arma virumque cano (et alia)
Cool, he just insulted most of the gun owners in the US!Using his definitions, most gun owners are irresponsible, which would make the figure the famous 90% (or more).The 10% (or less) would be the people who SHOULD own guns.
BTW, before anyone makes any stupid personal comments--I know you have never actually met me.Soooo.....
Laci the Dog: "The 10% (or less) would be the people who SHOULD own guns."You imply with your statement that there exists a legitimate Civilian arms market. Or is the 10% which you refer to comprised entirely of military, police, federal agents, and other State actors?
It takes a special kind of crazy to have a discussion with yourself on the internets. Is that a disqualifier as well? It doesn't matter, you'd already be eliminated by Mikey's negligent discharge rule.
No, that only applies to guns, with bullets.
Actually, Dog Dummy, blanks at close range are dangerous. Remember the actor who played Russian roulette with blanks and lost?
If E.N./Laci can't be trusted with a starter pistol, what makes you think he would do any better with the real thing Dog Gone? No he most certainly would be eliminated by Mikey's rules. Don't complain to us, complain to Mikey.
So, Laci, you make stupid comments about people you've never met and then tell us not to do the same? Don't worry--we don't make stupid comments.The man in the video makes good points. He's exaggerating for effect, but his reasoning is good. Note that he didn't call for any new laws--those would not disarm the people he described--and he said that those of us who are rational and responsible should be armed.
I think the libs here missed the fact that Queen Pelosi was one of the first pictures.
It sounds like we all agree on this except for the percentages. I'm guessin' it's about 50%/50%.
99%+ good gun owners vs less than one percent bad. That's based on the facts of gun violence and the numbers of guns and gun owners in this country. You claim that there are 50,000,000 bad gun owners. If that were the case, why aren't there millions of deaths from gunfire every year?
You have no basis other than your prejudices for your stats.And you don't qualify as a safe gun handler anyway.
Let's look at the facts again, shall we?1. 100,000,000 +/- gun owners in America.2. 300,000,000+ guns.3. About 100,000 total injuries and deaths per annum due to every kind of gunfire--accident, suicide, murder, legitimate self-defense, and police action.The basis of my statement was simple arithmetic. I can see why you'd label that as prejudice, though. Your side prefers feeling and doctrine to facts and logic.That explains your comment about my ability to handle a gun. You have no evidence of any actual harm that I have caused or even of any actual danger that I have subjected innocent people to.I'll be interested to see if you return to continue this discussion. You so frequently run away when confronted with good reasoning.
No, Greg, if 50% of gun owners were unfit, there would be 35,000 deaths a year, not millions. If we tightened up on the irresponsible ones, that figure would drop to about 5,000.
Anyone remember that ridiculous picture of Greg donning "cowboy" garb, holding some pistol insecurely in his belt (possibly the unsafe handling which dog gone is referring to)? The pistol in question appears to be a copy of an 1858 Navy Colt revolver. It is rather interesting that Samuel Colt labeled all of the weapons he designed and produced with names such as "Army", "Navy", "Sheriff" or "Police". Professional names where affixed to suit professional markets (State actors) as opposed to intentionally arming mere civilians or cowboy wannabes.
E.N., your ignorance about the subject is only exceeeded by Mikeb and company. There is no such thing as a Colt Navy 1858, and Colt made lots of money, both individually and as a company after he died, selling pistols to the civilian market. But then, unless you're a state actor, why should you know anything about guns? A mere peasant such as yourself doesn't have the right to that information--that's your line, no? And by the way, thanks for revealing that you're likely either Laci or Dog Gone or Democommie.Mikeb, you're telling me that of 50,000,000 supposedly unfit gun owners, more than 99% of them manage not to kill someone each year? You and I mean different things by the word, unfit. To me, "unfit" means that the person is an actual threat to innocents, not that there's some kinda sorta could be possibility that in the future sometime the person will do something wrong.
Thanks for illuminating the typo, I meant the 1851 Navy Colt.You fail to realize that it does not matter which subset of the peasant classes are endowed with lethal arms, so long as they possess any dangerous weapons (or knowledge as you mentioned) such civilians are of threat to the collective State.Individual freedom (such as private arms) manifestly infringes on your right to be governed, and therefore true liberty cannot exist without the subjugation of the individual to the whim of the State, as necessary for the benefit of the collective.
E.N., here we go again with that evil line of yours. I have no right to be governed, and true liberty cannot exist under subjugation. I note that you neglected to answer my point that by your own argument, you have no right to know anything about firearms. Time for you to shut up.
I support individual liberty, provided that it be reserved to myself.
Then fuck you, E.N. You're nothing but a coward and a wanna be tyrant. If I hurt your feelings, tell it to your Chairman Mao doll. He'll understand.
Has someone been drinking? Looks like the computer trained redneck has reverted to it's natural state. Unfortunately we no longer have Jane Goodall to document your behavior.
Last I heard, Jane Goodall is still alive. I know what good she's done in this world. Other than being future plant food, what value do you have?
Extinguishing the perennial scourge that is individuality. That is my value. I seek to remove the concept of individual anatomy from the lexicon of the collective mind. Tell me, what good does individuality procure? Of what benefit is selfishness to humanity?
I think "E.N." has the wrong planet. Or at least the wrong species.
E.N., I asked you what good you are. Your evil is obvious.What good does individuality create? Look around you. Individuals create everything we have. Yes, they work together at times, but ideas come from one person at a time. Societies that recognize individual rights do better than the ones that you love.
My dearest DG said: "You have no basis other than your prejudices for your stats."Now there's a case of a donkey calling a burro an ass.orlin sellers