Guns

[Poet Laureate]

Originally Posted by sue_nami

IMHO No matter how we wish and think we wouldn't be prejudiced against someone, I think we all make decisions on who we like or want to be friendly with depending on how attracted we are to their mind (ie beliefs as well) as well as their body. since what is at stake is my very livelihood, and the potential client might chose me and give me money I would want to do all I can do to alienate as few as possible by keeping my mouth shut on issues that would really move someone one way or another. I am overflowing with opinions but chose not to share the ones that would scare off potential clients in a forum like this. what good would it do me to be viewed as that opinionated loud mouth old broad even if it is true, hahaha.

Wow! This is gonna look sarcastic, and I don't mean it to, so bear with me please. Do you understand the male of the species so little as that? If we want to jump someone, we (men in general) don't care whether she's pro choice, a gun-totin' redneck, anti gay marriage, a supporter of capital punishment, or whatever. We honestly don't. I think in your desire not to offend (which is commendable and understandable) you may be giving the guys too much credit for being rational beings, when the reality is this: when we want to do a gal, we want to do her regardless of her politics. In the civilian world I might pass on a lady who is vocal in support of something I detest, or who I believe might not be the most politically correct person to have at my side at the office Christmas party, but in the hobby world I, and I suspect most of my brethren, care about three things, and three things only:
1) Am I attracted to her;
2) Do I like what's on her menu;
3) Can I live with her rates?
That's pretty much it for us.

[Smokin Joe]

Originally Posted by endurance

defend ourselves from tyranny

I find it humorous when one uses the tired old argument that pistols can actually be used to successfully defend against tyranny. Its almost as if its actually believed. Of course some people want it to be true but they know pistols and such offer next to no protection against the tyranny of a government armed by today's standards.

[frustr8d]

Originally Posted by sue_nami

I knew this would be an interesting topic and there would be a plethora of responses from one end of the spectrum to the other. I enjoyed reading all the opinions here. One can't help but notice the providers can't contribute to the conversation much, I would presume because of their fear of alientating future clients with opinions different than their own. out of curiousity, if a provider came out with an totally different opinion than you on a subject like this, would u perhaps not see her due to her personal politicaL beliefs she dared to post in this forum?

I love a good debate; clothing is optional!

I grew up in politics so my experience is that adversaries sometimes make the best friends/lovers. Opposites attract.

I was kind of hoping there would be more provider input on this one.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by thisguy23

If you are worried about being safe in your home and think removing a gun from house will do that then go ahead.

I open up the Austin American Statesman and on page 2 is a story about a 15 year old boy in New Mexico who took his father's .22-caliber gun from the closet, shot to death his mother, father, and 3 siblings.

Each person should make up their own minds as to whether or not they need a gun in their home for protection, but my decision is easy -- NO WAY IN HELL.

[sundog]

Originally Posted by austxjr

So RR, you just as soon be in the room with a slasher who had a knife as a shooter with an AR-15 or AK-47 that had a 30 round clip or tow?

In the Gun Appreciation gatherings yesterday there were five accidental shootings among supposedly trained gun enthusiasts. The one thing we do know is where there are more guns whether it is in the home or in a society there are more shootings and deaths than when there are few or no guns around. When there are lots and lots of guns and ammo there are lots of shootings and deaths. Yes, people can be killed with lots of other things like bats, knives, cars, etc.. but not nearly so easily. As one graphic stated I challenge any of you hunters to go out and kill a deer, duck or hog with a bat, car or knife.

I honestly don't think that the an assault weapons ban will do all that much (except perhaps over time) after all it is pistols that cause most of the death and mayhem. Universal background checks and bans of large capacity magazines (along with buy backs) will help some over time. If we could guarantee the owners (were sane) could just keep their guns and ammo locked up securely and we could find some way to take guns away from mentally unstable people until they are well it might do more.

I don't hear the gun lobby, 2nd Amendment fanatics or even many gun owners (except perhaps myself) coming up with any alternative strategies that might be effective. Their nearly universal response is that they don't want anything at all done. IMHO it is unconscionable to not try some things to limit the violence and it is very sad that it took the killing of first graders to really get started. Teenagers, college students and innocent movie goers just weren't enough. What does that say about us as a society? Not much I'm afraid.

I absolutely concur. The 2d Amendment had a completely different connotation in 1787 than it does now. Our nation was in turmoil - a significant portion of our population wasn't thrilled with leaving the rule of England, and there were some pretty pissed-off natives in the territories who weren't all that thrilled with the 'illegal aliens' who were clearing their forests, killing their game, scalping them (yes, we started it) and running off with their women.

Since then mankind has engaged in an arms race that has taken us from flintlocks (the weapon du jour of the 'well regulated militia') to percussion cap weapons, to revolvers and repeating weapons, to the Gatling gun, the Browning .30 cal machine gun, the GE mini-gun, atomic and hydrogen bombs, and so on. It's fatalistic one-upsmanship. The Kingston Trio had a song in the early 60's called "The Merry Minuet" that describes it to a tee.

In the large view, there are too many people, not enough water, not enough food, not enough productive jobs, too much global dependency, an economic system enslaved by fossil fuels and their resource owners, and enough guns for the have-nots and the haves to have at it, so to speak...which is exactly what is happening in the rest of the world, and right here at home, too.

The real issue, as austxjr stated, is the absence of meaningful dialogue on real solutions to the real problems that I humbly tried to state above. I am as American as apple pie (or cherry pie, if you consider we were neighbors of the Washingtons and the Lees), we've been in North American since the late 1600's (so I guess we were some of the original illegal aliens), I am a combat veteran (yes, I killed for my Commander in Chief) and I am a student of the roots of conflict. To solve this problem we have to solve the problems of the entire world, and that starts with promoting regional and national self-sufficiency. Let's figure that one out...

[endurance]

That's not as funny as someone who admits he doesn't understand how resistances and assymetrical warfare works constantly commenting about exactly that.

Of course you would include rifles in that too. You should go back in time, even recent history when we had larger scale weapons and tell those that successfully resisted occupations that it doesn't work.

As a matter of fact, since those weapons are so useless, you should just tell our military to get rid of them too - there's no need for any of that, smokin joe says so...

Complete ignorance.

Originally Posted by Smokin Joe

I find it humorous when one uses the tired old argument that pistols can actually be used to successfully defend against tyranny. Its almost as if its actually believed. Of course some people want it to be true but they know pistols and such offer next to no protection against the tyranny of a government armed by today's standards.

[winemaker]

Here's a great analogy

Alcohol related deaths are in the 10's of thousands a year.
So anyone who drinks alcohol should not be allowed to drive a car or have a license.

You CANNOT legislate irrationality or prevent an irrational person from going bonkers.

This is about the concept of liberty and who wants to sacrifice liberty for the delusion of safety.

[carpenter]

Once again the libs would rule our lifes. Lets remember one of the most horrific mass shootings was here in Austin by Charles Whitman with a "Deer" rifle on top of the TU tower. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. The second admendment was added because the founders know that sooner or later a goverment becomes corrupt and must be overthrown by the people. That is an historical fact and we may not be to far away from that repeating itself. Perhaps I wax so because today was the day that LBJ kicked the bucket, and if ever was someone caught up in guns and conspricay it was ol LBJ. Just read a blip from Bobby Kennnedy's son saying his father thought the Warren Comission was a sham, but that the country had too many bigger issues to deal with at the time, so he stayed the course. Of course what did that get him? If you think that this goverment is not corrupt, then you had better go to Russia.

[Little Monster]

[endurance]

Strawman.

False choices.

If you were against the patriot act and yet supported Obama who somehow matched Bush in the harm to the constitution you might label yourself progressive or liberal or whatever self-admiring name you can come up with.

[Little Monster]

Originally Posted by endurance

Strawman.

False choices.

If you were against the patriot act and yet supported Obama who somehow matched Bush in the harm to the constitution you might label yourself progressive or liberal or whatever self-admiring name you can come up with.

That's fine say what you want, but as far as I'm concerned the gun nut's are the one's with absolutely no argument and I mean NO argument regarding gun control or shall I say "lack of". if all you can come back with is a petty ass "criminals are still gonna...." (if that's the case then there's no point in having any laws), and some stupid ass over paranoid fantasy about a tyrannical government take over then you have no fucken argument at all! When someone starts spitting numbers at the gun pussies and proving why gun control is necessary, they wanna start comparing guns to rocks!?!, gimme a damn break! Rocks are nature, cars & scissors serve a different purpose than killing, an AR-15 is designed to kill humans TRY AGAIN! there is not one good reason as to why a civilian needs an assault weapon or high capacity magazines (what is the fucken deer gonna start shooting back?)!!! The gun nuts are the worlds worst about twisting the 2nd amendment in order to fit their arguments, and to sit there and try to point the finger at us is rather laughable. Gun control is coming weather you like it or not so just deal with it!!

[endurance]

"some stupid ass over paranoid fantasy about a tyrannical government take over"
Only the most oblivious could possibly not see what is happening with government today. That is you - and on your watch, you help those that get away with imprisoning and torturing those that try to leak war crimes like Bradley Manning, the government destroying people's lives like Aaron Swartz and arbitrary unaccountable error-ridden no fly lists that are to be inputs into the next restrictions on freedom. The list of injustices and destruction of freedoms in just the last few years is gigantic and you sit there and pretend that there's nothing to be worried about.

Of course with that out of the way there is no point in the 2nd amendment. If you can embrace losing your freedom of course it's ok.

It is people like you and the neocons both who have destroyed this country. Back when this country was formed you would have been a loyalist and in Nazi Germany you would have been one of the ones who stood by and did nothing because you noticed nothing that didn't directly affect you.

The posts are taking ignorance to the next level. Ok, we agree to disagree - I'm done with this pointlessness.

Originally Posted by Little Monster

That's fine say what you want, but as far as I'm concerned the gun nut's are the one's with absolutely no argument and I mean NO argument regarding gun control or shall I say "lack of". if all you can come back with is a petty ass "criminals are still gonna...." (if that's the case then there's no point in having any laws), and some stupid ass over paranoid fantasy about a tyrannical government take over then you have no fucken argument at all! When someone starts spitting numbers at the gun pussies and proving why gun control is necessary, they wanna start comparing guns to rocks!?!, gimme a damn break! Rocks are nature, cars & scissors serve a different purpose than killing, an AR-15 is designed to kill humans TRY AGAIN! there is not one good reason as to why a civilian needs an assault weapon or high capacity magazines (what is the fucken deer gonna start shooting back?)!!! The gun nuts are the worlds worst about twisting the 2nd amendment in order to fit their arguments, and to sit there and try to point the finger at us is rather laughable. Gun control is coming weather you like it or not so just deal with it!!

[Smokin Joe]

Originally Posted by carpenter

The second admendment was added because the founders know that sooner or later a goverment becomes corrupt and must be overthrown by the people. .

When I read the 2nd ammendment I don't see anything about corrupt government or overthrown by the people or anything about tyranny or assymetrical warfare. Its just not there.

It talks about a militia and the security of a free state, period.

Maybe all the other stuff being brought up is important or maybe its some stupid ass over paranoid fantasy about a tyrannical government take over. Whatever, its just not addressed by the 2nd ammendment.

[carpenter]

Did not say it was in the Admendment, however if you read about some of the founders and what their thoughts and ideas were, it is an easy conclusion for one to make, especially some of the writings from ol TJ. After all they had just overthrown a "corrupt" goverment, and were putting in place a new goverment, with as many checks and balances as they could to try to forestall a goverment that would become corrupt to the people it served. To the founders the "Miltia" was every able bodied male citizen.

[GoForWillard]

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
******** ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).