~ A Sad Story of Woe . . .

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brandon1317 said:
Just a FYI there is alot more to life then just owning guns. Your family and friends should be first on that list not guns but I guess you were raised a little differently then most.
Click to expand...

My family and friends are first on that list. Therefore, I am intelligent enough (as opposed to yourself) to realize that banning objects that can potentially arm others if used negligently, is not going to reduce crime or accidents. I am also intelligent enough to realize that the granting the government the power to license, restrict, or otherwise infringe upon, a constitutional right, is the most dangerous and irresponsible action that we Americans can afford to allow.
 
No one likes to admit but the government already controls and infringes what we do everyday and there is nothing we can do because not enough people will stand up for them selves. The 1% controls the government. Look at the occupy movement that just disappeared. And when none gun owners see gun owners talk like you guys did in this post then that is when they freak out about guns in general.

If pro gun people took more of a educating approach as opposed to a defense approach to the general public you would see more people accept guns every day. But when you say its just a accident that some one pointed a gun at some one and shot them your not helping the cause.
 
But Brandon, no one asks that pools be banned when there is an accidental drowning, or that cars be banned when there is a motor vehicle accident, even when the driver at fault has driven dangerously. Why are firearms any different?
 
Brandon1317 said:
No one likes to admit but the government already controls and infringes what we do everyday and there is nothing we can do because not enough people will stand up for them selves.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight. You believe that the problem is that not enough people will stand up for themselves. But, you also believe in giving the government the power to license a constitutional right, and the power to take away that right. Meaning, if someone is negligent they no longer have the right to defend their own life.

Do you see the irony here? Or, is it me? You can't argue that the government is infringing on our rights, and also that the government should infringe on them more.

You keep attempting to label us as the ones who give gun-owners a bad name. But, have you ever been out of that socialist shithole of a state? It sure doesn't sound like it. I would invite you to come experience life in a free state, to see just how wrong you are about that statement, but I feel that it is indeed better for the rest of us if you lock yourself up in MA where you belong, and never polute the rest of the free country with your anti-American, socialist, psychotic ideology.

Soon enough, when the weather warms, you'll be welcomed back at the drum circle by the rest of your occupy buddies, and you won't have to bother us with your anti-2A rants.
 
RichM said:
But Brandon, no one asks that pools be banned when there is an accidental drowning, or that cars be banned when there is a motor vehicle accident, even when the driver at fault has driven dangerously. Why are firearms any different?
Click to expand...

Yes I understand that. Do you think pointing and firing the gun was a accident? or just the fact there was a bullet inside was a accident. With out two thirds of the act that was intentional there is no accident.

How about a drunk driver who kills some one in a accident, still a accident they just happen to be drunk. Accident may or not have happened if he was sober. I have seen stories where drunk drivers have gotten in to accidents where they weren't at fault but since they were drunk were charged with the DUI and manslaugter just because they were drunk. I dont know the outcome but I'm sure they were convicited.
 
Brandon1317 said:
How about a drunk driver who kills some one in a accident, still a accident they just happen to be drunk.
Click to expand...

Don't they have those pesky things called trials for people like that? And when a judge finds they were guilty of like, manslaughter or something they go to jail? It's the trial part you seem to be missing.
 
Im actually moving to NH but that is besides the point. There have to be some checks and balances with everything in life and guns are one of them. Do you really think that any one should be allowed to walk in to a gun store and buy a gun no questions asked? At a min every one who wants to own a gun should have to take some sort of training as we all know guns are very dangerous. Would that be to much to ask and oh ya make sure they arent a nut job who plans on walking into school and killing evey one.

In the near future NH will be the same as MA. When the NH population reaches over 6mill then see how free the state is.
 
namedpipes said:
Don't they have those pesky things called trials for people like that? And when a judge finds they were guilty of like, manslaughter or something they go to jail? It's the trial part you seem to be missing.
Click to expand...

And in this case some action should have been taken against the shooter and let a jury sort it out.
 
Brandon1317 said:
That really scares me that you guys think that he should be a gun owner after that.
Click to expand...

I only think his rights should be taken away if he is incarcerated. Since the victim opted not to press charges, then what are you going to do? You're going to sit there and tell us "the state should DO SOMETHING!!!" [rolleyes] This is basically the ethos behind most gun
control. Not based in fact (or supported by natural rights) just emo BS.

You're obviously too dense to understand the ramifications of garbage ideas like "prohibited person", yet in another thread, you admit you are one yourself.... I'm trying to resolve that without my head exploding. If anything you should know better.

-Mike
 
But in your drunk-driving scenario, we still don't take away the right to possess a car after the state has imposed whatever punishment they see fit, correct? We only do that after multiple repeat offenses...

Again, why should firearms be any different?

It should be a VERY high bar that leads to withdrawal of a fundamental right, as it is for the non-fundamental right to travel.
 
Brandon1317 said:
And in this case some action should have been taken against the shooter and let a jury sort it out.
Click to expand...

Yes, it serves the public interest when the victim of the "crime" states that it was clearly an accident and they don't want to press charges.... [rolleyes] yeah, that's a really productive use of resources.

-Mike
 
Dr. G., just take out the off-topic posts, and let's continue discussing the bear-stopping power of a 9mm Speer JHP.
 
Brandon1317 said:
Do you really think that any one should be allowed to walk in to a gun store and buy a gun no questions asked?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And I will change my mind completely if you can demonstrate to me that gun control prevents crime.

Let me ask you this, do gang bangers submit instant background checks? Do they have any trouble getting guns? If not, then how are you going to convince me or anyone else, that background checks in gun shops are going to reduce crime?
 
Great job mod throwing insults. I have never seen a forum where the mods throw insults at people as much as you.
 
Brandon1317 said:
In the near future NH will be the same as MA. When the NH population reaches over 6mill then see how free the state is.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the amount of people. It has everything to do with the type of people. The exact problem is that people like you move to NH to escape the problems in MA. Then you vote for the same socialist, tyrannical policies that effed up your state in the first place. You are the problem, but you're too ignorant to realize it. We realize it. And, we don't want you.
 
drgrant said:
I only think his rights should be taken away if he is incarcerated.
Click to expand...

That is the best point anyone can make.

Brandon, if we don't consider this person too dangerous to be part of society where he has access to weapons, cars, sticks and stones, pools, chainsaws, lighters and matches, why shouldn't they have access to all of the above?

If someone is that dangerous to society, they should be incarcerated. If someone is not a danger to society, they should not have any restrictions that everyone else doesn't have.

If you honestly believe that there is someone who is too dangerous to be around anything that can be used to cause great harm to another. Then clearly, you are the irresponsible one if you do not believe they should be locked up. It is really that simple.

That type of logic, Your logic, is that of the type of coward that believes in paroling child molesters so long as they have an imaginary restriction that they cannot live near a school.
 
Last edited:
So a mentally ill person should be able to buy a gun? or some one with no experience using or handling a gun, which would just lead to more accidents and more gun control because of those accidents.

We will never have a real answer on either side if guns prevent crime because your comparing apples to oranges half the time. You cant compare crime rates between Ma and Nh when Mass has 5mill more people then NH. If every other person carried a gun on them then the road rage incident would proably turn into a murder. It is amazing what happens when your emotions get going you do things you wouldn't normally do just like the Beverly cop thing. Only responsible people should own guns.
 
I will never understand how some people who are pro first amendment back putting out police details to protect a klan rally but somehow some gun owners think that taking away a fundamental human right is ok, just because they think a person is "unworthy".

Hey, a person shouldn't vote unless they are literate at a college level and take a civics course....
A person should let the police into their house at any time, after all they didn't do anything wrong......
A person shouldnt be allowed to make public statements unless the group they are near approves of that message...

Yeah, glad to a see the bill of rights get crapped on again because YOU get to decide rights...


Ok, I just realized a trolling moron just got me too........
No one can really be that stupid on purpose.........
 
Last edited:
Oh no it does the more people you have in a area the more crime you have and that effects everything we are talking about. What city gives gun owners the biggest problem in NH? Oh ya Manchester population 100K plus. I have heard people say its worse then Lawrence up there and I have heard messed up stories
 
Brandon1317 said:
Oh no it does the more people you have in a area the more crime you have and that effects everything we are talking about. What city gives gun owners the biggest problem in NH? Oh ya Manchester population 100K plus. I have heard people say its worse then Lawrence up there and I have heard messed up stories
Click to expand...

Manchester is not even close to Lawrence. I have walked both cities and have had NO issues walking either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A Glock story -Pics added
Replies
3
Views
410
alan226
alan226
Biden Vows 2nd Term Gun Control, Criticizes Jefferson’s ‘Tree of Liberty’ as ‘A Bunch of Crap’
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
45Badger
45Badger
Here's a list of states suing the BATFE/FEDS in opposition to the new ruling of who's a dealer and who's not.
Replies
5
Views
431
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Cerakote Color of the Month
Replies
1
Views
158
MAGA99
MAGA99
Plus and Minus of buying a Semi Auto Uzi?
2
Replies
46
Views
1K
Road_Clam
R
Back
Top Bottom