Assault Weapons Un-Ban

[Fonebone]

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
Bandgeek, I’ve removed the target off my back, so please stop firing away at me! I don’t know why you’ve such an obsession with me voicing my opinion on this matter in particular, especially when I’ve had the humility to say that I DON’T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THIS LAW TO ARGUE ABOUT IT![/quote]

OK, Right Side, I’m through being pissed at you. Are we friends again?

I will say that you correctly imply that you put a target on your own back. You came in here with cheap-shot sucker punches and then ran away. Odd behavior for someone who does not know about, or care to debate, an issue. Where was this humility to which you refer? I guess I missed it somehow. I am neither drooling to debate you nor obsessed with your opinion. However, you initiated the engagement, which would lead the average person to believe you DO have an opinion. I was therefore surprised when you declined to state it. And it was your approach, not you personally, to which my attitude was directed.

No offense taken, as only your kind tend to think that one can be too educated. I love how I’m consistently criticized for having ‘too much’ schooling!

First, what the hell do you mean “my kind”? This is the kind of condescending shit that makes people like me feel entitled to rip people like you up one side and down the other (usually quite successfully, I might add). Second, I am quite well educated, to the Master’s level, in fact. Now you may be well beyond this, and if so more power to you. However, there is a lot to learn in the real world, which is a place few college professors will EVER venture. If you accept everything they tell you as gospel truth, you have not learned to think for yourself.

And so they shook hands, dusted off, and went their ways…

[Right_Side_Up]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
RSU:

“Nor do I think owning them – even if I was well trained – would protect me if one wished me harm.”

You really don’t think that being a well trained marksman would help you if someone broke into your home with intent to harm you? I find the liberal mind quite fascinating.
[/quote]
If you’d like this to be the hypothetical example, then yes you’re right…I don’t think it would help much, unless I sleep with one eye open and my gun cocked with the safety off – not my idea of a good night’s sleep ZEB-meister.

“I love how I’m consistently criticized for having ‘too much’ schooling!”

Well…I don’t think it’s the education that bothers any of us. I think it’s more your immature analysis of every issue you have commented on that perturbs most. Just a guess however.

Immature why? Because you’ve somehow figured me out entirely? You’re full of it, ZEB, you can’t stand the idea of a hopeful, young, educated man with endless opportunity – probably because you’re so stuck in your stale ways.

[Right_Side_Up]

[quote]JD430 wrote:
RSU wrote,

" Nor do I think owning them – even if I was well trained – would protect me if one wished me harm."

Care to explain that line of thinking, because it has me baffled? Maybe you are a fatalist.[/quote]

JD, walking around “strapped” and ready for combat every waking moment of my day is not my idea of a good lifestyle. I don’t want that frame of mind.

Why are you all so paranoid? Do you walk through the ghetto to and from work? Do you frequent the hood for daily errands? Are dark alleys common hangouts for you all?

What are you all so afraid of?

(“Nothing, because we got guns!”)

[Right_Side_Up]

[quote]JD430 wrote:
RSU wrote,

" Nor do I think owning them – even if I was well trained – would protect me if one wished me harm."

Care to explain that line of thinking, because it has me baffled? Maybe you are a fatalist.[/quote]

JD, walking around “strapped” and ready for combat every waking moment of my day is not my idea of a good lifestyle. I don’t want that frame of mind.

Why are you all so paranoid? Do you walk through the ghetto to and from work? Do you frequent the hood for daily errands? Are dark alleys common hangouts for you all?

What are you all so afraid of?

(“Nothing, because we got guns!”)

[Right_Side_Up]

[quote]bandgeek wrote:
OK, Right Side, I’m through being pissed at you. Are we friends again? [/quote]
We never were.

[quote]
I will say that you correctly imply that you put a target on your own back. You came in here with cheap-shot sucker punches and then ran away.[/quote]
How was it a cheap shot? You were being hypocritical and I called you out for it. If you don’t like my wise-cracks, don’t be a hypocrite.

[quote]
Odd behavior for someone who does not know about, or care to debate, an issue. Where was this humility to which you refer? I guess I missed it somehow. [/quote]
I never initiated anything debate-worthy. When prompted to debate, I was humble in admitting that I don’t know enough about the law to engage in discourse of too much value.

[quote]
I am neither drooling to debate you nor obsessed with your opinion. However, you initiated the engagement, which would lead the average person to believe you DO have an opinion.[/quote]
Again, no, I didn’t…I essentially called you a hypocrite, that’s it!

[quote]
I was therefore surprised when you declined to state it. And it was your approach, not you personally, to which my attitude was directed.[/quote]
You might be a bit touchy then.

[quote]
First, what the hell do you mean “my kind”?[/quote]
Here I am either correctly or incorrectly am grouping you with the likes of some of the most arrogant and closed minded drones I’ve ever come across – ZEB, Chucksmanjoe, Bilt, rainjack, and some others. If you’d prefer not to be listed among them, just say that they’re too arrogant and narrow to be associated with…I’ll totally understand and apologize.

[quote]
This is the kind of condescending shit that makes people like me feel entitled to rip people like you up one side and down the other (usually quite successfully, I might add). [/quote]
Is this a threat? Well, I don’t own a gun so we can’t have a gun fight; I don’t fight because I’m not a neanderthal and I think simple web-forum issues over who said what first can be solved without anyone ripping anyone’s anything.

I’m not sure what it even means to ‘rip you up one side and down the other,’ but it doesn’t sound nice, and if this is the sort of behavior you “usually” engage in (regardless of your success rate), you should get your head checked.

[quote]
Second, I am quite well educated, to the Master’s level, in fact. Now you may be well beyond this, and if so more power to you. [/quote]
I commend you.

However, there is a lot to learn in the real world, which is a place few college professors will EVER venture.

This is certainly true. Some academics are dedicated only to theory – studying their discipline as deep as possible. These people, while often brilliant, are sometimes lost in the logistics of the world’s ways. I have never said otherwise, and have only been painted with a brush of blind acceptance by those like ZEB, who are desperate to criticize me in any way, and who, I suspect, is sincerely threatened by someone who opposes him without hesitiation. If you didn’t get this image from him, then you were simply reaching at the wrong straws.

If you accept everything they tell you as gospel truth, you have not learned to think for yourself.

Again, very true…and in my experience, professors tend to encourage and cultivate students to think on their own and formulate supported opinions.

[quote]
And so they shook hands, dusted off, and went their ways… [/quote]
No, we didn’t and won’t fight, remember?

[ZEB]

RSU:

One does not have to keep one eye open and one finger on the trigger in order to feel safer with a firearm in the house. Many times one will hear an intruder make a noise in the home (at the point of entry or shortly thereafter) and be able to act prior to being acted upon.

I am surprised that you cannot figure this one out. Unlike other issues that you comment on, and are way off base, you really don’t have to have to much life experience to figure this one out.

By the way, don’t give me to much credit for “figuring you out.” Not that difficult. Take one part immaturity. Two parts lack of life experience. Three parts never having worked hard a day in your life. Put it all together (along with some other issues that will be left unstated) and you have RSU!

Unlike some of the other liberals on this forum…you are just a kid. You can rant and you can rave because you have a keyboard and a computer. However, you still come off like a kid.

Nothing wrong with that we were all kids at one point. Relax… I’m still pulling for you.

[JD430]

RSU,

There are 2 million defensive uses of a firearm by private citizens every year. If you have a good head on your shoulders and some decent training, you can defend yourself well, provided you are not ambushed (and maybe even then).

I dont know what you have done in life so far, although Zeb says you are just an inexperienced kid. There is a saying about warriors preparing for war and praying for peace, and I wish all good, honest men had this philosophy. I would suggest reading an article entitled “A Nation of Cowards”. Its on the web, just do a search. It outlines the individuals responsibility to protect himself, his loved ones and other good people. It has nothing to do with being paranoid.

Firearms have kept me safe in my professional life a number of times. Even though I never leave home without a pistol, I have been fortunate enough to never need it in my personal life.

It says a lot about the life you have lead that you feel so safe in your world. I am glad for you and hope this peace continues for you, but please remember that all of us have not been so fortunate as to be totally removed from the violence of humankind. You don’t have the right to deny those folks the ability to defend themselves.

[hedo]

Well there is an old saying that I would rather have a gun and not need one then need a gun and not have one.

That being said I have unholstered my registered and permitted weapon three times in 20 yrs. Man did I need it when I did. Never fired it. Glad I had it. Probably saved my life.

Gun control…I could never support it.

[Right_Side_Up]

[quote]JD430 wrote:
RSU,

There are 2 million defensive uses of a firearm by private citizens every year. If you have a good head on your shoulders and some decent training, you can defend yourself well, provided you are not ambushed (and maybe even then).[/quote]

This maybe true – it certainly seems to be true in your case. I appreciate and respect that.

[quote]
I dont know what you have done in life so far, although Zeb says you are just an inexperienced kid.[/quote]
Yeah, but he has nothing to base that – or any of his claims about me – on. I’m not sure, but I suspect he might be a bitter old man.

There is a saying about warriors preparing for war and praying for peace, and I wish all good, honest men had this philosophy.

Makes sense.

I would suggest reading an article entitled “A Nation of Cowards”. Its on the web, just do a search. It outlines the individuals responsibility to protect himself, his loved ones and other good people. It has nothing to do with being paranoid.

Thanks. Perhaps I’ll look into it (if I have the time between running from Ivory tower to ivory tower).

[quote]
Firearms have kept me safe in my professional life a number of times. Even though I never leave home without a pistol, I have been fortunate enough to never need it in my personal life.[/quote]
Believe it or not, I understand. I know plenty of people who have permits and who feel the way you do. Though I don’t feel the need to carry a gun, I do respect it for the most part. The way the position is sometimes put forward, however, makes you guys sound quite paranoid!

[quote]
It says a lot about the life you have lead that you feel so safe in your world. I am glad for you and hope this peace continues for you, but please remember that all of us have not been so fortunate as to be totally removed from the violence of humankind. [/quote]

It really doesn’t say anything about my life. I’ve lived in and near some tough areas in my life. I was mugged once before at knife point. I just don’t feel the need to carry a gun. I was taught to be alert and aware, beyond that, if I’m attacked I’ll use my best judgment to determine how to respond.

You don’t have the right to deny those folks the ability to defend themselves.

I’ve never said I had the right, I’ve never expressed a wish to have the right…

[Fonebone]

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
How was it a cheap shot? You were being hypocritical and I called you out for it. If you don’t like my wise-cracks, don’t be a hypocrite.[/quote]

You dropped your stupid little bombs and ran. Simple as that. That was immature and unintelligent. Please explain how I am a hypocrite. Why didn’t you just come out and say it in the first place? A hypocrite is someone whose actions are inconsistent with his professed beliefs. I have been, and will be nothing but consistent. I have no problem putting up with your wise-cracks. Be prepared to be called on them.

Am I to understand that someone who disagrees with Right Side Up is an “arrogant, closed-minded drone”? Let me just make sure I am clear on this. How is it you are able to place yourself in the position of referring to others in this way? By their refusal to see things your way? In order not to be referred to by you in such an insulting way I have to join you in personally insulting them? Sorry Buckwheat, but this qualifies YOU as arrogant. Look up the definition of the word. I also do not care what you think of me.

You are the type of person who HATES those who do not think like you (and you probably also refer to them as the “haters,” don’t you). Speaking for myself, I could probably sit over a beer with you (if you are old enough, that is) and discuss issues on which we disagree. I have a number of friends with whom I disagree in many areas, but the key word is “friends.” It is OK to disagree. Once you resort to the type of name-calling I just read this morning you have surrendered. You are incapable of supporting your positions rationally.

By rip up one side and down the other, I mean verbally. Again your approach was, and continues to be, condescending and arrogant. You are a college kid at that magic age where you know everything. You will soon learn that this is not the case. By the way, with all this college education you have, I am surprised you have not learned the correct spelling of the word “amendment.”

Now, I would appreciate it if we could get back to the original subject of this thread, which you have shamelessly hijacked (“but I didn’t really want to debate this issue…I’m far too humble”). Please either say something relevant or go away.

[Fonebone]

RSU:

By the way, I do see by your discussion with JD430 (and also with me and others in your 2nd Amendment thread) that you are capable of civil discourse. I would be happy to engage in this with you, or any one else, agree or not. I do not enjoy fighting and arguing. It is more fun and interesting to actually discuss things, and not name call. I do not hate you; in fact you do appear to be intelligent. Again, the reason for my attitude initially was…well…YOUR attitude. You are perfectly free to call me whatever you want, but someone has to offer a truce, and I will take the initiative here and now. Even if we are not friends, as you have indicated, maybe we could at least be civil?

[Fonebone]

Right Side:

I will commence our newly civil discourse by asking you why you do not think it is appropriate for the citizenry to have the capacity to hold its government at bay. More people were murdered by their own governments in the 20th century than any other time in the history of the world - incidentally by leftist, socialist regimes. I personally fear the government that does not trust its citizens with arms. It is not that I expect the government to turn on us; it is that I don’t want it to be able to. Remember, Hitler was elected!

Further, with respect to the issue of crime, so-called assault weapons are used in a fraction of one percent of violent crimes (SOURCE: FBI), unlike what the Sarah Brady’s of the world would have us believe. It is OK for you not to like guns. No one is going to force you to have one. I am licensed to carry concealed, but I rarely do. I am a firm believer in the doctrine of personal choice. But “I don’t like guns” is not a logical argument – not that you are using it as one, but that is often the “anti” version of a logical argument, never mind the facts. It is all about how they “feel.” They don’t “feel” safe when the citizens are armed. The fact is, neither do the criminals.

[Vegita]

RSU -I dont know what you have done in life so far, although Zeb says you are just an inexperienced kid.
Yeah, but he has nothing to base that – or any of his claims about me – on. I’m not sure, but I suspect he might be a bitter old man.

Correct me if I’m wrong but are you not a 24 year old University of Miami FL student (25 in november right?)

This would qualify you as an inexperienced kid. I am in the same boat as you are except I’m already done with school. That being said you said you were exposing hypocrocy in your first post on this thread. This however cannot be true because you yourself claim to be inexperienced and ignorant of the full details of the issue at hand, which was the semi automatic weapon ban that ran out. If you have limited knowledge on the subject, how can you possibly know if a source that was posted was biased or not? Yet again we have a liberal who cannot just sit back and watch thier party leaders commit suicide by themselves on these issues so you jump in head first like a moth to the flame.

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

[ZEB]

bandgeek:

The kid eventually name calls everyone he disagrees with. You are a big man to offer an olive branch. I tried that with him several months back, only to have him resort to name calling once again when I disagreed with him on one of his many pro Kerry posts.

One last thing: If you want to stay on his good side (the kid is very emotional) don’t ever challenge him to stand behind his words-He hates that!

Good Luck,

Zeb

[Right_Side_Up]

[quote]bandgeek wrote:
Right Side:

I will commence our newly civil discourse by asking you why you do not think it is appropriate for the citizenry to have the capacity to hold its government at bay. [/quote]
I don’t know that I’ve ever said anything resembling this opinion. Could you explain further the sorts of situations you have in mind here?

More people were murdered by their own governments in the 20th century than any other time in the history of the world - incidentally by leftist, socialist regimes.

Perhaps so.

I personally fear the government that does not trust its citizens with arms. It is not that I expect the government to turn on us; it is that I don’t want it to be able to. Remember, Hitler was elected!

How would a gun collection help you or I if the government turned on us?

[quote]
It is OK for you not to like guns. No one is going to force you to have one. I am licensed to carry concealed, but I rarely do. I am a firm believer in the doctrine of personal choice. But “I don’t like guns” is not a logical argument – not that you are using it as one, but that is often the “anti” version of a logical argument, never mind the facts. It is all about how they “feel.” They don’t “feel” safe when the citizens are armed. The fact is, neither do the criminals. [/quote]

Agreed – “I don’t like guns” is not an acceptable argument.

I am a firm believer in the doctrine of personal choice.

Great point – and, perhaps, the crux of the issue and turning point of the debate at its core. Personal choice is the root of many great things, but I contend that there is a line that must be drawn for many. For example, don’t you/wouldn’t you frequently draw the line on your kids’ preferences? If your teenage son or daughter was interested in experimenting with drugs, would you resort to the notion that you couldn’t interfere with his personal choice? I think sometimes lines must drawn for the good of the individual and the good of the many.

[ZEB]

RSU:

I see, you look at government as your “big daddy.” They need to watch out for all of us so that we don’t hurt ourselves. (Shaking head)

The analogy of a teen taking drugs is very far off the mark! We are all adults here (well most of us) and we don’t need big brother banning weapons to keep us safer. In fact, in areas of the country where there is heavy gun ownership crime has actually gone down. What does this tell you?

Your ideal world seems to be a place where people are taxed at 75% (or more, I don’t want to limit you). Guns are illegal, and government tells you how to live. That place is not America kid!

[Right_Side_Up]

You’ve missed my point completely, yet again.

My analogy of a parent allowing their child to do drugs was to delve further into the notion of free choice, which I think may lie at the root of the arm-bearing debate. If you cannot see this then perhaps you should refrain from responding further.

Experimenting with drugs may seem like a good idea to someone. Objectively, one can see that drugs (depending) could probably do more harm than good to that person and the people that person interacts with. It might be, therefore, a good idea to interfere with their choice to do drugs. It’s merely an example of a case where one’s free choice is impeded on.

This happens all the time, so I think the blanket statement or idea that free choice under all circumstances is a good thing, might need to be reconsidered.

Free choice IS great, but I think there are cases where there is too much at stake to allow too many people to make bad choices.

Man, you are so desperate, ZEB.

[ZEB]

RSU:

I don’t accept your take on big government being the answer to this, or any other problem. Your thesis is that big government should protect us from having “to much freedom.” In your world to much freedom is a dangerous thing. I reject that on it’s face. I feel that the power should belong to the people, with only minor governmental restrictions.

If you are concerned with people being harmed then why not ban cars? Automobiles kill thousands on the highways of America each year. Now why isn’t government protecting us from this awful fate? Could be because an automobile is respected as a necessary tool in todays society. Guns are looked at by people like you as non essential. After all, you can rely on the government to protect you! that is your mind set, is it not?

As previously stated in areas where there is higher gun ownership the crime rate drops! If the government took this freedom from us they would in fact be doing us an injustice, and potential harm.

By the way, I was almost ready to congratulate you on your most recent post. Then you just had to attempt one more of your personal attacks. However, this time I agree with you!

I am “desperate!” Desperate for you to take me up on my challenge! (I’m Smiling).

Is it being away from this forum for three months that bothers you? What is it that stops you from standing behind your candidate?

[neeraj3000]

To All:
I love shooting…Although I have only been a few times, I think it is a ****load of fun. However, I am a liberal and in favor of gun control.
After reading this I am no longer in favor of the AWB … it is a waste of time.

RSU: You are an idiot

JD430: There may be 2 million defensive uses of firearms by private citizens every year (that number seems inflated) but here’s another interesting statistic: you are 22x more likely to be shot by a gun if you keep on in the house. (Kellermann AL. “Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home.” Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45(2):263-67)

Despite the fact that I LOVE going to the firing range and have nothing against guns (in and of themselves i do not believe they are evil) a sad fact of life is that people with guns kill people. Yes, in this case, i think the mistakes of a few (idiots who use guns for crime) unfortunately affects the rest of us (people who want to use guns for recreational and legal purposes)

Does the AWB really make a difference?
prob not

Do other pieces of legislation limiting gun sales make differences?
if properly written, yes

[ZEB]

RSU:

I see you have picked up another fan…

“RSU: You are an idiot”