Pissed off almost an entire class today

[SlartyBartFast]

i grew up in a house with guns, my father did, his father did, all the way back to when my family came to america ( 1700's)

And there's people who families smoke their whole lives and never die of cancer. The doctors once promoted tobbaco as healthy. So?

Actually, I'd say congratulations on having a safe well educated (gun wise) family.

Sure, if the government promoted safety and enforced all the rules thoroughly, lots of the animosity towards many guns would fade. But even then the ownership should still be controlled in some way. The only question is how much.

[SlartyBartFast]

Conservatives believe that only their way is right. So they try to teach others about it. There are the idiots who want to go on a big ole crusade to kill all people who don't think like them, then there are the Amish types who don't tell others at all. Both extremes are wrong. The basic "conservative view" is that there is only one right way. Now imagine this situation:

Funny. The conservatives care and the liberals don't? Your scenario is nonsence as is the fact you seem to insinuate the idea that "liberals" are inhernetly wrong or that any group is homogenous enough to draw defining lines between them.

And anyone who believes there's only one right way is an idiot. If that's really how you hink I really pity you. I guess you are also stuck with either never changing or modifying a position, or never thinking for yourself. Because if there's only one right way if you ever did disagree with anything the group thought or that you thought previously, you'd be wrong.

Even amongst "conservatives" there's differing points of view. Politics, religion, opinion. NONE of it is about right and wrong. It's about discussion and debate and coming to a concensus. Or in the nastier elements of world society, it's decreed from on high and your threated with death of excommunication if you disagree.

[SlartyBartFast]

There are a ton of conservative nazis out there who just do it cause they like to feel better than others, then there is that small amount of people who do it because they want to help other people.

I hope to GOD that you're not saying there are GOOD NAZIs out there. ARE YOU NUTS?!?!

If aliens invaded, the "liberals" would be on the front lines with the "conservatives".

Anyone who believes that there's anything redeeming about being a NAZI has the IQ of a turnip. Do your "conservative" church members wear white hooded robes and have a three consonant accronym?

The base problem with your arguments is absolutely no one, not even the Pope, KNOWS what's the "only" right thing to do. People only believe that their way is the best way. Most of the time the differences in opinion are only about which is the best compromise.

[HoppysMag]

And there's people who families smoke their whole lives and never die of cancer. The doctors once promoted tobbaco as healthy. So?

Actually, I'd say congratulations on having a safe well educated (gun wise) family.

Sure, if the government promoted safety and enforced all the rules thoroughly, lots of the animosity towards many guns would fade. But even then the ownership should still be controlled in some way. The only question is how much.

because people have died of cancer i shouldnt be allowed to smoke? because the kids get illegal cigarretes, we should ban cigs in general? people should be able to make thier own choices in life, and yes i realise my choices affect others, but thier choices affect me. and i think thats part of life, and if u dont want to deal with the effects of freedom then gow somewhere else
yes there should be limits on WHO can get a gun but thier shouldnt be limits on what kind of gun those people who qualify can get. i can do just as much damage, if not more, with a 12 gauge pump gun thats not restricted than i can do with a 15 shot semi auto 22 rifle that has a pistol grip and compensator that is considered an "assualt weapon"...


registration, A OK! and most of the gun public would probibly agree that we dont want the bad guys to have guns.


regulation. Not good.

[SlartyBartFast]

registration, A OK! and most of the gun public would probibly agree that we dont want the bad guys to have guns.


regulation. Not good.

Registration IS regulation.

Yes you should be able to make choices that afect only your life. But very few choices do only affect you individually.

If smoking is bad, the government shouldn't support the growers and manufacturers because what they do harms others. Smoking should be banned in all public places because it infringes on others rights to clean air and good health.

Pot, well, you can't smoke it in any building without affecting the quality of life of everyone around you. Then society gets stuck with the ills of supporting drug addicts.

[HoppysMag]

Registration IS regulation.

Yes you should be able to make choices that afect only your life. But very few choices do only affect you individually.

If smoking is bad, the government shouldn't support the growers and manufacturers because what they do harms others. Smoking should be banned in all public places because it infringes on others rights to clean air and good health.

Pot, well, you can't smoke it in any building without affecting the quality of life of everyone around you. Then society gets stuck with the ills of supporting drug addicts.

ya i droped the pot thing cause thats a differant arguement now that i think about it.

but no registration is getting a FID card or pistol permit

regulation is saying what guns i can or cant own because some one else ( who normaly knows nothign about guns) thinks they are scary.


why not limit all guns to single shot shotguns? if your a good hunter thats all u NEED right?
now imagine if we aplied this thought process to other parts of life
like cars. if the speed limit is 55 across the US then why not limit all cars to 55, cause you dont NEED more than that, even thought u want more, and more makes you happy

and tabacco doesnt harm people. people willingly smoke and now adays they are WELL aware of the risks. its a simple mater of personal responsibilty

[drg]

I hope to GOD that you're not saying there are GOOD NAZIs out there. ARE YOU NUTS?!?!

Let's not forget about the likes of Oskar Schindler and John Rabe. Surely there were many "good" Nazis out there.

[SlartyBartFast]

but no registration is getting a FID card or pistol permit

regulation is saying what guns i can or cant own because some one else ( who normaly knows nothign about guns) thinks they are scary.

So you should be able to have high explosives anywhere you want?

why not limit all guns to single shot shotguns? if your a good hunter thats all u NEED right?

Actually I've had a neihbour who believed exactly that. Never more than two rounds first has to hit, the second is only if the first didn't kill.

now imagine if we aplied this thought process to other parts of life
like cars. if the speed limit is 55 across the US then why not limit all cars to 55, cause you dont NEED more than that, even thought u want more, and more makes you happy

That's EXACTLY the though that goes into many laws and regulations. But it's usually a decision as to where to draw the line between advantage/benefit and risk. Cars is a useless analogy because the speed limit can be effectively enforced. But too many idiots doing extreme speeds and the day might come when high HP is controlled in some way. Most consumer cars have rev limiters and top speed controls anyways....

and tabacco doesnt harm people. people willingly smoke and now adays they are WELL aware of the risks. its a simple mater of personal responsibilty

Tobacco doesn't harm anyone?!? You've been smoking too much pot if you think that.

Smoke it in your own home. But why should I be forced to live with the risks (and the stink) when I go out or because my neighbour smokes in their apartment?

And it's not personal responsibility. Not unless you're forced to carry personal insurance and will receive zero help from the public when the risk goes bad...

[ScatterPlot]

Sorry, in my above posts I was speaking mainly on Religion. In that I do believe that it's pretty much "one right way". Government and civil issues are another thing. And no, I did not mean that the conservative nazis were good. I said this:
"There are a ton of conservative nazis out there who just do it cause they like to feel better than others, then there is that small amount of people who do it because they want to help other people."
I was saying using the word nazi as an insult to those people who do things out of hate. Also, I know that there is no big glowing line next to each side. I ment that the general "liberal" philosophy. I don't think that EVERYTHING that "liberals" do is wrong, nor do I think that EVERYTHING the "conservatives" do is right.
And of course no one KNOWS. But if you believe that one way is right and can convince others of it, without violence, and using logical arguments then by all means why shouldn't you? Arguments are stupid, but if you can simply have a conversation with someone and disuss issues, then why shouldn't you try to convince someone of your view? Nowhere have I said anything that suggests forcing anyone to do anything against their will.

You must have misunderstood my "aliens invading" analogy. The point was that the ONLY way to survive the attack was to do the abovementioned things. It's about telling how to survive. On judgement day of course everyone is going to be "on the front lines" fighting. In my story the aliens would definately kill everyone except those with the tattoos, etc. The point of the story was that everyone would die without a shaved head and a tatoo, not that only some of the people would be fighting. That's not the point of the story. It was about what you would do if you were the only person who knew what would happen.

Now having said all this
, I would appreciate it if you would stop being so hostile with everyone in this thread. I'm sorry if I have been insulting to you; I wasn't meaning to be all offensive. This is a discussion, not an argument. We don't need to resort to sarcasm.

[Chris42050]

As for the dumbass joke (if you're an expert, if it's a crazed man, if you shoot him in time... blah, blah, blah.), if it's a crazed man, well hell won't the crazed man have a gun? Seems in the world of the "I need a gun paranoids" the criminals are all carrying fullautos now anyways. You'll be dead before you draw your weapon if he's just out to kill. IMO, if he's out to rob you, the safest thing you could do is strip yourself and your family of all valuables and hand them over. Hell, if it was a crazed man out to kill you think he wouldn't walk past you calmly and have you kids throat under his knife before screaming obscenities?

Hmm. I see the 'joke' is really just another pathetic attempt by a republican to belittle a democratic view point with exagerated claims and ridicule because they're too inept to discuss the issue intelligently.

IT WAS A JOKE! Do you even realize you are overanalyzing a joke. Try to develop a sense of humor some day. Geez.

[HoppysMag]

Tobacco doesn't harm anyone?!? You've been smoking too much pot if you think that.

Smoke it in your own home. But why should I be forced to live with the risks (and the stink) when I go out or because my neighbour smokes in their apartment?

And it's not personal responsibility. Not unless you're forced to carry personal insurance and will receive zero help from the public when the risk goes bad...

does a cigarette jump in your mouth and light itself? no you choose to smoke. and even if u want to argue second hand smoke. if u dont like the heat stay outta the kitchen right? well if you dont like the smoke stay outta the bars. i agree that some public places, restuarants and theaters ect should be smoke free. but somewhere like a bar, where you willingly enter, and you can leave anytime u want should be allowed to smoke in. its a matter of judging the risks both to you and others. its a matter of being resposible for your actions and being able to make decisions on wheres you should and shouldnt go.

[HoppysMag]

So you should be able to have high explosives anywhere you want?



..

if i had a license for explosives then yes. i should be able to. as i said there should be licensing but not regulation


i
i get a license for a rifle i should be able to buy anything that resembles a rifle. one man fired, non explosive rounds
if i get a license for a machine gun, pistol or Destructive device ( and we do have all those licenses now, but we dont need people saying thats not a rifle because it looks mean or it looks to close to what the army uses. a rifle is a rifle is a rifle)

[TheDuelist]

You know its amazing. We'll sit here and seriously debate about whether owning a firearm should be legal yet we have no problem putting a 16 year old behind the wheel of an automobile. We expect that because he has a license its ok to drive a machine capable of incredible speed and power. When something does happen we don't go screaming to the manufacturers complaining that they made the car too fast. We have speed limits yet the vehicles we drive a capable of exceeding them many times over depending on where you drive. Lets ban the automobile.









In case you couldn't tell there is a touch of sarcasm here.

[ntn4502]

good god man, if your going to pretend you know guns you could at least say you shot a .22 caliber not mm

[HoppysMag]

good god man, if your going to pretend you know guns you could at least say you shot a .22 caliber not mm

ha ha i noticed that too but you never know, he might have an AA gun lol