Ban guns? I have ONE word to answer that notion... HALABJA

[cherokeeprogressive]

If you're young enough to have never heard that word, look it up.

Giving up your rights to the government means giving up your rights. GIVING UP YOUR RIGHTS. GIVING UP YOUR RIGHTS.

A government that marks you as subversive can GAS you if it's determined you and your community/neighborhood are subversive.

Are you listening?

Your elected representative might say today "Don't worry, we're looking out for your best interests..." Who's to decide what YOUR best interests might be? THEM?

Give up your guns! The world will be a better place if you do!

[NYC_SKP]

1. K/R (nt)

[flamingdem]

2. Look if we need to turn on our government we can get guns over the border

LOTS of guns.

[cherokeeprogressive]

10. That's a defense for the notion of giving up your guns to the government?

We can get more???

I gave you more credit that that.

[orpupilofnature57]

3. I'm in total agreement ,,the 2nd amendment

was before we had an army.

[michreject]

100. What troops did Washington command? nt

[orpupilofnature57]

102. The Continental army ,made up of the militia

Who's the militia now ? Like I said before we had an army, or let me clear it up,,, MIC.

[michreject]

104. And regular Army

[GaYellowDawg]

4. Really? Because how the fuck can your personal gun protect against a military gas attack?

Halabja. More like hysteria. Or horseshit. "Don't take away all our toys, the gummint will crush us immediately!" I thought the gun nuts were claiming to not be arguing from irrational fear.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

5. I'm a little confused, too.

Not only as to how a handgun is going to protect me against a gas attack, but also how it would protect me against the 82nd Airborne.

And on a philosophical note, why should I feel the need to protect myself against the people who are sworn to protect me? My cousin is any Army Colonel. Should I keep an eye on her next family reunion? My uncle is a retired Captain. Would an simple ankle bracelet be enough to keep tabs on him? And my brother served in the National Guard, so should I let my kids go to his house unarmed?

[GaYellowDawg]

9. Well, it's the traditional gun nut attitude towards the military.

Most of the time, they'll tell you how great the armed forces are and how they thank our troops for their service, etc., etc. Then somehow, when there's an argument going on about regulating guns, our armed forces promptly turn into a bunch of unquestioning robots who would kill American citizens en masse in violation of their service oath, just because a politician said to do it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

62. 1 year, 5 months, 18 days at sea. That's what my DD-214 says.

That's the time I spent on the USS America and the USS Ranger And the USS Saratoga. I was in the Red Sea when Quadaffi was sinking oil tankers in 83-84. It SUCKED.

"unquestiong robots who would kill American citizens EN MASSE in violation of their service oath"...

Wow. Really?

"Our armed services PROMPTLY turn into a bunch of unquestioning robots WHO WOULD KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS EN MASSE IN VIOLATION OF THEIR SERVICE OATH, JUST BECAUSE A POLITICIAN SAID TO DO IT"

That's what you think of the people who work 24/7 to guarantee your safety while you sleep?

UNQUESTIONING ROBOTS WHO WOULD KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS EN MASSE?

Is THAT what you think of American Servicemen and Women? Says a lot about you.

[GaYellowDawg]

68. Can't read for context, can you?

I was clearly representing the views of gun nuts towards the military with that bolded sentence, not my own opinion. Anyone with more than a couple of neurons to rub together can see that. Your reply is exactly how Ann Coulter writes. It is absolutely contemptible. If you were in front of me, I'd spit on you for it.

Now, let's follow this thing through.

You are the one who thinks his guns are the only thing protecting him against a complete abolishing of rights by the government.

The military is the only entity that could accomplish that for the government.

Therefore, you are the one who thinks that American servicemen and women are capable of such acts. I have said that they are not.

Your misinterpretation says a lot about you. It says that you are either too stupid or too dishonest to argue without misrepresenting your opponent's position. Every gun advocate on DU has to cringe when they see you argue, because they know that, given your gun ownership, someone as unhinged as you has to make virtually anyone on the fence lean strongly towards the idea of gun control. You have no idea how to construct a rational or logical argument to support your position.

[cherokeeprogressive]

77. "You have no idea how to construct a rational or logical argument to support your position."

Got me. You win.

I'm too stupid AND too dishonest to argue a position on any real issue whatsoever.

"Gun advocates" don't cringe when they see me argue. "Gun advocates" isn't even a point of argument in this debate. The right to keep and bear arms might be though. It doesn't take a "gun advocate" to argue that position. One need not be a "gun advocate" in order to argue the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Wow... you spit on people who disagree with you? Spit on me? Brush your teeth first... I say that because I'd hate to think you had to swallow dirty yellow teeth.

[GaYellowDawg]

82. You don't.

Or if you do, you haven't displayed the ability.

I don't make a habit of spitting on people who disagree with me. But someone who disagrees as loudly and dishonestly as you have been? Yeah, I'd have to consider it, and I wouldn't fear a bit for my teeth.

[cherokeeprogressive]

88. If you were in front of me, I'd spit on you for it.

[GaYellowDawg]

91. Good thing for your health that you're not, then.

[backwoodsbob]

98. spitting in the face of people?really?

he may have company defending himself

[Hassin Bin Sober]

79. What a bizarre post. That poster was saying the EXACT opposite.

In fact, you and your ilk's irrational "fear" of the US military are the people who insult our armed services by saying we must arm against them.

[TeamPooka]

101. Fact check: We have had Kent State, the Hooverville massacre and the Whiskey rebellion

so there is a history of soldiers being sent in against the American people and they have killed citizens during these actions.
Usually protest actions of some sort.

[cherokeeprogressive]

8. So now you're advocating MILITARY GAS ATTACKS in order to confiscate guns?

My gun cabinet isn't the only one on my street. THAT keeps those who think I'm not legally able to keep my guns from coming to my door to confiscate them.

So let me get this straight... and I'll go from YOUR RESPONSE..."How the fuck can your personal gun protect you from a military gas attack?"

You, my friend, are the scariest of the scary. YOU WOULD support a "MILITARY GAS ATTACK" upon me and those in my neighborhood in order to confiscate my guns, and those of my neighbors.

God forbid you get caught on a street corner talking shit about your government after that happens.

That's okay though... you'll FEEL safe, right?

[GaYellowDawg]

11. I am honestly starting to think there is something seriously wrong with you.

Maybe bold and capital letters are the way to go here.

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO MENTIONED HALABJA IN YOUR POST TITLE.

HALABJA WAS A GAS ATTACK ON KURDS, BY HUSSEIN'S GOVERNMENT.

YOU IMPLIED THAT GUN OWNERSHIP WOULD PREVENT EVENTS LIKE HALABJA.

I SAID THAT PRIVATE GUN OWNERSHIP WOULD NOT PREVENT EVENTS LIKE HALABJA; E.G., A GAS ATTACK ON A CIVILIAN POPULATION BY A PROFESSIONAL ARMY.

[H1]IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, DID I EVER ADVOCATE OR SUPPORT A MILITARY GAS ATTACK ON ANYONE, MUCH LESS UNITED STATES CITIZENS.[/H1]

I don't know what kind of torturous excuse for a thought process got you from being the one to mention Halabja to me advocating a gas attack, but holy shit, the fact that you are that hysterical and stupid and own guns is the goddamndest best fucking argument for gun control that I've seen on this board.

[cherokeeprogressive]

20. MY personal gun and those of my neighbors keep the government from running roughshod over not only

MY rights but those of my neighbors.

Hussein's government wouldn't have CONSIDERED a gas attack against citizens within its own borders if they were armed.

Gun ownership WILL prevent events like HALABJA in this country YOU FUCKING BET.

A unarmed citizenry exists at the pleasure of it's rulers. When those rulers are not happy, innocent people die. History bears this out.

Come take my gun. Come take the guns of 300,000,000 people and tell them it's for their own good.

[safeinOhio]

30. We live in a Democracy, not a dictatorship.

Big difference. If you fear the guberment taking away your shotgun, you have borderline paranoid personality disorder. No one is even suggesting the government should forcibly take everyones guns away.

[GaYellowDawg]

38. Oh, bullshit.

You don't have anywhere near the capability for firepower that our country's army does. One bunker buster, and your entire neighborhood is gone, and your guns and your neighbor's guns would have fuck-all to do with that. If you think you and your peashooter are all that stands between us and a military takeover of the country, then you are living in a complete dream world.

Do you honestly think that your guns and your neighbors' guns are a thin steel line that prevents a rapacious government from killing us all or having its way with us? If so, why the fuck are you here and not on Free Republic? They are the ones that think that the government is this monolithic, faceless monster slavering to enslave us all, held only in check by a peashooter in the hands of Joe the plumber. Or Joe the Cherokee who thinks he's progressive.

Personal gun ownership is not what prevents our army from running roughshod over us. It is the fact that we have an army that, on the whole, is full of good people who would be horrified at the thought of oppressing their countrymen and would refuse orders to do so. It is the fact that we are, on the whole, a people who respect the rule of law, not the rule of guns. You and your toys have nothing to do with liberty.

[cherokeeprogressive]

46. There you are, making a case for the government taking over IN YOUR FIRST PARAGRAPH.

THAT'S your "DREAM WORLD".

"One bunker buster, and your entire neighborhood is gone, and your guns and your neighbors guns would have fuck all to do with that".

"all that stands between US AND A MILITARY TAKEOVER OF THE COUNTRY"

I guess I live in the "dream world" that you think so little of.

I honestly think that my guns and those of my neighbors might make the gubmint think twice about coming to my neighborhood and going door to door to confiscate them. I do. There are not enough tanks, helicopters, or APCs to police 3,794,101 sq miles.

[riderinthestorm]

54. Jayzus, are you drunk or something? Stop the drunk posting, its bad for you

(go ahead mods and do your thing and hide this post but I'm actually worried for cherokeeprogressive....)

[GaYellowDawg]

61. Um, no.

That is a distortion of what I said.

I did not ever say, state, or imply that I wanted, desired, or dreamed for the US military to take out your neighborhood. Go back and read it again. Read it slowly. You might even want to try moving your lips as you're reading, if you're not already doing so.

You and your guns and those of your neighbors wouldn't make the army of Botswana hesitate, much less the United States Army. And let me preempt your next irrational response by saying, no, I am not advocating that the Botswanan army come to your neighborhood and kill you. I am saying that you and your guns aren't shit to an army. I'm saying that you and your guns probably wouldn't be shit to an L.A. street gang. I am saying that you vastly overestimate the impact of your guns and your neighbors' guns. I am saying that you and your stupid peashooter(s) are not the reason for liberty or democracy. Your gun doesn't count for shit, and your delusions of grandeur don't do a thing to change that.

You know what does count? What counts is that we live in a society in which our armed forces are made up of responsible citizens who would refuse orders to turn their weapons on you. I am endlessly grateful for that. The reason that our armed forces aren't given orders to take over the country has nothing to do with your gun. It has everything to do with the fact that the army would tell that politician to go fuck himself. And let me make it clear: I love the fact that our army wouldn't ever come attack my neighborhood, or your neighborhood. And I view them as natural allies of the Constitution and thereby the people, not the politicians. You can afford your pathetic dreams of resistance because you will never have to live them.

[Chorophyll]

76. This is some Freeper stuff you're spouting right here.

I mean, I'm sorry, I don't know you, and you have a much higher post count than I do, but your paranoia about the U.S. government would do a Teabagger proud.

But to address your point, there are strong gun control laws in the UK and the Netherlands and most industrialized nations, and so far those governments have not attacked their own citizens.

[cherokeeprogressive]

84. We don't live in the UK, the Netherlands, or "most industrialized nations".

We live in the United States.

Lovin' your style though... it's like you've never posted here before.

"your post would do a teabagger proud".. Yeah, that's not working any longer. It's no more effective than telling me my Baretta pistol is a substitute for my little dick. I have a little dick, AND a Baretta. The twain never meet.

Take your "some freeper stuff you're spouting right there" and use it on someone else in order to stifle discussion. It's not workin' here.

[Chorophyll]

93. I'll stand by what I said, thank you.

I recognize rightwing paranoia when I see it. I don't care about your Baretta or your dick. I'm just glad I don't live near you and your home arsenal. Good luck to you.

[elehhhhna]

29. that's like, unhinged

[elehhhhna]

21. you rock. great post.

[Tejas]

24. Have a seat over there with the genius.

Yes, resistance has been so futile in Iraq and Afghanistan, sure glad to have been set straight on that silly idea.

[Hoyt]

90. If we beat the military some way, you might not like who takes over with their guns.

[Logical]

94. Tell the afgan people they cannot take on the government. LOL, clueless! n-t

[Warpy]

6. There's a difference between giving up your rights

and restricting access to high capacity clips to the police and military.

There's a vast difference between common sense gun regulation and "gun grabbing."

All the guns in all the houses wouldn't stopped the slaughter at Halabja. The gas was fired remotely.

[GaYellowDawg]

19. Well, don't tell him that.

He'll just accuse you of advocating gas attacks to grab guns from citizens.

[baldguy]

25. In the simplistic world-view of gun-worshipers and other RWers, it's everything or nothing.

And the occasional horrific civilian massacre is just the price the rest of us have to pay - over & over & over again, apparently - so that annoying & vocal fractional minority can have their fetishes.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

97. There's also a difference between a "gun grab"

and a buyback program.

[Fumesucker]

7. The government already tells you what you can do with your own body in the privacy of your home..

And perhaps you could name a country that has a higher percentage of its citizens incarcerated than the land of the free?

[cherokeeprogressive]

13. The government DOES NOT tell me what I can do with my body in the privacy

of my own home.

Where do you get that stupid shit?

WHAT does the government tell me I can't do with my own body in my own home? And how would the gubmint know otherwise?

The rest of your post is as Mars is to pumpkin seeds.

[Fumesucker]

16. I guess you've missed the entire drug war?

WTF else is the drug war about than the government saying what you may and may not do with your own body?

[cherokeeprogressive]

23. The drug war won't and hasn't caused the gubmint to come to my door looking for contraband.

Not so hard to understand...

[Fumesucker]

33. So you're saying there's no such thing as no knock raids?

http://reason.com/blog/2008/07/31/mayors-dogs-killed-in-drug-rai

A police SWAT team raided the home of the mayor in the Prince George's County town of Berwyn Heights on Tuesday, shooting and killing his two dogs, after he brought in a 32-pound package of marijuana that had been delivered to his doorstep, police said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor's_residence_drug_raidf

While the Calvos were cleared of wrongdoing, the police were accused by the Calvos and civil rights groups of lacking a proper search warrant, excessive force, and failure to conduct a proper background investigation of the home being raided. Despite the criticisms, no action has been taken against the officers or their respective police departments. In August 2010, Sheriff Jackson stated, “we'd do it again. Tonight.”

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-16/justice/georgia.botched.raid_1_arthur-tesler-kathryn-johnston-drug-raid?_s=PM:CRIME

The city of Atlanta will pay $4.9 million to the family of Kathryn Johnston, a 92-year-old woman killed in a botched November 2006 drug raid, Mayor Kasim Reed's office announced Monday.

Johnston was shot to death by narcotics officers conducting a "no-knock" warrant. Investigators later determined the raid was based on falsified paperwork stating that illegal drugs were present in the home.

The incident prompted a major overhaul of the Atlanta police drug unit, and three former police officers were sentenced to prison terms for a cover-up that ensued.

[cherokeeprogressive]

40. How many houses on a street are you going to subject to NO KNOCK RAIDS?

1? 2? 20? How long is the street? Will those living next door have phones?

Gubmint people will die. I promise.

[Fumesucker]

41. Gubmint people die now..

[cherokeeprogressive]

51. For no good reason. Send them to confiscate the guns of American citizens? They'll die by the

thousands.

Knock Knock... Do you have any guns?

In the meantime my wife is calling everyone on my street.

Knock Knock... BOOM!

Tanks, helicopters, APCs... there aren't enough to cover 3,794,101 sq mi at once.

I have guns. They're locked up, as is my ammo. No one has any authority to even QUESTION me about them. I've broken no laws.

[Fumesucker]

57. If the law is changed to make your guns illegal then you will be breaking the law..

There won't be any knocks either.

Two words.

Predator drones.

Strange, it was amusing when Obama used that line.

[Tejas]

60. I bet Cheney is masturbating furiously to your post.

Fucking awesome, you should play the next Judge Dredd!

[Fumesucker]

63. How do you know I'm not in that position myself?

Just because I describe things dispassionately doesn't necessarily mean I agree or disagree with them, they just are.

[Tejas]

66. Doesn't matter.

[elehhhhna]

32. ...and that little disagreement about abortion...

[riderinthestorm]

56. What an inconvenient fact... nt

[Tejas]

36. .gov can 'say' or 'decree' all they want, but

ultimately .gov is irrelevant because they have no factual knowledge that a crime is being or has been committed...unless somebody snitches.

[Fumesucker]

44. Everyone is a snitch given the proper inducement..

And anyone who doesn't snitch has the full weight of the law come down on them, that's why low level dealers often get the longest sentences, they have no valuable information to trade for leniency.

Is it your position that the legality or illegality of one's actions is irrelevant in day to day life?

[Tejas]

59. You forgot to mention your price, DHS is hiring.

"Is it your position that the legality or illegality of one's actions is irrelevant in day to day life?"

I have no clue why you asked such a stupid question.

[Fumesucker]

64. Your misunderstanding of my point is hilarious..

The ostensible ultimate aim of the government with the drug war is to stop people using those drugs of which the government disapproves.

In other words the drug laws are ostensibly designed in order to control private and consenting behavior of adults.

Just because you can break the law and do something anyway does not mean that the government is not trying to control your behavior, only that the government is not yet totally successful at that control.

[Tejas]

67. You keep equating "trying/wishing/hoping" with DOING, so here's an exercise:

Pretend you're .gov, shouldn't be that hard for you, and "try/wish/hope" in one hand and "DO" in the other and see which one fills up first.

[Fumesucker]

81. Silly me, I just realized I'm engaging in a contest of wit with an unarmed person..

Have a nice evening!

[GaYellowDawg]

86. LOL! He wouldn't have to worry about wit control, would he?

[GaYellowDawg]

49. Really?

Snitches are the only way that drug use ever gets spotted or reported? What an interesting statement, drawn from an equally interesting intellect.

[Tejas]

58. Are you saying that's the 'only' way, because I didn't.

If you have a problem with reading comprehension then one only needs to mention it, everyone is here to help.

[GaYellowDawg]

70. Yes, you did.

Your post:

.gov can 'say' or 'decree' all they want, but ultimately .gov is irrelevant they have no factual knowledge that a crime is being or has been committed...unless somebody snitches.

If government has no factual knowledge that a crime is being committed or has been committed unless somebody snitches, then it would naturally follow that

Snitches are the only way that drug use ever gets spotted or reported?

You didn't say "unless somebody snitches or various other things happen", you said "unless somebody snitches." You mentioned no other alternative. You only mentioned snitches. It was a clear and simple declaration. If you meant something else, you should have written something else, instead of saying something stupid and chalking criticism up to lack of reading comprehension.

[Tejas]

71. Oh, correct, and it was a question that I asked you (that you dodged).

Well?

[GaYellowDawg]

74. Here's your answer.

No, I do not think that snitches are the only way that drug use gets discovered. You plainly said so, despite your immediate denial, and it was a stupid assertion.

[Tejas]

85. It was in the form of a question, no editing so good luck with your complex.

"You plainly said so, despite your immediate denial, and it was a stupid assertion."


ICP - Question marks, how do they fucking work? - /ICP

[GaYellowDawg]

89. Your original assertion about snitches was NOT in the form of a question.

Anyone wading through this thread would see as much.

You and cherokeeprogressive have fun seeing which of you can be dumber and more dishonest.

[GaYellowDawg]

18. Sure it does.

Are you legally permitted to snort cocaine in the privacy of your own home? No? Sound a little less like "stupid shit" now?

And Mars to pumpkin seeds? Really? When you hit the ground floor of stupid, son, don't start digging.

[cherokeeprogressive]

26. Am I legally permitted to chop up some lines and snort rails at home?

No.

Will your gubmint come to my door and bust me for it? Probably not. In fact, they haven't yet.

I'm looking at the ground floor of stupid, and it's a long way down. The only thing that separates me from hitting bottom is you and your knowledge of my home address.

[Tejas]

28. I think GYD's premise is that .gov can see through walls or some crazy shit.

Some people watch entirely too much TV.

[GaYellowDawg]

45. Perry voter?

Only someone that dumb could derive "government can see through walls" or other "crazy shit" from what I've written.

[Tejas]

50. Magic 8-ball much?

My apologies if it irks you that some of us don't give a flying fuck what you think .gov has "a right" to and what they don't. News flash for ya, there's no such thing as .gov "rights".

[GaYellowDawg]

65. If you would -

Please go back through my posts and find where I've assigned the government "rights." I will agree that a government doesn't have rights. News flash for you (nice Palin-esque "ya" in your reply, by the way): government does, however, have powers - and those powers are clearly spelled out in national, state, and local codes. The government does have the power to tell you that you can't snort cocaine in your own home. The government does have the power, should it find out that you're breaking the law in that fashion, to come take you out of your home and incarcerate you. Ever hear of possession charges? Not just for outside the home.

And some of us don't give a flying fuck that you think the law stops at your door. It doesn't, whether you like it or not.

[GaYellowDawg]

43. It's happened to plenty of people.

Plenty of people have had their doors busted down and been taken away for drug use. What makes you think that you're so special that it would never happen to you?

The only thing that separates me from hitting bottom is you and your knowledge of my home address.

You know, you're going to have to construct an insult that actually makes sense in order for it to have an effect. Of course, given that you can't reason, I'm not surprised that you can't put together a coherent insult. "Your knowledge of my home address"? Paging Dr. Freud, we've got a paranoia spill in aisle 3.

[Tejas]

52. Your obsession, er, concern has been noted...run along :)

[GaYellowDawg]

78. Yawn.

You can't defend your own statements competently. Why try defending someone else's? Honestly, the best thing that you and cherokeeprogressive can do for your argument is to shut the fuck up and let an adult make your case for you. In fact, based on what I've read, that's probably the best thing you two could do for your entire life.

[Tejas]

27. I have a ton of cocaine in my house,

you haven't answered how on earth the government is going to stop me from snorting it?

[safeinOhio]

39. Next thing you know will happen is

they'll pull you out of your own private car when you cross the yellow line and MAKE blow in the machine. Then throw you in jail.

[Tejas]

47. Don't go through Louisiana too much anymore but it was classic,

a very touching moment on the side of the interstate when the stormtroopers had to hand my shotgun back to me in front of their coworkers!

[Pizz]

12. This country will be so better off when all the old white over 50

conservative tea bagger types begin to die off! They can take all their
fucking xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, war mongering, gun loving
bullshit and go straight to hell. These guys are responsible for a lot of misery
in this world and the shitty karma that they dropped on this country will
unfortunately be around for many years.

[Iggo]

15. We've been saying that for fifty years.

They keep on breeding.

[Iggo]

14. All I wanted was a Pepsi. (n/t)

[Tejas]

17. I think I'll have a coke.

[Lizzie Poppet]

42. Just one Pepsi...

...and they wouldn't give it to me!

[Politicub]

22. There's a middle ground

Extremism about most things is often a poor idea.

[Loudly]

31. It sounds like you want to go to war with your government.

Been there, done that.

It was called the Civil War.

Never again.

[cherokeeprogressive]

53. Actually it sounds like you'd advocate OUR government deciding what my rights are OUTSIDE

of the Constitution.

[Loudly]

55. Our government as your fellow Americans.

We say you need to be curbed dog.

[Malikshah]

34. I have a few words in response: RATIONAL ARGUMENT!!! And Halabja isn't it...

I weep for a nation where an adult would use this sort of specious argument.

The U.S. is not nor can it ever be Iraq.

To use the example of Halabja as some form of bogeyman analogy is an offense to rational discourse.

The fact that it was used speaks more to the woeful lack of critical thinking in this society.

[Corgigal]

35. its a public health issue

The CDC estimates each gunshot fatality to cost approximately $30,000, while nonfatal injuries can add up to $300,000 in medical costs alone. A 2008 survey by the Public Services Research Institute estimates that the medical, judicial, and emergency services involved in firearm injuries and fatalies costs the federal, state and local government about $4.7 annually. If pain management costs, the loss of a productive member of the work force and decreased quality of life costs are added to the bill, firearm violence expenses can approach $100 billion annually, unfairly burdening taxpayers.

Guns hurt people, society and the economy in many ways, yet public health campaigns do not emphasize gun violence as a public health issue. This mentality has to change – we as Americans need to realize that in fighting for gun control we are also fighting for our right to health, and our right to life.

In other words, though the Second Amendment conserves our basic right of self protection, advocates also need to understand that fighting for this right is also a fight against others’ rights to a healthy life, free from the terror created by irresponsible gun owners.

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/2011/01/19/gun-control-is-a-public-health-issue/

[upaloopa]

37. You don't even belong in this discussion. This isn't about taking your rights away.

Your rant doesn't even deserve the space you use here.

Let rational people have a debate and find solutions with out your theatrics!

[dionysus]

48. someone just exposed themself...

[opiate69]

69. You almost have a point....

Except for the little inconvenient fact that private gun ownership was not illegal in Iraq under Hussein... And, in fact, Iraq has long been one of the most armed populaces on the planet.

[Bucky]

75. Facts...

You can prove anything with facts.

[opiate69]

80. D'oh!!!!!

[Zanzoobar]

72. It is impossible to give up one's rights.

When a squirrel is killed by a hawk, it has not given up it's right to life. It has only been abridged.

When one can take no more and succumbs to tyranny, one has not given up the right to liberty, it has only been abridged.

A right simply exists. It requires no other approbation than life.

Even if one allows his life to be taken voluntarily, one retains the right to life, liberty, and property.

[Cali_Democrat]

73. OP Fail

Iraqis were and still are armed to the teeth compared to other countries.

[opiate69]

83. The myopia is, frankly, astounding...

I mean, you expect that kind of ignorance from freepasses... Not from long time DUers...

[Tejas]

92. Iraqis, huh? Do they have a bullet button?

OP says .gov is FOS when it comes to wanting to ban whatever and YOU of all gunowners want to give him a hassle?

[triplepoint]

87. Been Watching Too Much "Cops" or ODing on Redbull...AGAIN?

jethro,

You're in the wrong movie on this one.

To quote Ebert:

"We've Seen this Movie Before"
JAMES HOLMES, who opened fire before the midnight premiere of “The Dark Knight Rises,” could not have seen the movie. Like many whose misery is reflected in violence, he may simply have been drawn to a highly publicized event with a big crowd. In cynical terms, he was seeking a publicity tie-in. He was like one of those goofballs waving in the background when a TV reporter does a stand-up at a big story.

James Holmes must also have been insane, and his inner terror expressed itself, as it often does these days, in a link between pop culture and firearms. There was nothing bigger happening in his world right now than the new Batman movie, and in preparation for this day, or another like it, he was purchasing firearms and booby-trapping his apartment. When he was arrested after the shootings, he made no attempt at resistance. His mission was accomplished.

I’m not sure there is an easy link between movies and gun violence. I think the link is between the violence and the publicity. Those like James Holmes, who feel the need to arm themselves, may also feel a deep, inchoate insecurity and a need for validation. Whenever a tragedy like this takes place, it is assigned catchphrases and theme music, and the same fragmentary TV footage of the shooter is cycled again and again. Somewhere in the night, among those watching, will be another angry, aggrieved loner who is uncoiling toward action. The cinematic prototype is Travis Bickle of “Taxi Driver.” I don’t know if James Holmes cared deeply about Batman. I suspect he cared deeply about seeing himself on the news.

Should this young man — whose nature was apparently so obvious to his mother that, when a ABC News reporter called, she said “You have the right person” — have been able to buy guns, ammunition and explosives? The gun lobby will say yes. And the endless gun control debate will begin again, and the lobbyists of the National Rifle Association will go to work, and the op-ed thinkers will have their usual thoughts, and the right wing will issue alarms, and nothing will change. And there will be another mass murder.

--Roger Ebert

[Scootaloo]

95. Oh for fuck's sake

First off, the Kurds were armed. In fact they were better-armed than any American civilian, since they were getting weapons from both Iran and Israel to use against Iraq. Did you know that bullets don't do shit against missiles carrying chemical payloads?

Think about it for a moment. If the BIG BAD TERRIBLE EVIL GUB'MINT wants to drop a bomb on your head... Smith and Wesson ain't gonna fucking help you.

Don't give me this "protecting everyone from tyranny" bullshit line anymore.

[hedgehog]

96. I depend on the Armed Forces of the United States to protect me from foreign dictators.

Also, guns are not an effective defense against gas, although the proper mask from 3M company may be a start.

[DCKit]

99. I've got two guns, they're over 200 miles away from where I'm sitting.

It's not the having, it's the intent.

I don't need to keep my guns any closer than I do my bible. That's the difference.

[_ed_]

103. Utter paranoia

If you think you can keep the US military at bay with your handgun, and prevent them from "gassing" you, you are a seriously paranoid individual. I'm starting to see the frame of mind behind silly gun nuts.

[Cali_Democrat]

105. So true

well said.

[L0oniX]

106. As an Indian you should know better than to step on a mound of angry red ants.

[RegieRocker]

107. Hmmm

Interesting