I guess it's time for some more trumped up reasons to buy guns.
"[T]rumped up"?
The reasons to buy guns certainly trump any bullshit excuse for interference with people equipping themselves to defend their families, their lives, and their liberty.
Yes indeed, you all need guns to defend "families, their lives, and their liberty."
And you say Jadegold is the source of laughter.
Trumped up reason - second phase: Obama will definitely be taking away your guns in the second half of his term. Anyone can see it. Check his voting record while in the Senate.
How utterly unsurprising that Mikeb would find amusing the idea of defending those things that are most precious in all the universe to any rational person.
No offense to you, Zorro, but I find it humorous that MikeB and Jadefool try to paint you as the one suffering from some mental malady when he makes comments like this: Yes indeed, you all need guns to defend "families, their lives, and their liberty."
There's only one side suffering from a lack of mental fitness, and MikeB and Jadefool are perfect examples of why that is so.
Now wait just a gosh darn minute, Zorro. Didn't you write on a recent comment thread how incerdibly unlikely it is for someone to be murdered even in New Orleans?
Using that same logic, someone who spends his time preparing for and training for and investing time and money into something that will almost certainly never happen, is what, normal and sane?
Then when you consider the greater possibility that the guns involved in that training and preparation are much more likely to be misused somewhere along the line, you've got a bad deal going on.
So keep telling the gun control folks they're the ones with mental problems - keep whistling in the dark.
Mikeb, I would be extremely, enormously, stupendously (pretty lame adverbs--sorry--I'm not "feeling it" today) surprised to ever encounter the need to actually use the self-defense skills I try to keep honed--happy?
I'll also be surprised if my kids' school ever sustains severe tornado damage during school hours, but I don't mind the school taking some time away from the vastly more likely to be useful education along more conventional lines, because I think it would be grossly irresponsible to take the risk of leaving them unprepared, despite that risk being minuscule.
Besides, things change. What is now a tiny, near-negligible risk could grow into a significant one. The economy still sucks, and natural disasters or terrorist attacks could still cause at least temporary, regional breakdown of social order.
If I choose to prepare for that which has a 99.9995% (for example) chance of not happening, who the fuck are you to say I shouldn't do it (shouldn't have the right to do it)? That one guy in 200,000 who does draw the short straw will either be glad he prepared himself, or filled with lifelong (which might not be all that long, at least) regret over not having done so.
Zorro, I think you're playing right into my hand. I believe you aren't really with it today.
The entire gun control argument rests on the percentages and the proportions, at least this is how I see it.
By preparing for those vastly unlikely possibilities you set the stage for too much misuse of the very guns you hope you'll never use defensively. Gun flow from the good guys to the bad guys keeps the gangs and criminals going. And let's not forget the ones among you who go bad, those formerly law abiding gun owners who misuse their lawfully owned guns.
That's why I have a right to question your right to own guns.
And before you get carried away with some of what you said in the last comment, I don't know if you are one of the ones who should not have guns. I tend to think not. I tend to think if my entire wish list of restrictions were implemented, you'd still qualify and wouldn't be a danger to anyone. You're still part of the problem, of course, none of you escape that one, but don't forget I'm on record as saying 90% of you guys are all right to own guns.
That's why I have a right to question your right to own guns.
"Question" whatever you want--just realize that no one owes you an answer
I don't owe anyone justification for my right to own guns--big ones if I'm so inclined (and vastly wealthier than I am, in that particular case).
If you could prove that I would never use a firearm in justifiable self-defense (or justifiable defense of others), and could prove that every other gun owner would do something evil with his guns, nothing about my fundamental human right to keep and bear arms would change.
Mikeb:
And before you get carried away with some of what you said in the last comment, I don't know if you are one of the ones who should not have guns. I tend to think not.
Oh? You didn't seem to "think not" when you referred to those who "turn to [guns] for the solution to problems" as "[our] fraternity."
That fraternity sounds like just the kind you would want forcibly disarmed for life (along with, evidently, the frat house, as well), and you clearly see us (aside from the sarcastic exception for me) as members of that fraternity.
"The entire gun control argument rests on the percentages and the proportions, at least this is how I see it."
And even if that were true, you'd lose, because the numbers simply do not help your cause at all.
But, as Zorro so aptly points out, it doesn't matter, because his right is not dependent upon his proving himself worthy of it. His right can and should only be stripped from him IF he proves himself untrustworthy (ie, breaks the law-specifically murder, assault, rape, etc).
You may not like it, but that is how rights work. Some would argue that rights go even further in a perfect world.
By the way, Mikeb, S&W's numbers may not look all that great, but the firearms industry as a whole continues to do remarkably well (in a lousy economy).
No thanks, I don't like Smith and Wesson.
ReplyDeleteMikeb:
ReplyDeleteI guess it's time for some more trumped up reasons to buy guns.
"[T]rumped up"?
The reasons to buy guns certainly trump any bullshit excuse for interference with people equipping themselves to defend their families, their lives, and their liberty.
Yes indeed, you all need guns to defend "families, their lives, and their liberty."
ReplyDeleteAnd you say Jadegold is the source of laughter.
Trumped up reason - second phase: Obama will definitely be taking away your guns in the second half of his term. Anyone can see it. Check his voting record while in the Senate.
How utterly unsurprising that Mikeb would find amusing the idea of defending those things that are most precious in all the universe to any rational person.
ReplyDeleteNo offense to you, Zorro, but I find it humorous that MikeB and Jadefool try to paint you as the one suffering from some mental malady when he makes comments like this:
ReplyDeleteYes indeed, you all need guns to defend "families, their lives, and their liberty."
There's only one side suffering from a lack of mental fitness, and MikeB and Jadefool are perfect examples of why that is so.
No offense taken, Anon. It is amusing--like the pot calling the kettle . . . a pot.
ReplyDeleteNow wait just a gosh darn minute, Zorro. Didn't you write on a recent comment thread how incerdibly unlikely it is for someone to be murdered even in New Orleans?
ReplyDeleteUsing that same logic, someone who spends his time preparing for and training for and investing time and money into something that will almost certainly never happen, is what, normal and sane?
Then when you consider the greater possibility that the guns involved in that training and preparation are much more likely to be misused somewhere along the line, you've got a bad deal going on.
So keep telling the gun control folks they're the ones with mental problems - keep whistling in the dark.
Mikeb, I would be extremely, enormously, stupendously (pretty lame adverbs--sorry--I'm not "feeling it" today) surprised to ever encounter the need to actually use the self-defense skills I try to keep honed--happy?
ReplyDeleteI'll also be surprised if my kids' school ever sustains severe tornado damage during school hours, but I don't mind the school taking some time away from the vastly more likely to be useful education along more conventional lines, because I think it would be grossly irresponsible to take the risk of leaving them unprepared, despite that risk being minuscule.
Besides, things change. What is now a tiny, near-negligible risk could grow into a significant one. The economy still sucks, and natural disasters or terrorist attacks could still cause at least temporary, regional breakdown of social order.
If I choose to prepare for that which has a 99.9995% (for example) chance of not happening, who the fuck are you to say I shouldn't do it (shouldn't have the right to do it)? That one guy in 200,000 who does draw the short straw will either be glad he prepared himself, or filled with lifelong (which might not be all that long, at least) regret over not having done so.
Zorro, I think you're playing right into my hand. I believe you aren't really with it today.
ReplyDeleteThe entire gun control argument rests on the percentages and the proportions, at least this is how I see it.
By preparing for those vastly unlikely possibilities you set the stage for too much misuse of the very guns you hope you'll never use defensively. Gun flow from the good guys to the bad guys keeps the gangs and criminals going. And let's not forget the ones among you who go bad, those formerly law abiding gun owners who misuse their lawfully owned guns.
That's why I have a right to question your right to own guns.
And before you get carried away with some of what you said in the last comment, I don't know if you are one of the ones who should not have guns. I tend to think not. I tend to think if my entire wish list of restrictions were implemented, you'd still qualify and wouldn't be a danger to anyone. You're still part of the problem, of course, none of you escape that one, but don't forget I'm on record as saying 90% of you guys are all right to own guns.
Mikeb:
ReplyDeleteThat's why I have a right to question your right to own guns.
"Question" whatever you want--just realize that no one owes you an answer
I don't owe anyone justification for my right to own guns--big ones if I'm so inclined (and vastly wealthier than I am, in that particular case).
If you could prove that I would never use a firearm in justifiable self-defense (or justifiable defense of others), and could prove that every other gun owner would do something evil with his guns, nothing about my fundamental human right to keep and bear arms would change.
Mikeb:
And before you get carried away with some of what you said in the last comment, I don't know if you are one of the ones who should not have guns. I tend to think not.
Oh? You didn't seem to "think not" when you referred to those who "turn to [guns] for the solution to problems" as "[our] fraternity."
That fraternity sounds like just the kind you would want forcibly disarmed for life (along with, evidently, the frat house, as well), and you clearly see us (aside from the sarcastic exception for me) as members of that fraternity.
"The entire gun control argument rests on the percentages and the proportions, at least this is how I see it."
ReplyDeleteAnd even if that were true, you'd lose, because the numbers simply do not help your cause at all.
But, as Zorro so aptly points out, it doesn't matter, because his right is not dependent upon his proving himself worthy of it. His right can and should only be stripped from him IF he proves himself untrustworthy (ie, breaks the law-specifically murder, assault, rape, etc).
You may not like it, but that is how rights work. Some would argue that rights go even further in a perfect world.
By the way, Mikeb, S&W's numbers may not look all that great, but the firearms industry as a whole continues to do remarkably well (in a lousy economy).
ReplyDeleteDon't you just love good news?