Not having the discussion

So the writer is suggesting that the 90,000,000 +/- gun owners that DIDN'T commit murders be raked over the coals because of a lunatic?

duzitreallymatter wrote:

So the writer is suggesting that the 90,000,000 +/- gun owners that DIDN'T commit murders be raked over the coals because of a lunatic?

That author is a clueless idiot.
.
Remember: According to him, if it saves one life, then disarming everyone is worth it. But he neglects to consider the upwards of 2.5 Million times each year where firearms are resorted to in order to either stop a violent crime in progress, or stop those crimes before they happen, and in almost all of those incidents the firearm is never discharged.
.
So, the idiot is in denial, whilst at the very same time engaging in projection, because he's declaring what his acts would be if he carried/owned a gun. He doesn't trust us because he doesn't trust himself, and ~that~ is the essence of projection.

From the fair and balanced article (although the 'fully automatic weapons' comment shows ignorance of present law.):

"At the very least, we need to have a serious national dialogue about these and other possible solutions.

But we won’t. Too many on the political left still seem to harbor a fantasy of getting rid of all guns and refuse to distinguish between responsible gun owners and those criminals or deranged people who have no business with firearms. Too many on the political right still harbor the paranoid delusion that any talk of gun control is code for confiscation by jackbooted thugs riding black helicopters."

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
That author is a clueless idiot.
.
Remember: According to him, if it saves one life, then disarming everyone is worth it. But he neglects to consider the upwards of 2.5 Million times each year where firearms are resorted to in order to either stop a violent crime in progress, or stop those crimes before they happen, and in almost all of those incidents the firearm is never discharged.
.
So, the idiot is in denial, whilst at the very same time engaging in projection, because he's declaring what his acts would be if he carried/owned a gun. He doesn't trust us because he doesn't trust himself, and ~that~ is the essence of projection.

Could you point out ONE item in the fair and balanced article that supports your statement: "According to him,[The Pulitzer Prize author]if it saves one life, then disarming everyone is worth it." Or even mentions anything advocating 'disarming everyone.'

Until you can, we can just assume you are one of the illogical paranoid Right-wing gun nuts he is talking about.

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>
Could you point out ONE item in the fair and balanced article that supports your statement: "According to him,[The Pulitzer Prize author]if it saves one life, then disarming everyone is worth it." Or even mentions anything advocating 'disarming everyone.'
Until you can, we can just assume you are one of the illogical paranoid Right-wing gun nuts he is talking about.

Pitts is a member of the Brady Campaign. And the Brady Campaign uses just that phrase: "If it save just one life ..."
.
And, from the horse's mouth:
——————————
"Meantime, our unwillingness to get serious about an epidemic of gun violence brings us the equivalent of 11 Columbine massacres every week — three 9/11s every year. Every once in awhile, as now, it even overturns an election. The carnage goes on, and on."
——————————
.
THAT is ALL ABOUT SO-CALLED GUN CONTROL.
.
Now then, you were saying ...?

It just goes on and on. Some looney uses a firearm to cause harm and the 2nd Amendment becomes a non-issue. Same looney uses a car and, in a rage, or while impaired, possibly kills innocent people. Same looney uses a knife, or a hammer, or a club (or ____-you name it-) and no one hints at restrictions on the purchase of those products. As well, let's take some examples of ignorance from the article:
"We need meaningful background checks on all gun purchases — no loopholes. A mentally unstable man should not have legal access to a gun, period." FACT: Mental instability is not permitted to be known unless it has been cause for adjudication. "We need to ban fully automatic weapons from private use. The hunter who needs a gun that fires hundreds of rounds a minute isn’t much of a hunter." FACT: I know of no state that permits hunting with an automatic weapon and I'm sure the author does not either. "We need to encourage gun safety classes so that poorly secured firearms stop ending up in the hands of little children." FACT: How many school shooting programs have been shut down due to efforts by liberal, anti-gun zealots? How many schools permit the NRA to conduct the "Eddie Eagle" safety programs? Who is it that funds our "hunter safety" programs in the various states that require such programs for issue of a license to hunt? The one really sensible statement made by the author is, "Too many on the political left still seem to harbor a fantasy of getting rid of all guns and refuse to distinguish between responsible gun owners and those criminals or deranged people who have no business with firearms." Strangely, he seems to do this himself.

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
Pitts is a member of the Brady Campaign. And the Brady Campaign uses just that phrase: "If it save just one life ..."
.
And, from the horse's mouth:
——————————
"Meantime, our unwillingness to get serious about an epidemic of gun violence brings us the equivalent of 11 Columbine massacres every week — three 9/11s every year. Every once in awhile, as now, it even overturns an election. The carnage goes on, and on."
——————————
.
THAT is ALL ABOUT SO-CALLED GUN CONTROL.
.
Now then, you were saying ...?

Guess you can't point out ONE item in the fair and balanced article that supports your statement! Simply have to go into a nonsensical diversion. Figures!

BTW: Googling "Brady campaign,"If it save just one life"" there was only ONE hit with that phrase....and in context totally unrelated to the Brady Campaign!

To repeat: Could you point out ONE item in the fair and balanced article that supports your statement: "According to him,[The Pulitzer Prize author]if it saves one life, then disarming everyone is worth it." Or even mentions anything advocating 'disarming everyone.'

Until you can, we can just assume you are one of the illogical paranoid Right-wing gun nuts he is talking about.

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>
Guess you can't point out ONE item in the fair and balanced article that supports your statement! Simply have to go into a nonsensical diversion. Figures!
BTW: Googling "Brady campaign,"If it save just one life"" there was only ONE hit with that phrase....and in context totally unrelated to the Brady Campaign!
To repeat: Could you point out ONE item in the fair and balanced article that supports your statement: "According to him,[The Pulitzer Prize author]if it saves one life, then disarming everyone is worth it." Or even mentions anything advocating 'disarming everyone.'
Until you can, we can just assume you are one of the illogical paranoid Right-wing gun nuts he is talking about.

It's a safe assumption.

The artical states that Gifford was chased from office by a gun.

First and foremost that gun should be arrested and tried for that crime.

No machine guns?

Semi auto can be more lethal then full auto because you are not wasting rounds.

Hunters do not use full auto but try to kill pray with one shot so as not to spoil the meat.

This artical is drama in the first degree.

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>
Guess you can't point out ONE item in the fair and balanced article that supports your statement! Simply have to go into a nonsensical diversion. Figures!
BTW: Googling "Brady campaign,"If it save just one life"" there was only ONE hit with that phrase....and in context totally unrelated to the Brady Campaign!
To repeat: Could you point out ONE item in the fair and balanced article that supports your statement: "According to him,[The Pulitzer Prize author]if it saves one life, then disarming everyone is worth it." Or even mentions anything advocating 'disarming everyone.'
Until you can, we can just assume you are one of the illogical paranoid Right-wing gun nuts he is talking about.

Poor Ol' Roy. Seems the very existence of Fox News makes him slobber uncontrollably and blather about like a lunatic with voices in his head.

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>
Guess you can't point out ONE item in the fair and balanced article that supports your statement! Simply have to go into a nonsensical diversion. Figures!
BTW: Googling "Brady campaign,"If it save just one life"" there was only ONE hit with that phrase....and in context totally unrelated to the Brady Campaign!
To repeat: Could you point out ONE item in the fair and balanced article that supports your statement: "According to him,[The Pulitzer Prize author]if it saves one life, then disarming everyone is worth it." Or even mentions anything advocating 'disarming everyone.'
Until you can, we can just assume you are one of the illogical paranoid Right-wing gun nuts he is talking about.

And BTW, we don't have to assume you're a gutless Left-wing freedom bigot. You've already established that.

Louiston wrote:

<quoted text>And BTW, we don't have to assume you're a gutless Left-wing freedom bigot. You've already established that.

You eloquent, though completely inane, response proves once again that Gun Nuts Are.

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>
You eloquent, though completely inane, response proves once again that Gun Nuts Are.

Your typical stench-reeking spew proves once again that you have been reduced to uttering stupid cliches. But hey, that's all you have.

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>
You eloquent, though completely inane, response proves once again that Gun Nuts Are.

How do you define a gun nut? If I carry a sidearm for personal protection does that make me a gun nut? If I not only have the sidearm for protection but have a rifle and shotgun for hunting does that push me over the edge and put me in the gun nut column?

Just what makes a gun nut in your mind? Not wanting a whizzing match - just curious.

duzitreallymatter wrote:

<quoted text>How do you define a gun nut? If I carry a sidearm for personal protection does that make me a gun nut? If I not only have the sidearm for protection but have a rifle and shotgun for hunting does that push me over the edge and put me in the gun nut column?
Just what makes a gun nut in your mind? Not wanting a whizzing match - just curious.

Oh man, standby for a BLAST OF S*IT TO PORT!!
.
That fact that you have ~any~ guns at all qualifies you as a 'raging maniac' in the mind of placenta roy.
.

If You Experience Any Anxiety Remember 2:
Embrace - Accept - Consume - Obey And Move On...

http://s3.hubimg.com/u/145666_f520.jpg

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh man, standby for a BLAST OF S*IT TO PORT!!
.
That fact that you have ~any~ guns at all qualifies you as a 'raging maniac' in the mind of placenta roy.
.

You are FULL OF CRAP. I own 4 pistols from a .22 to a 44 Mag (not counting the pellet pistol I bought for my kid 30+ years ago). My rifles include a .54 cal smoke pole,.06, & 44 Mag carbine,.22 semi-auto. a 12 pump, 16 auto, and the cut-down single shot 20 gauge I bought for my kid Xmas present the year before he took his hunters education class, and my grand-dad's antique but unsafe damascus side by side 12 gauge wall hanger. I hunted deer, elk, antelope, until a few years ago when it became more work than fun. Still go bird hunting....if the weather is nice.

Gun Nut: A right-winger who feels any attempt at regulating the sale &/or procession of weapons is some kinda liberal plot to confiscate and destruction of the 2nd amendment. A right-winger with a morbid interest in weapons and having the paranoid delusion that an ugly G-I Joe semi-auto with unlimited magazine capabilities is somehow necessary for protection....

But it does boil down to (paraphrasing Justice Potter Stewart) I know one when I read or listen to their ravings.

Those who get a concealed carry permit are not necessarily gun nuts. Paranoid maybe. In fact a lot of gun nuts would refuse to have it on file some where that they are gun owners.

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>
You are FULL OF CRAP. I own 4 pistols from a .22 to a 44 Mag (not counting the pellet pistol I bought for my kid 30+ years ago). My rifles include a .54 cal smoke pole,.06, & 44 Mag carbine,.22 semi-auto. a 12 pump, 16 auto, and the cut-down single shot 20 gauge I bought for my kid Xmas present the year before he took his hunters education class, and my grand-dad's antique but unsafe damascus side by side 12 gauge wall hanger. I hunted deer, elk, antelope, until a few years ago when it became more work than fun. Still go bird hunting....if the weather is nice.
Gun Nut: A right-winger who feels any attempt at regulating the sale &/or procession of weapons is some kinda liberal plot to confiscate and destruction of the 2nd amendment. A right-winger with a morbid interest in weapons and having the paranoid delusion that an ugly G-I Joe semi-auto with unlimited magazine capabilities is somehow necessary for protection....
But it does boil down to (paraphrasing Justice Potter Stewart) I know one when I read or listen to their ravings.
Those who get a concealed carry permit are not necessarily gun nuts. Paranoid maybe. In fact a lot of gun nuts would refuse to have it on file some where that they are gun owners.

You hurt your own credibility by labeling people.

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>
You are FULL OF CRAP. I own 4 pistols from a .22 to a 44 Mag (not counting the pellet pistol I bought for my kid 30+ years ago). My rifles include a .54 cal smoke pole,.06, & 44 Mag carbine,.22 semi-auto. a 12 pump, 16 auto, and the cut-down single shot 20 gauge I bought for my kid Xmas present the year before he took his hunters education class, and my grand-dad's antique but unsafe damascus side by side 12 gauge wall hanger. I hunted deer, elk, antelope, until a few years ago when it became more work than fun. Still go bird hunting....if the weather is nice.
Gun Nut: A right-winger who feels any attempt at regulating the sale &/or procession of weapons is some kinda liberal plot to confiscate and destruction of the 2nd amendment. A right-winger with a morbid interest in weapons and having the paranoid delusion that an ugly G-I Joe semi-auto with unlimited magazine capabilities is somehow necessary for protection....
But it does boil down to (paraphrasing Justice Potter Stewart) I know one when I read or listen to their ravings.
Those who get a concealed carry permit are not necessarily gun nuts. Paranoid maybe. In fact a lot of gun nuts would refuse to have it on file some where that they are gun owners.

The worst kind of gun bigot. One who feels that it is OK to own guns as long as it is the same guns he owns. Who feels the same way he does about them. Who is willing to stand buy and let some one else's rights get trampled just because he doesn't feel like excercising those rights himself. Believe me when I say that this gun nut thinks the real gun nut is you.

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
That author is a clueless idiot.
.
Remember: According to him, if it saves one life, then disarming everyone is worth it. But he neglects to consider the upwards of 2.5 Million times each year where firearms are resorted to in order to either stop a violent crime in progress, or stop those crimes before they happen, and in almost all of those incidents the firearm is never discharged.
.
So, the idiot is in denial, whilst at the very same time engaging in projection, because he's declaring what his acts would be if he carried/owned a gun. He doesn't trust us because he doesn't trust himself, and ~that~ is the essence of projection.

I am sure there are no deaths from private guns in North Korea...