BF2S Forums Arizona Congresswoman Shot

Anyway in a vain attempt to bring the thread back on-course;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12177518

report of Obamas speech and the memorial ceremony - most interesting was this quote;

BBC wrote:

"But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized - at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do - it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds."

indication he doesn't blame anyone except the gunman?

Anyway by all other accounts it was a rather touching ceremony

/back to generic guns r evul (dey turk ur guns) thread #384578745

lowing wrote:

west-phoenix-az wrote:

One major problem I have with classes, registration and permits is the costs and time involved. It's a right in this country, you shouldn't have to pay to exercise your right. Some people don't have the time or money to jump through the hoops. Just because they can't put aside the time or money doesn't mean they don't have a legitimate need for a firearm. The gun and ammo costs enough as it is. Lets say your sister had a bad break up with her boyfriend and suddenly feels the need for a firearm. You should be able to give or loan one of yours. Under the law in many places you'd both be breaking the law...... and that ain't right. Plus the government has no business knowing what guns I own, it only makes it easier for them to take them away if they feel the need.

Well even though I agree owning a firearm for  a "good reason" like self defense is a right of a law abiding citizen, that right is steeped in responsibility.  Unfortunately just because you might not have ever broken the law, does not necessarily prove you are responsible. You can be an idiot and not be a criminal. I do not want idiots running around with weapons any more than I want a criminal running around with weapons. So I can tolerate gun control in the sense that idiots and criminals are weeded out and education on safety and gun laws are mandatory. If nothing else, it might further protect a citizen, if only from himself, or an unlawful shooting.

More to the point, if you can't afford a class on how to properly use a weapon, what are you doing buying a weapon in the first place?

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

west-phoenix-az wrote:

One major problem I have with classes, registration and permits is the costs and time involved. It's a right in this country, you shouldn't have to pay to exercise your right. Some people don't have the time or money to jump through the hoops. Just because they can't put aside the time or money doesn't mean they don't have a legitimate need for a firearm. The gun and ammo costs enough as it is. Lets say your sister had a bad break up with her boyfriend and suddenly feels the need for a firearm. You should be able to give or loan one of yours. Under the law in many places you'd both be breaking the law...... and that ain't right. Plus the government has no business knowing what guns I own, it only makes it easier for them to take them away if they feel the need.

Well even though I agree owning a firearm for  a "good reason" like self defense is a right of a law abiding citizen, that right is steeped in responsibility.  Unfortunately just because you might not have ever broken the law, does not necessarily prove you are responsible. You can be an idiot and not be a criminal. I do not want idiots running around with weapons any more than I want a criminal running around with weapons. So I can tolerate gun control in the sense that idiots and criminals are weeded out and education on safety and gun laws are mandatory. If nothing else, it might further protect a citizen, if only from himself, or an unlawful shooting.

More to the point, if you can't afford a class on how to properly use a weapon, what are you doing buying a weapon in the first place?

Well I was thinking that as well, just didn't put it in.

krazed wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

krazed wrote:

which is why he didn't pull it and start firing


hey sheep, let me know when someone punches your girlfriend in the face and pulls a knife on you, have fun cowering in fear

unfortunately thanks to people like you, i no longer have the option to defend myself with reasonable means... so i lost everything i was carrying that night and had to watch her cry and bleed

personally i would rather have shot that piece of shit to death than have to try to comfort her at the hospital after.... but hey whatever floats your boat buddy

Ok, so you value human life less than the contents of your wallet? Last time I got in a fight I broke the guys nose and cheekbone, it was unnecessary. If anyone in that situation had a gun someone probably would have died, why exactly does that make the situation any better? Murder is somehow justified by your emotional state at the time?

edit: absolutely nothing you said actually constitutes "reasonable means" shooting someone and killing them is in no way reasonable. How does make you any different from the guy who went on this spree in the first place?

my wallet? who cares

beating possibly stabbing a loved one? death is what you should expect to face

'Course there is always sweeping the legs of the knife guy unexpectedly, anyone can do that if they know the technique and it isn't too hard. And then run.

Last edited by War Man (2011-01-12 21:38:26)

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

He could only say that after the attempt to pin this on the conservative movement failed. It could not be pinned on the tea party, so he must talk as if it was no ones fault. Obama does not have a history of NOT passing judgement before all the facts are in.

Oh come on, Bush invaded two countries before the facts were in.

Start another thread about it, and we will discuss it.

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

west-phoenix-az wrote:

One major problem I have with classes, registration and permits is the costs and time involved. It's a right in this country, you shouldn't have to pay to exercise your right. Some people don't have the time or money to jump through the hoops. Just because they can't put aside the time or money doesn't mean they don't have a legitimate need for a firearm. The gun and ammo costs enough as it is. Lets say your sister had a bad break up with her boyfriend and suddenly feels the need for a firearm. You should be able to give or loan one of yours. Under the law in many places you'd both be breaking the law...... and that ain't right. Plus the government has no business knowing what guns I own, it only makes it easier for them to take them away if they feel the need.

Well even though I agree owning a firearm for  a "good reason" like self defense is a right of a law abiding citizen, that right is steeped in responsibility.  Unfortunately just because you might not have ever broken the law, does not necessarily prove you are responsible. You can be an idiot and not be a criminal. I do not want idiots running around with weapons any more than I want a criminal running around with weapons. So I can tolerate gun control in the sense that idiots and criminals are weeded out and education on safety and gun laws are mandatory. If nothing else, it might further protect a citizen, if only from himself, or an unlawful shooting.

More to the point, if you can't afford a class on how to properly use a weapon, what are you doing buying a weapon in the first place?

Grey area methinks, whats to say of people being taught how to shoot and proper firearms responsibility by family, boy scouts, etc.  What does my bank account have to do with firearms knowledge? Are you willing to have citizens be type certified on guns, as a pilot is on airplanes? Sounds like a surefire way for the costs of firearm ownership to explode. Don't let the gun haters get onto this, gov't could easily misuse such a program, which started with the best intentions.

There are already places to go for proficiency...most owners would also teach you for free, provided you paid for the ammo.

Ed. I guess what I mean is, how would it help if its not mandated?

Last edited by mcjagdflieger (2011-01-12 22:09:40)

you just need to lighten up and stop being an uptight old man. go post in the other fourms like ee/tech/music.

Kmar wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kmar wrote:

I was trying to be courteous. First of all, originally, I wasn't even talking to you. I was adding information regarding the law with regards to what Teds said earlier. The truth matters, despite your personal agenda and interpretation of it. The word lowing didn't even enter my mind when replying to him. However, you're so confrontational, and perhaps attention starved, that you take every word on this forum as a direct insult to your opinion.

I am sorry, what did I miss? YOu told me I was wrong and to accept it.. I merely asked to be shown how I was wrong, then I linked to where I showed where I got my information.

Highlighted for comprehension. Now, when you said that you doubted that they were allowed concealment I pointed out that they were.  I did not say why they were or were not allowed ccw. Your speculation was wrong in that regard.

no, you "pointed out" nothing, you told me they were. I pointed out in a link that they were not allowed to own fire arms for self defense. Now if you want to really point out where they are allowed to own a fire arm for self defense let alone CCW by all means do so.

FatherTed wrote:

Anyway in a vain attempt to bring the thread back on-course;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12177518

report of Obamas speech and the memorial ceremony - most interesting was this quote;

BBC wrote:

"But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized - at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do - it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds."

indication he doesn't blame anyone except the gunman?

Anyway by all other accounts it was a rather touching ceremony

/back to generic guns r evul (dey turk ur guns) thread #384578745

I don't listen to Obama... Especially for comforting.

I remember the ft hood shit head and him flat out telling people not to blame islam.  He should have come out and said conservatism had nothing to do with this tragedy.

presidentsheep wrote:

Pug wrote:

Ahh, so you don't like your argument now?

Fuck you're retarded. Find me statistics that prove that seatbelts kill as many people as guns and i'll advocate regulating their use to.
Can any of you gun nuts form a cohesive argument that doesn't consist of justifying something on a mixture of fear/bravado then just changing the goal posts to suit you.

No, common logic.

What you are missing is that the primary reason for owning a gun is self defence to increase safety.  It's a tool for safety like a seat belt.  You are advocating that guns should be banned because there's no need for self defence.  Aka, there is no need to increase one's safety.  You've even stated that if you aren't in that situation it's not required.  Well, albeit that's true to some point, criminals aren't going to agree to not put you in that situation.  Aka, I'm not going to wear a seat belt, because there's no possible way someone else is going to cause an accident when I'm driving.

I've already stated the problem:
1) How did this guy get a gun
2) Lack of security at the event

It doesn't matter what was used in the assassination - it's about restricting the assassin's access and opportunities.

13/f/taiwan wrote:

you just need to lighten up and stop being an uptight old man. go post in the other fourms like ee/tech/music.

shut up

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Pug wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Fuck you're retarded. Find me statistics that prove that seatbelts kill as many people as guns and i'll advocate regulating their use to.
Can any of you gun nuts form a cohesive argument that doesn't consist of justifying something on a mixture of fear/bravado then just changing the goal posts to suit you.

No, common logic.

What you are missing is that the primary reason for owning a gun is self defence to increase safety.  It's a tool for safety like a seat belt.  You are advocating that guns should be banned because there's no need for self defence.  Aka, there is no need to increase one's safety.  You've even stated that if you aren't in that situation it's not required.  Well, albeit that's true to some point, criminals aren't going to agree to not put you in that situation.  Aka, I'm not going to wear a seat belt, because there's no possible way someone else is going to cause an accident when I'm driving.

I've already stated the problem:
1) How did this guy get a gun
2) Lack of security at the event

It doesn't matter what was used in the assassination - it's about restricting the assassin's access and opportunities.

At this point we're just banging our head on the wall trying to convey our beliefs and opinions.  This kid is smugly ignorant and unwilling to accept the explanations of reality.

The same can be said of my beliefs and opinions, I live in a society where guns aren't used or needed in self defence. Yet somehow that makes me the ignorant one? Try to get that your country is not the only one on the planet.