If you love your guns more than your children, something is wrong

[DainBramaged]

If you think that you need more ammo instead of shoes for your kids, something is wrong.

If that new pistol is more important than taking the kids to the doctor, something is wrong.

If your children have grown beards while you clean your guns, something is wrong.

If you hate life so much that all you wish for is the chance to shoot your gun at someone, something is wrong.

Something is wrong when guns are more important than the saving of lives. And something is wrong when gun rights trump human rights.

My heart hurts for those who lost their lives because they only wanted to go to the movies. My heart hurts for their families who will never understand the insanity that has gripped this country.

My heart hurts.

[Skidmore]

1. Something is definitely wrong.

[DainBramaged]

4. I see your first reaction is to worry about your guns

sad

[BlueinOhio]

39. Violence is the cowards way.

Funny how all of these mass shootings is some right winger and part of gods plan. I know someone who fits perfectly the remarks that started this post. Oh by the way he is a NRA loving right winger who thinks he does gods will.

[Control-Z]

127. +10000 n/t

[rfranklin]

7. "Grab guns" is an NRA slogan and another right wing complaint without substance...

(Reuters) - The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.

U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.

About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/28/us-world-firearms-idUSL2834893820070828

You should stop repeating right wing crapola on Democratic Underground.

[pipoman]

8. With that in mind...

About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.

Interesting how the crime rate has been steadily dropping for over 20 years, eh? More guns has nothing to do with crime rates apparently..

[rfranklin]

13. How does that relate to right wing NRA slogans?

Your post is not responsive as they say in court.

[Tejas]

97. Cite please?

[morningfog]

21. Nothing to with crime rates. Ok. Guns have a lot to do with gun deaths, though.

[pipoman]

29. And cars have a lot to do with DWI deaths,

and swimming pools have a lot to do with accidental drownings...

Illegality of drugs has more to do with crime rates than any other cause. The terms "gun deaths" and "gun violence" are made up by gun control activists and are cited to the exclusion of crime as a whole. As goes the overall crime rate so goes the "gun crime" rate. Crime rates are not driven by guns anymore than DWI rates are driven by cars.

[rfranklin]

68. Swimming pools and cars have purposes other than killing...

Guns are for designed killing exclusively.

[Mojorabbit]

79. I use mine for entertainment (target practice)at the range. Not for killing. nt

[rfranklin]

85. Ever shoot at a target that shows a person on it?

I have and I aim to kill when I take target practice.

[Mojorabbit]

89. Piece of paper. No comparison. nt

[Control-Z]

129. And what is the point of target practice?

Think about it.

[Mojorabbit]

130. It is fun? My hubby also target practices with his bow. Skeet shooting in the Olympics? nt

[Control-Z]

128. No, alcohol has everything to do with DWI deaths. -eom

[Loudly]

76. Patience, patriot.

Empowerment of one person to kill many has an inevitable outcome.

[Mojorabbit]

78. +1000 nt

[bongbong]

100. Visit the gungeon for real hilarity

> You should stop repeating right wing crapola on Democratic Underground.

Try visiting the gungeon. Some would say (not me) that it is a bunch of Kock-paid KochSuckers posting on DU to try to influence Liberals to be against gun control.

[TheCowsCameHome]

12. Lone nut?

What fucking rock have you been living under, Skippy?

[Surya Gayatri]

15. Are you trying to influence others to come round

to your pro-gun position? If so, you may want to second-think your arguments.

Or perhaps you prefer just demagoging the gun-lobby line.

Something is indeed wrong, when the insane actions of the proverbial "LONE NUT" can be replicated again and again and again with tragic regularity.

On college campus after fast-food outlet, with mass killing after multiple victim, the only hackneyed responses you apologists can come up with are: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" or "Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns".

PATHETIC PLATITUDES...SILLY SLOGANS...MURDEROUS MEMES

[pipoman]

18. interesting..

Something is indeed wrong, when the insane actions of the proverbial "LONE NUT" can be replicated again and again and again with tragic regularity.

You know the answer, just not seeing it. Impossible access to mental health and addiction services in the US is the cause. Guns have always been available in the US. Mental health services were available to anyone needing them right up to the time when these types of tragedies increased in numbers.

[99Forever]

30. Our right to life ..

.. trumps your right to carry a deadly surrogate penis.

[smirkymonkey]

81. +1000

[kurtzapril4]

33. Lots of "lone" gun totin' a-holes

these days, aren't there?

[MattBaggins]

46. If you'd rather hug your guns than your family something is wrong

[GarroHorus]

59. Here's a funny one

I don't own a single firearm.

[abelenkpe]

55. Hardly one nut

It's so incredibly sad that there is always some loser ready to defend his idiotic gun love after every tragedy. You are sick.

[ieoeja]

60. If you want to carry your gun everywhere because of a lone nut, something is wrong. n/t

[GarroHorus]

61. I don't own a gun.

I have some knives in my kitchen, but no guns.

No bows or crossbows, either.

[kestrel91316]

66. Your concern for your guns instead of for the victims is touching.

[sabrina 1]

108. 'Grabbing guns'?

Who is 'grabbing guns'? Asking for sane regulations on who has access to the means to kill people is not the same thing as 'grabbing guns'.

This is DU. We are familiar with all the talking points put out by the NRA and are not influenced by them.

[Erose999]

95. The problem is theres a whole bushel of "lone nuts". Columbine, VA Tech, Tuscon, FT Hood, etc etc.

See also, Tom Tomorrow's strip he re-ran today.

[Zalatix]

113. I didn't see a "grab everyone's guns" message in the OP.

[pipoman]

3. Raise your hand if

you hate the 2nd Amendment and those who believe in liberal interpretation of that civil liberty so much you would make up a bunch of gibberish and act as though said gibberish is prevalent in society!!1!

[rfranklin]

5. 14 people dead is gibberish?

Your brain must hurt.

[DainBramaged]

6. And you made my point for me

thanks

[pipoman]

9. Nah,

you really didn't have a point other than, 'I hate guns and those who believe in a liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment11!'.

[DainBramaged]

10. Well we figured out where you stand pretty quick

there's NO such thing as a 'Liberal' interpretation of the Second Amendment. You either believe you're entitled to own every gun you can afford to the detriment of those around you, or you just don't need guns. It's simple.


Have a nice life.

[pipoman]

11. Oh, if it were only simple..

simplicity is believing that guns cause crime..that would be simple. No, these types of crimes are the product of the inability of most people to access mental health services, and/or drug prohibition.

The answer isn't where you believe it to be. All guns could disappear tomorrow and those with mental illness wishing to kill lots of people would still be in society unable to access mental health services.

The real answer to the overall crime in the US is attention to the causes, not the effects. Decriminalization of most drugs, dismantling the lost raygun's 'war on drugs' would do much. Most crime in this country is the product of illegal drugs. Decriminalization and using the tremendous funding being wasted around the globe to combat drugs, then using that funding to pay for mental health services and addiction services for anyone who needs those services, when they need them would do far more to eliminate these things than any losing gun control idea.

What do all of these incidents have in common? The person causing the violence almost always has mental health issues or addiction issues...neither problem has a solution other than waiting until the person does something illegal and is ordered into those facilities. If the shooter went to a mental health facility last week and asked for help, the help would not be available until he showed them the money. If this person's mother went to the police or to a mental health facility and asked for help, the police would (and often do) say that he has to commit a criminal act before they could do anything, and the mental health facility would say, 'show us the money'.

[whathehell]

20. It probably not "that simple", but I'll tell you one thing that is..

The fact of it being a hell of a lot EASIER to mow down a crowd

in a matter of minutes with a firearm than..umm..a knife?

How many, and how quickly, could the killer murder with a

knife or a baseball bat before his ass was taken down by

one or more in the crowd?

[pipoman]

26. Knives or baseball bats

may replace guns in some crimes with about the same effects. In almost every one of these random mass murder cases the killer has been planning their kill for weeks, months, or years...long enough to devise a way to accomplish their goal with or without guns. They almost always have family members, friends, and acquaintances who say they had alerted authorities (or someone) of the person's mental instability, but received no help. These incidents are the product of our flawed (mental) health care system.

[whathehell]

69. I'm sorry, but I think that's a stretch..

I just don't see one guy in a theater, having the time to take out,

unresisted, 14 people with a knife or baseball bat.

Of COURSE the jackass is crazy and I'm all FOR improving the access to mental health care,

but,

that alone won't do it...Mental Health procedures do fail, and the combination

of Insanity + Easy Gun Access = Chaos and Mass Death

as we see, over and over and over, and over again..

[LanternWaste]

77. Given the circumstances, the patience, and the righteousness of of one's cause, it's not that much.

"just don't see one guy in a theater, having the time to take out, unresisted, 14 people with a knife or baseball bat..."

Given the circumstances, the patience, and the righteousness of of one's cause, it's not that much of a stretch to believe that one or few men could establish a tapestry of 'chaos and mass death' much greater than what happened last night with little more than knives or bats. A small number of men armed with little more than box-cutters did that very thing, and murdered more than 3,000 people in 2001.

[whathehell]

135. Sorry...

not buying.

Comparing the highly politicized 9/11 hijackers, who supposedly wielded boxcutters,

in either "circumstance", levels and timelines of "patience" and "righteousness of cause"

to the apolitical, lone nuts from Columbine, Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois University

and now this, is, in my opinion, just one more stretch.

Keep trying, though.

[pipoman]

134. I don't see it either...that is just what I said..

the vast majority of murders are one person on another resulting in 1 death. Knives, bats, and a hundred other things can and would make that possible. There would be alternate solutions for those who plan to kill more people (mass murderers), they plan now...they would plan in the absence of guns too.

[GreenStormCloud]

38. The deadliest mass murders in the U.S. was done without guns.

1.) 9-11 terror attack - Weapons used were box cutters. About 3,000 dead.
2.) Oklahoma City Bombing-169
3.) Happyland Club Fire on March 25, 1990-87
4.) Bath School Bombing on May 18, 1927-45
5.) Jack Gilbert Graham, Bombed United Airlines Flight 629 on November 1, 1955-44
6.) Thomas G. Doty, Bombed Continental Airlines Flight 11 on May 22, 1962-44

[DainBramaged]

48. Yep justifying that gun aren't ya............you folks list those every time there is a massacre

never carried one a single day of my life. Not worried about someone coming out of the shadows to assault me. Sorry you have such horrible paranoia. If I lived where I needed to Carry a gun, I'd move. But I guess that is never an option when you think guns are the answer.

[whathehell]

80. +10

Why the fuck are people so paranoid in this country?

I'm a woman who's had one experience of violent stranger crime.

In addition, I've experienced two SEPARATE home invasions within one year

in two separate apartments within about ten blocks of each other

Needless to say, I moved from that particular area, and now

live in a secure, but not "gated" community, and still love cities and

walking around them using common sense regarding

time of day, etc., but I STILL don't feel the need to carry a gun.

The break-ins, by the way, were essentially burglaries and

did not result in any violence toward myself, but I WAS

present on both occasions and it was scary as hell,

especially the one in which I had to run TOWARD the intruder to get out my door.

[Mimosa]

114. Not everybody is so lucky

Check out some news articles on this topic at another board:

http://vincentandmorticiasspeakeasy14846.yuku.com/topic/7268/ATL-Woman-Kills-Intruder-Women-DO-NEED-GUNS#.UAnOZY6fvw4

[whathehell]

115. I'm well aware of that..

and some are even luckier, as they never experience

ANY of what I did, especially a physical attack from a stranger,

in which I actually saw my life flash back before my eyes

as I felt I was about to be murdered.

That being said, you may have misinterpreted my post as being

indicative of a complete "anti-gun" stance. It's not.

I have no problem having a gun for home protection,

and were I someone, that, for whatever reasons, was obligated

to be in a dangerous area OR, for instance, had to go cross country

alone, I'd have a gun for protection.

[Mimosa]

117. I gotcha.

I was thinking of DainBramage's posts at the same time.

There is a place for the responsible use of weapons for self defense.

Americans (especially in the south and in all rural areas) have always owned guns. But it wasn't until the 20th century in cities (first Prohibition of alcohol, then later the 'Drug War') that violent gun crimes soared.

[whathehell]

131. Okay, Thanks...

I'd tend to agree with you on the South and the rural areas

and it does seem to be a much bigger obsession with men.

Wouldn't you agree?

Like some others, my husband thinks it's a "big dick" proxy thing

and that, to me, seems just absurd enough to be true.

[Progressive dog]

65. Relevance?

How about this. 620,000 deaths caused between 1861 and 1865 by traitors who mostly used guns. At least as relevant to the issue of whether some restrictions should be placed on guns.

[whathehell]

67. Yes, bombs are bad as well, of course

but I'd bet more people own (and walk around with) guns than bombs.

[GreenStormCloud]

73. More people have gasoline and matches than have guns.

The night club fire was started with gas and matches.

[whathehell]

75. That's nice.

but most people with gasoline and matches

aren't fucked up paranoids constantly

feeling the need for "protection".

[GreenStormCloud]

87. The point is that if you took his gun away he would still have easy access to other means.

Everybody had bomb making materials at home.

[whathehell]

116. I know what you're saying, but I don't think the

accessibility of bomb making materials is really the equivalent

of a gun in terms of "ease of use", etc.

If bombs were just as "user friendly" as guns, a lot more people

would be using them in PLACE of guns.

[Daemonaquila]

24. False claim.

"... to the detriment of those around you..." What a crock. Aside from a few crazies in the world who kill people with guns as well as all other kinds of weapons under the sun, gun ownership causes no detriment to anyone. Gun owners in my neck of the woods use them to feed their families, deal with distempered raccoons or rabid skunks, and recreational target shooting. Wow - apparently that's horrifying to some people. Yes, people should be able to have any gun, as daily tools as well as a check against our own government if the unlikely day they're needed ever comes. I doubt it, but I'm not going to castigate those who worry. I worry much more about the sheltered people who think guns are the problem. It's as tone deaf as Mitt Romney trying to talk about how the poor live.

[DainBramaged]

25. as well as a check against our own government

Dude, you really are on the wrong side of the tracks.

[Daemonaquila]

34. You presume that all "true" dems/progressives remotely agree with you.

So sorry, a huge number of us don't agree that our politics is defined by gun control, being vegan/vegetarian, supporting the prez vs. fighting for single payer, etc. that some individuals believe are TEH ONE AND TEH ONLY OMG!!!! touchstone issues to qualify for being "real" left. A lot of us are sick of the self-righteous purists who demand we should all be in lock step with their pet causes or get out. I disagree with you on one issue. But which one of us is running around presuming to speak for the entire party/movement about who is on the "right side of the tracks" if someone isn't in lock step with their personal agenda? Ridiculous.

[Tejas]

99. /thread

[Tejas]

98. How's that Patriot Act working out for ya?

[zzaapp]

102. HUH ?????

[sellitman]

14. Agreed.

Sad country we live in where it is harder to vote than to get all the guns you want.

[pipoman]

16. If that were true, it would be sad..

but alas...

[RC]

35. Then why is this country awash in guns?

Why is it so easy to get unregistered, stolen, or even untraceable guns? All it takes is money.

[pipoman]

41. All it takes is money to get

stolen anything. Unregistered because there is no registration in most of the country. And untracable almost doesn't exist...I can't think of a single mass murder by a person unable to get mental health services, which within days we don't know the origin of their weapon(s).

[kurtzapril4]

43. All applicants at the local grocery store

Are given an on-line psychological test that takes about an hour to complete. I fail to see why passing a psychological test that is at LEAST that long, and passing it, is not a requirement for gun ownership in this country.

[pipoman]

45. which other enumerated civil liberties should we subject

the masses to for the benefit of the fraction of a percent who abuse said civil liberty? A grocery store job refusal isn't at all akin to denial of civil liberties. As it is if one is adjudicated mentally unstable, they are disqualified from gun ownership...alas, the adjudication of such people is limited to people who have already committed a crime. In generations past, a friend or family member could petition the court for involuntary confinement of people believed mentally unstable and a danger to themselves or others. Now the court is so jammed with drug cases that the triage of cases has eliminated this option, while drug cases are moved to the top of the legal agenda. Our criminal justice system is broken as is our health care system and the results are tragic.

[kurtzapril4]

121. Well, if a psychological test

was rendered prior to the granting of a firearms license, it would probably eliminate the problem of the mentally unstable being given the legal right to own a firearm.

My point is that it is harder to get a part time job at a grocery store than it is to get a license to carry a firearm. And that's just wrong.

[pipoman]

132. No, that is part of living in a free country..

where civil liberties outweigh the whim of even the majority

Simply making mental health services available to anyone who needs them and reopening the petitioning process to family members who believe a family member is a danger to self or others, would accomplish the same thing. Involuntary confinement would go to NICs. The fact this isn't already the case is what is "And that's just wrong."

[DainBramaged]

22. I thought about adding that originally

and the more I think about it, the more I realize it's true.

[GreenStormCloud]

40. To legally buy a gun I have to submit to an NICS check.

You don't have to do that to vote.

Yes, a person can buy an illegal gun, but that is already illegal. I suppose you want to make it doubleplusillegal. After all, a criminal bent on armed robbery or murder wouldn't dare to break a doubleplus gun law, would he?

[Daemonaquila]

17. What a load of false premises.

The choices and behaviors you describe absolutely do not fit 99.99% of gun owners - it's like a freeper making crazy claims about the lives and choices of women who get abortions. I live in a part of the country where virtually everyone has guns, and this overwrought statement sounds like a sick joke. We don't need this leftie Rush Limpballs equivalence.

[DainBramaged]

23. Leftie? Really? Leftie?

Your magazine is empty dude. Wrong place to be calling us lefties.....

[Daemonaquila]

27. Wow, that's a lot of presumptions.

First, we're all lefties here, and I doubt any of us wouldn't embrace the label. So sorry YOU have a problem being labeled as politically left. Second, "dude?" Thanks, but I happen to be female. But of course it's more fun to imagine that anyone disagreeing with your point is some back-country bearded hick with a bomb shelter. Nice way to show disrespect to other dems and progressives that disagree with your overwrought take on a pet issue.

[DainBramaged]

31. Nice try, the last thing any one here worries about is taking up their guns against the government

why would that concern you ?


have a nice life. keep your powder dry and all of those gunnie sayings....

[LAGC]

56. Meanwhile, the vast majority of DU favors keeping the Second Amendment.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002979625

You don't speak for the entire DU community, let alone the majority.

[Zoeisright]

118. Doesn't mean they're right.

[tritsofme]

19. Setting fire to a field of straw men.

[dmallind]

28. That's a whole bunch of disconnected twaddle

Whose new pistol is more important than taking the kids to the doctor and what has that to do with those dead people who are so sincerely hurting your heart, but not somehow hurting your willingness to shamelessly leverage their deaths for your personal political shibboleth before they are cold?

What exactly is the link?

Oh what a Happy Land you must envisage if they were no guns to kill so many people in crowded venues.

[Lizzie Poppet]

32. Nice parade of strawmen.

Will there be floats and a marching band, too?

[GreenStormCloud]

36. You have set up false dichotomies.

In my case the kids have grown and gone long ago. But even when they were home we were able to afford all the stuff you mentioned for the kids, and a few guns too.

Cleaning a gun takes only a few minutes. No big deal.

I love life enough that I carry a gun just in case I need to protect mine from violent criminals.

[Chorophyll]

37. I never have, and never will, understand this country's fascination with guns.

How many more incidents like this do we need? This is the modern world, not the frontier. For chrissakes.

[GreenStormCloud]

42. Guns also save lives.

My wife has twice used her concealed gun to stop an attacker. No shots fired. As soon as the would-be mugger saw that she was armed he ran away.

[mac56]

47. So, why doesn't she just carry the gun and no ammo?

[DainBramaged]

49. Logic doesn't apply don't bother

if you live where you NEED to carry a gun, move. let the criminals kill each other not you.

[mac56]

107. +1

[Mimosa]

111. Not everybody can afford to move

That's easy to say if you have means.

And when people who had means moved to 'safer' areas they've been accused of deserting inner cities for sinister reasons.

DainBramaged, the premise of your OP is actually irrelevant to today's tragedy. An extremely disturbed individual did something calculated, vicious and insane. If he hadn't access to a few guns he might have strapped on a bomb as terrorists in other countries have done.

I grew up in the 1950s-1960s South. Almost everybody I've ever known, black or white, had learned to shoot at an early age. We learned weapons safety. And nobody, but nobody, I've ever known in my several decades, ever spent money they couldn't afford on weapons or ammo. Nobody I've ever known or heard of in the South ever neglected their family because they prized weapons more than children. *rolling eyes* However, I have known people who neglected their children because of substance abuse, a whole 'nother topic.

[DainBramaged]

120. You pick up your stuff and move. There is no excuse to have to put up with crime, period

so many defenders of the gunnies. Who is defending the dead today????

[Lizzie Poppet]

51. Because some idiot might call her bluff?

Obviously.

It is apparently the case that in most cases of defensive uses of guns, no shots are fired, but it's certainly not the case for all of them.

[GreenStormCloud]

70. Bluffing with a gun is good way to end up dead.

An empty gun is a bluff. Your body language can give away that you are bluffing. And sometimes street criminals are stupid enough to attempt to attack a person who is armed. That's when you need a loaded gun.

[mac56]

139. But.. but.. I thought that was the point of your post.

That the threat of a gun (though not fired) was all it took to keep the bad guys away.

I guess it is, but it isn't.

Still don't fully understand gunny-sack logic.

[GreenStormCloud]

140. The threat was real, not a bluff. There is a huge difference.

The point of that post was that my wife needed her gun to protect herself, twice.

[ileus]

44. I buy shoes and ammo

Kids are healthy right now, my son did have his football physical, and my daughter had her braces adjusted just last week.


We also paid for my wife to have an Icat after buying a new pistol two weeks ago. Looks like we'll be picking her up a new CC 638 sometime before her surgery in a few weeks.



Why do people have to give up one for the other?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

50. Also, if you spend your life on Internet forums waiting to defend guns when there's a slaughter

...something is wrong.

Thank you for the post.

[Iggo]

52. Yep.

[Twoface]

53. Gun Rights ARE human rights

sd

[Fearless]

54. Food and a home are human rights...

Good health and education are human rights. Recognition of oneself is a human right.

Guns are not a human right.

[LAGC]

57. Well, our Founding Fathers sure thought so.

And so far 33 states haven't voted to repeal the Second Amendment yet.

[Fearless]

62. No they didn't actually. The US Bill of Rights is not a bill of human rights...

Just a bill of rights. The purpose for its creation was to assuage the worries of Anti-Federalists at the time that the Constitution would create a new "King George" as president. It is a list of rights promised that cannot be taken away by government without due cause.

The term "human rights" means those essential qualities that people need to LIVE and to maintain their "humanity". Here is the current list of human rights from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

You may cite the right to "liberty and security of person" to promote guns as a human right. However this is not what security of person means.

"In general, the right to the security of one's person is associated with liberty and includes the right, if one is imprisoned unlawfully, to the remedy of habeas corpus.[1] Security of person can also be seen as an expansion of rights based on prohibitions of torture and cruel and unusual punishment. Rights to security of person can guard against less lethal conduct, and can be used in regard to prisoners' rights.[2]"

Rhona K.M. Smith, Textbook on International Human Rights, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 245.

[GreenStormCloud]

74. Self-defense is a basic human right.

Therefore access to effective tools of self-defense is also a right.

[Fearless]

124. No. Security is a human right. Guns are not harbingers of peace.

If they were the world would be a much more peaceful place.

Guns are a means for those who want power to take it. They are ineffective and unreliable means to gain safety. You are safe with guns only so long as your opponents are not safe.

Human rights are not for groups of people but ALL people.

[DainBramaged]

58. Sure, keep believing that, oh by the way, can GLBT folks have the right to marry??

I'd like your take on that right.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

64. You won't get an answer skinner banned the troll twoface.

If my dog had Two Faces like that I would shave her ass and teach her to walk backward.

Nyuk nyuk.

[zzaapp]

103. Yes, as long as they don't buy guns !

[dionysus]

71. sleep well sweet, sweet prince...

[patrice]

63. "If you hate life so much that all you wish for is the chance to shoot your gun at someone ...

... something is wrong."

This is more possible than many people realize. Human biology is complex; there is a great deal that can be potentiated there with little or no conscious awareness.

Most of the people I know with the most problems also have big time power issues.

[DainBramaged]

82. Most of the pro-gun carry folks I've met are also Pro-Life, until of course the child is born

pro-guns and being pro-life, that is fucked up.

[patrice]

84. Even if one agrees on certain clearly defined principles/values, FUCKED-UP confused thinking is

good grounds for concern and even outright suspicion about it's effects upon said, supposedly, shared values.

Freedom is a clear example of this fact. We share that value with some people, but some people also cause more oppression than anything else and then talk about "God's plan" while they weep crocodile tears for their victims, as they gloat secretly over their "Precious".

[Tejas]

94. The people that fantasize

that others will/want to do such horrible things are scary. Takes "wishful thinking" to a whole other level.

[arely staircase]

72. omg that is

horrible. who said that? what a psycho.

[Tejas]

83. "who said that?" gun-hating brownshirts always think those things.

They wait patiently until some tragedy occurs and then seize the moment to dance in the blood of innocents. They won't blame the injust system that encourages societal inequalities, they blame the inanimate object. You know, the one that crawls out of the drawer and tells you "IT'S TIME".

[arely staircase]

88. no, who said they love guns more than children? the op is refering to someone, but doesn't say whom.

nt

[Tejas]

90. Yes, some would call that "trolling".

Throw it out there just for kicks to see who they can upset etc. Sort of like in the GUNS forum when one of the trolls with RW tendencies posts a diatribe about how gunowners masturbate at the sight of a firearm or sit in the dark and stroke the 'barrel' of their 'weapon'.
So when someone posts some bile that accuses others of LOVING an inanimate object more than their own children, it deserves to be addressed.

[arely staircase]

91. so nobody actually said they love guns more than children?

this whole thing is a strawman?

[Tejas]

93. I saw no link in the OP, did you?

Maybe I missed it? OP looks to be the thoughts of the OP?

[arely staircase]

105. i just figured the op was referencing something people were familiar with. i didn't know it was all

all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[Tejas]

106. Yup, looks like someone fantasizing out loud.

[4th law of robotics]

86. If you use children as a prop to argue against constitutional rights

something is wrong.

/you mean you're going to let those people march in the streets? In front of our children?!?! If you love free speech more than you love your children something is wrong.

//you mean you're not going to detain those people without a warrant? What if they hurt my children?!?! If you love the fifth amendment more than you love your children something is wrong.

[Tejas]

92. I think such fantasies are unhealthy.

[DainBramaged]

119. Go count your ammunition. enough is enough.

Something is very wrong. The gun lobby wants everybody armed, so what happendd, 14 people died and 71 were injured.


The NRA got what they want.


Merry Christmas.

[4th law of robotics]

122. Why do you suppose the NRA wanted these 14 people to die and 71 be injured?

So there could be an even stronger push against gun rights?

If anything the people benefiting from this would be the gun-grabbers.

[HockeyMom]

101. NRA needs to be taken DOWN

with their money and their lobby. They have only ONE purpose. The promotion of GUNS, everywhere, and all the time.

[zzaapp]

104. By whom?

[Johnny Rico]

137. How, exactly, do you propose that they be "taken down"?

I'm curious.

[AndyA]

109. At some point, I guess the decision will have to be made.

Which right is supreme? The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or the right to bear arms?

[DainBramaged]

110. When does the NRA and it's hacks stop making excuses for these massacres?

When does life trump death?

[Zax2me]

112. What does that even mean?

[Major Hogwash]

123. Rush Limbaugh doesn't have any children.

He has no conscience either.

[sarisataka]

125. I do love my kids

I don't love my guns. They are inanimate objects; they cannot love you back.

My children are very aware of guns in the world.

I teach them a healthy respect for the power it puts in the holder's hand.

I teach them that, if misused, the gun can cause irreparable damage.

I teach them that whoever is holding the gun is responsible for it and anything that happens with it.

I teach them that there are people in the world who will choose to misuse a gun.

I teach them that as it can be used for ill purpose it can be used in many positive ways.

We are learning and sharing a hobby together. They are learning the you must be responsible in your life and any irresponsibility can have drastic wide ranging effects. They may grow up enjoying guns as a hobby in target shooting, may choose to hunt or may even choose to carry for self-defense. They may choose to support strict gun control. It will be their choice. I will only make sure it is an educated choice and not made out of fear of a mysterious object.

[apocalypsehow]

126. Wanna see some real hilarious dodging, ducking, equivocating, and logical pretzel-twisting?

Get the attention of one of our "pro-gun progressives" and put this query to them:

If President Obama is re-elected, it is likely he will get the chance to appoint at least two new liberal Supreme Court justices, plus replace at least one of the conservative justices. That new lineup will undoubtedly over-rule both Heller and its subsequent jurisprudence, interpreting the Second amendment once again as the Founders intended it: a 'collective' right, not an individual one. Knowing that, do you support his re-election, and do you intend to vote for him? Please answer 'yes' or 'no' to both questions; thanks.

One of the longest sub-threads I've ever seen spun out in my life was predicated on a version of that question; there was, of course, no straight-forward 'yes' or 'no'. It was a lot of hollering about the "unfairness" of the question and so on, and it was very telling, by the end of it, about where most of our "pro-gun progressives" are actually coming from.


Edit: grammar.

[Major Hogwash]

133. You magnificent bastard!

Yeah, one discussion I was having a few years ago in the nether regions with the knuckle scrappers one time lead to someone screaming about how "Heller, Heller" had decided it all.
So, I said, well, for now. We'll just get 2 more Supreme Court Justices appointed who see it our way, and they'll throw Heller out.

I guess he never thought about that scenario.

The guy screaming "Heller, Heller" didn't even reply back to me.
In fact, he quit posting in the nether region altogether.

[TheKentuckian]

136. Do these stalking horses and strawmen have names?

Are you aware of some prevalent issue with people buying guns rather than taking their kid to the doctor or getting them shoes? Do you have some stats or is this just high pitched emotional crying out?

[DainBramaged]

138. Don't you have a barrel to polish?

[TheKentuckian]

141. Nope. Are you off your meds? The emotional fixation on figments isn't healthy

you've invented all of these people just flog some rant.

[DainBramaged]

142. Meh

I found a great deal on gun polish for you

http://www.sinclairintl.com/.aspx/pid=33062/Product/Iosso-GunBrite-Gun-Polish