have that this same regime that tortured you as a POW will treat our POW's in accord with the Geneva Convention?" For this kind of idiocy she gets paid the big bucks!! By the way, the Colonel exercised much more restraint than I would have.

Jim

Vagrant · Post by **Vagrant** » Sun Aug 03, 2003 1:48 am

The founding fathers made it plain that the only thing that stood between us and a oppresive government was the fact the PEOPLE were far better armed than the government. [This is no longer true and our rights have been erroded in part because the government no longer has the same level of fear]. Our politicians now view themselves as "leaders" not the servants that they are.

Bonzo · Post by **Bonzo** » Sun Aug 03, 2003 3:27 am

Vagrant wrote:The founding fathers made it plain that the only thing that stood between us and a oppresive government was the fact the PEOPLE were far better armed than the government. [This is no longer true and our rights have been erroded in part because the government no longer has the same level of fear]. Our politicians now view themselves as "leaders" not the servants that they are.

Mr. Vagrant,

Or the servants they were elected to be. The most perfect government known to mankind is truly eroding. I'm ashamed.

Best Regard's,

Bonz