Imponderables: In The Beginning...
POSTED BY: nvghostrider
UPDATED: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 00:45
VIEWED: 11039
PAGE 8 of 12
Had a sizeable response but the gorram 'puter restarted.
Firstly, any person under indictment, currently has a restraining order against them, has been convicted of domestic violence, or has any previous felony conviction is not allowed to buy, sell, or posess a firearm.
Second, war was fought that way because of the rules set in place for the time. Of course the British already had a considerable jump on the American Colonists with their military firearms and tactics. Yes, their guns were better than the colonists.When the colonists adopted tactics of Native people they were called savages and were treated as criminals for doing what happens in war, they killed the enemy. Moonlight raids, hand to hand combat, ambush, and guerilla warfare were all against the rules to the British. They prefered skirmish line tactics, were capable of loading their combat weapons faster than the colonists due to the weapon configuration, and had a standardized and steady supply of powder and lead for their weapons. It was not the will of the fathers to kill many people at once. It was their hope that any tyrannical thinking would be second guessed if the common man was armed.
The tyrannical government sounds a lot like the modern criminal don't it?
As a common person I may not modify, buy, sell, or posess a fully automatic firearm, silencers, short barreled rifles or shotguns, or explosive/destructive devices under the mandate of federal law. I and most responsible gun owners are fine with that. But to have people with little or no experience with the type of firearm I use and train with tell me that it is an evil machine feels like a moot conversation. Perceptions of these things have been inudated with negative images by the media for years. I see no need to own a tank, RPG, or C4. But I do see and train myself behind the reasoning owning magazines thet hold more than ten rounds of a small high velocity round capable of killing rabbits, deer, and someone in the immediate threat zone of my home or family. Isn't that the purpose of the firearm for American colonists?
The children in question. The teenager was talking about a bolt action rifle which he fully intended to carry when he fianally gets to take the big walk with his father. Sure he intended to kill a deer. But he also intended to have the walking experience with his father which seems to be a dying spirit as the years pass. Remorse and pain is all I can feel for the poor child from the news report. Regardless if it was a rifle, handgun, machete or a pocket knife there is still an innocent child whose blood has been spilled because of a dirty person and their paranoia. Dirty people will continue to kill the innocent regardless of the weapon at hand until the end of time. I am not asking for a better weapon than a dirty bastard like that. I am asking to have the capability to continue defending myself from a person who could have just as easily walked into a house or a school yard or a McDonalds and done the same thing.
ADD:
armed /ɑrmd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ahrmd] Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. bearing firearms; having weapons: a heavily armed patrol.
2. maintained by arms: armed peace.
3. involving the use of weapons: armed conflict.
4. equipped: The students came armed with their pocket calculators.
5. (esp. of an animal) covered protectively, as by a shell.
6. fortified; made secure: Armed by an inveterate optimism, he withstood despair.
7. (of an artillery shell, bomb, missile, etc.) having the fuze made operative.
Armed doesn't necessarily mean just with a gun. It also means to posess something with the intent of using it. My meaning in this case is armed with the mindset to protect, prevent, secure, and survive. Maintaining basic rights to live.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When I read that, despite remorse, I'm thinking... why was this guy's first response to a knock at the door to open fire? That indicates to me he had reason to believe that someone was coming to get him... this means either he'd recently done something to someone or had someone after him or he was so paranoid from past drug use that this was his response
Also a hand gun would have cut through that door just as easily and a 9 mm would have the same number of rounds in the clip as an AK... so either way convicted felon with gun..BAD THING
Ok so we were just talking in the office.. should there be a psychiatric daignosis of munchausen's by proxy psychological not physical
To love someone is to see a miracle invisible to others.
--Francois Mauriac
It's fuzzy-minded liberal thinking like that that gets you eaten.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good point about him thinking there was someone coming to get him MsA. I read an earlier version of that article, before they arrested the second person in the house, which made it sound like it really was just an overreaction to someone on the porch (from what the family of the boy said, it sounded like they hadn't even knocked on the door yet).
But then the problem is still people who shouldn't have guns being able to get guns, which I maintain is one of the major areas of gun control that supposed anti-gun liberals want to address. What I don't understand is why some gun owners object to more extensive background checks or waiting periods. Sure it's more of a hassle than just walking up and buying what you want, but isn't it worth it to keep guns out of the hands of convicts?
I guess the thing that gets to me are the (non-convict) gun owners who I don't feel are responsible about their guns, unlike our dear NVG. No one disputes that guns are lethal weapons, so why the objections to having tighter controls on them? Why shouldn't you be held to a higher standard if you want to own and operate something that can easily kill multiple people?
Like I said earlier, I think that being responsible about your guns doesn't include just being careful with cleaning and handling, but also includes how you behave as a gun owner when you don't have a gun in your hand. I think being a responsible gun owner should mean supporting laws that make it difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to get their hands on guns. I think being a responsible gun owner should mean being willing to plan your purchases well in advance, so that background checks and wait periods don't cramp your style. I think being a responsible gun owner should mean knowing what situations it's inappropriate to talk about guns in -- airports, schools, etc. And I think being a responsible gun owner should mean teaching your children all these things along with gun safety.
But apparently there are a lot of people out there who vehemently disagree with me, which makes me hugely uncomfortable at the idea of them owning guns. Which I think is how we end up with this idea that liberals hate guns.
As far as the link that started this conversation, I still think that it has more to do with sour grapes about McCain not winning than with guns. The teacher was out of line in the way she communicated her views on politics, but that's something to be calmly discussed with the superintendent, not something to get so angry about you're "pacing the floor like a serial killer" (direct quote from the original poster -- see why the idea of people like him having guns makes people like me nervous??). And I still think that if the school feels the need to outlaw all talk of guns, then that's their prerogative. A responsible gun owner would understand the reasons there, and would teach his son the reasons and teach him to follow those rules.
~CK
You can't take the sky from me...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So how do we feel about people owning ipods???
Sorry just in a silly mood today plus trying to get my brain back on after the long attempt to recreat a full year's curriculum To love someone is to see a miracle invisible to others.
--Francois Mauriac
It's fuzzy-minded liberal thinking like that that gets you eaten.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry MsA, I'm just in a shitty mood today. That post NVG linked to really put me in a foul mood, and on top of that I'm caught between a rock and a hard place with all this Prop 8 stuff out here. Now gay activists are protesting outside the Mormon temple in LA, which is so fucking inappropirate and bigotted I can't even form the words. I voted against Prop 8, am not talking to my family who supported it until Christmas, and think that funding from out of state interest groups for any proposition in California is wrong. But when a group that is asking for equal rights, fair treatment, and an end to the bigotry attacks another group with hate and bigotry, they lose the moral high ground. I believe in equal rights but I have no sympathy for those protestors whatsoever right now.
So yeah, just feeling a little pissy right now.
~CK
You can't take the sky from me...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just don't get the fuss... why do you care if someone marries someone else... saying you can't get married if you're gay doesn't make them not gay. It doesn't mean they won't have a "marriage" it doesn't really do anything except make people feel bad...so what's the point ( yes I expect laws, rules, legislation, and everything to have a point...I'm weird that way. If it accomplishes nothing then skip it)
HUGS CK I'm sorry sweety... To love someone is to see a miracle invisible to others.
--Francois Mauriac
It's fuzzy-minded liberal thinking like that that gets you eaten.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To me it all seems temporary. This is just like every other civil rights movement in american history. Some idiots think they can classify a group of people as somehow less than everyone else for no apparent reason. They try to deny them basic rights. Eventually enough people realize that we're all human and we all deserve to be treated equally and the laws are fixed.
Proposition 8 is a step in the wrong direction, but maybe it will get enough attention on the subject to get everything worked out. The worst part is that marriage really isn't seen as a basic human right. So, I doubt the supreme court will step in. It will take congress IMO, but we'll get there.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ok this will cheer you all up
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/dave-barry/story/756596.h
tml To love someone is to see a miracle invisible to others.
--Francois Mauriac
It's fuzzy-minded liberal thinking like that that gets you eaten.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, I will be serious, for a bit.
Issue A: the teacher and the principal were way off base, IF in fact the poster is telling the truth and not just exaggerating. Yes "Democrats" believe in gun control, but only the extremes believe in banning them all. I grew up with my dad being a police officer, so I was always around handguns, plus a little .22 we had for target shooting. My dad always had his guns locked up, and from a young age taught us gun safety, so I am comfortable with them, although I don't own one (no need, although I would like to target shoot some more). I agree that some kinds of guns/ammo should be controlled, but I will not draw the line. guns are a tool, when used right, and we should look at the people, not the tool. Even a screwdriver can kill in the wrong hands.
Issue B: Marriage is an institution, and taking the name of the husband is a former legal requirement, or maybe just a cultural thing. When my wife and I married, I never insisted she take my last name, but she did. Years later, when I change my given name, I almost switched the entire family's last name to her maiden name, because of various issues. Now, about what makes a maariage, I have my opinion, but I also believe that it's my opinion and shouldn't be the legal definition. There are plenty of people who haven't gotten the legal piece of paper, who are more married then others who marry, divorce, marry, divorce over and over. And that includes people of the same sex, both ways. A relationship that is stable, regardless of the makeup of the parties involved, is morally better imho, then someone who just jumps from partner to partner.
Bleh, enough serious stuff.
New ponder:
Why is the rum always gone?
'Who are you and how did you get in here?' 'I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.'
Police Squad
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
lolz, i love sarcasm XD "Can we all stop being so *nasty* to each other? ...ok, didn't think so." XD
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME