Gun Control Debate - Stilwell, OK

Sarah wrote:

The government needs to control who has guns!
Just like these stupid conceal carry permits.
Don't you idiots know that if you have a concealed carry permit, the government know you have a gun and probably more, so you will be the first targets when they come for the guns.

Make up your mind where you're fron, sock puppet. And you're obviously clueless about concealed carry permits.

Stefinally wrote:

get rid of guns and the people who want them.
this is not the old west anymore.

"Old West"??? BWAHAHAHAHA You watch too much TV.

Stefinally wrote:

support your local police and u won't need a gun.

Sure, when seconds count, the police are minutes (or more) away.

At about 12:30 this morning, an unidentified man walked into a bar in Tuscaloosa, Alabama and shot at least 17 people. Details are hard to come by, at the moment. Opinions, however are not. Nor will they be. Comment sections are already flooding with defensive posts, citing statistics carefully massaged to make it seem as though the massive inflow of guns into our society is a good thing. We’ve all seen it, too many times over. Whenever a gun tragedy occurs, which is daily, an army of comments flood the reports to defend the idea that guns are keeping us all safer.

It’s an astounding argument. The notion that more of something that harms you is the cure for that harm, may be the most inexplicable idea that man has ever conceived. It certainly doesn’t apply to any other circumstance.

We don’t bring water to battle floods.

We don’t treat diabetes with Twinkies.

We don’t fight fire with fire; at least not in the sense that we throw gasoline on the fire in our own home, when it’s burning. The house of the guy we blame for causing the fire? That’s another story.

Somehow we’ve been convinced that storing gasoline in our home will protect it from the guy (whom we’re told) wants to burn it down. Of course, the results have been easily predictable.

But when we opine those results, we always hear the same refrain: That we’re politicizing a tragedy. That a horrible, painful event is just being used to further an ideological agenda. And indeed, I am a political person, writing this piece for a liberal blog. I am fully aware of the political mechanisms that are in place, that fuel these tragedies, as well as the political actions needed to reverse them. But here’s the thing:

I don’t want to be shot. I do not want anyone I love to be shot. I don’t want people I don’t particularly care for to be shot. I do not want harm to befall strangers, even if their beliefs do oppose mine. Outside of war, shooting is the most preventable tragedy on the face of the earth.

The NRA, the most useless organization in America, has been allowed to define the second Amendment for way too long. And their definition has always focused only on the second sentence of the whole amendment; they ignore the part that mentions the WELL REGULATED militia. The second amendment is the only part of the Constitution that your average far-right nut really believes in, and they get that amendment wrong on a constant basis.
It’s sad that we are unable to have a real discussion on these weapons without some idjit somewhere whining about their imagined second amendment rights. I cannot imagine where the country is heading.
Guns don’t kill people, people WITH GUNS kill people.

Rosco wrote:

At about 12:30 this morning, an unidentified man walked into a bar in Tuscaloosa, Alabama and shot at least 17 people. Details are hard to come by, at the moment. Opinions, however are not. Nor will they be. Comment sections are already flooding with defensive posts, citing statistics carefully massaged to make it seem as though the massive inflow of guns into our society is a good thing.

What inflow do you speak of?

Rosco wrote:

We’ve all seen it, too many times over. Whenever a gun tragedy occurs, which is daily, an army of comments flood the reports to defend the idea that guns are keeping us all safer.

Is it because guns are used more often for defensive purposes? Is that what bothers you?

Rosco wrote:

It’s an astounding argument. The notion that more of something that harms you is the cure for that harm, may be the most inexplicable idea that man has ever conceived.

Inexplicable is using the actions of a minority to infringe on the rights and liberties of the majority.

Rosco wrote:

It certainly doesn’t apply to any other circumstance.

Such as??

Rosco wrote:

We don’t bring water to battle floods.

Nor do we ban water when someone drowns.

Rosco wrote:

We don’t treat diabetes with Twinkies.

We don't ban Twinkies because there are diabetics.

Rosco wrote:

We don’t fight fire with fire; at least not in the sense that we throw gasoline on the fire in our own home, when it’s burning.

Nor do we ban fire from being employed to heat our homes.

Rosco wrote:

The house of the guy we blame for causing the fire? That’s another story.

The blame game for someoen misusing a contrivance? It's the same ol story.

Rosco wrote:

Somehow we’ve been convinced that storing gasoline in our home will protect it from the guy (whom we’re told) wants to burn it down.

Somehow we've been convinced that there is a law outh there waiting to be passed that will not be broken by criminals.

Rosco wrote:

Of course, the results have been easily predictable.

Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, and China have graveyards overflowing with results.

Rosco wrote:

But when we opine those results, we always hear the same refrain: That we’re politicizing a tragedy.

Because you are.

Rosco wrote:

That a horrible, painful event is just being used to further an ideological agenda.

True. That infringing on the rights and liberties of others is a good thing is abominable.

Rosco wrote:

And indeed, I am a political person, writing this piece for a liberal blog.

Obviously. It's written for a 4 year old.

Rosco wrote:

I am fully aware of the political mechanisms that are in place, that fuel these tragedies, as well as the political actions needed to reverse them.

Political actions are not required when the justice system makes a mockery of restitution.

Rosco wrote:

But here’s the thing:
I don’t want to be shot. I do not want anyone I love to be shot. I don’t want people I don’t particularly care for to be shot. I do not want harm to befall strangers, even if their beliefs do oppose mine. Outside of war, shooting is the most preventable tragedy on the face of the earth.

Not hardly. Crime itself is not 100% preventable. But preventing those that would otherwise prey on the weak and defenseless from engaging in such activities would certainly reduce the odds of you or your loved ones being harmed. Of course, you only care if they're shot. Obviously your compassion runs short if they're raped, beaten, strangled or stabbed. How noble of you.

Chloe wrote:

The NRA, the most useless organization in America, has been allowed to define the second Amendment for way too long.

Wrong Chloe. The wording is plain for all to see and SCOTUS agrees. That you abhor rights and liberties is something you'll just have to live with.

Chloe wrote:

And their definition has always focused only on the second sentence of the whole amendment; they ignore the part that mentions the WELL REGULATED militia.

So? That's part of a clause that cannot stand on its own grammatically. But do enlighten us how the first phrase somehow limits the second.

Chloe wrote:

The second amendment is the only part of the Constitution that your average far-right nut really believes in, and they get that amendment wrong on a constant basis.

First off, you're wrong. The right also feels strongly about the 1st, 4th, 9th & 10th.
And again, how does it feel to be on the wrong side of SCOTUS??

Chloe wrote:

It’s sad that we are unable to have a real discussion on these weapons without some idjit somewhere whining about their imagined second amendment rights.

Oh, so you're flapping your gums sing your imagined first amendment rights in an effort to decry those that believe in the 2nd amendment. Makes you pretty much a freedom bigot and an all around frustrated control freak. Typical.

Chloe wrote:

I cannot imagine where the country is heading.

Who knows? But guns are the least of our worries.

Chloe wrote:

Guns don’t kill people, people WITH GUNS kill people.

People with cars kill people.
People with rope kill people.
People with fire kill people.
People with explosives/flammables kill people.
People with blint instruments kill people.
People with knives kill people.
People with chains kill people.
People with power kill people.
People with words kill people.

But of course you don't care about those that are killed by anything other than firearms because those deaths don't allow you to dance in the blood of the victims.

Just wait till Novemeber when those who have concealed permits will be allowed to be open carry. Hello Arizona land!

While downtown in Stinkieville late last Saturday night, a guy pulled a knife on me and demanded my cell phone and all of my money, so I drew a gun.

He said it was the best drawing of a gun he'd ever seen, but he still wanted my cell phone and all of my money.

Retarted Outlaw said that cars are less likely to be broken into if there are rosary beads visible inside.

Personally, I think an empty gun holster on the passenger seat works better.

Ethel,I'm a little too old to have beads or other such things haning off my mirror. I'm pretty fond of being able to see everything, no mention I'm not catholic.

Subject: Fw: Marlin Firearms bought out by Soros

" A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government"

George Washington

Thank Obama and remember this when you vote in 2012 Disarming America . Marlin Firearms bought out by Soros Marlin Firearms is already closing its doors! They are doing it to us, America! Even if you do not own a gun you need to know this. This needs to be spread to all gun owners and sportsman. We cannot rely on the media to inform us of these types of matters. Something You May Not Know That Is Happening Who is buying companies, manufacturing guns??? For the last several years a company called The Freedom Group has been buying up gun and ammunition manufacturers. Some of the companies are Bushmaster, Marlin, Remington, DPMS, Dakota Arms and H&R. Some people worry that this Freedom Group is going to control most of the firearms companies in the United States . If you control the manufacturers you can decide to stop selling to civilians. What a perfect way to control guns. Now if you do some digging you will see that The Freedom Group is owned by a company called Cerberus Capital Management. Guess who controls Cerberus??? GEORGE SOROS!!! He wants to restrict or ban all civilian guns. Please pass this on to all your freedom loving friends. This needs to come out. Why have we not heard about this in the "mainstream" media? I would think this would be BIG news.(Soros also owns Progressive Insurance). If you don't know who George Soros is, you need to do some Research. He backed Obama with millions of dollars and Obama is a puppet on a string controlled by Soros. Send this to every gun owner in America .

Colorado is a HEAVILY armed state yet, in a crowded theatre, no heroic 2A nuts were around to protect the public. No fault of the state as they have Castle Doctrine ans Stand Your Ground laws along with CC permits.

Why is it the *heroes* are only around to *protect* us from black teenagers *armed* with Skittles and iced tea?

Rolf wrote:

Colorado is a HEAVILY armed state yet, in a crowded theatre, no heroic 2A nuts were around to protect the public. No fault of the state as they have Castle Doctrine ans Stand Your Ground laws along with CC permits.

Are you always that clueless? The theater was a designated "Gun Free Zone"? Do you know what that means?

Rolf wrote:

Why is it the *heroes* are only around to *protect* us from black teenagers *armed* with Skittles and iced tea?

Why is it none of the gun control advocates didn't jump up and disarm the shooter? They always insist that if you remove the guns there will be no shootings? Your ilk dropped the ball, Rolf.

Face it - the 2nd amendment is obsolete. It codified our right to keep arms at a point in time when citizens' arms and the govt's arms were evenly matched. However, today these idiot gun nuts think they need their semi-autos to keep them safe from a govt armed with chemical weapons, an air force, nukes, non-lethals, remote drones, etc...

If the 2nd amendment was originally intended to maintain 'a free state', we're well past that today. Outlaw handguns and assault rifles now.

Also the Teabaggers have turned the rest of Bill of Rights into a cruel and deadly hoax. Check it out:

1st Amendment - "We can say the n-word in public and nothing will happen to us."
2nd Amendment - "I can have a tank up on blocks in the front yard."
3rd Amendment - "Wha?...There's a third amendment?"
4th Amendment - "Those n-words are getting away with murder."
5th Amendment - "it's okay to shoot the cops when they come to your front door...like that Jesus wannabee at Waco did."
6th Amendment - "Obama is coming to take your guns!"
7th Amendment - See 6th Amendment
8th Amendment - "Arrest? It's my constitutional right to weat a gun into a city council meeting. This is violation of free speech!"
9th Amendment - "Where's the Birth Certificate?"
10th Amendment - "The sovereign state of South Carolina secedes from the union!"
11th Amendment - "They go that high? It's Obama's fault!!"

Buford wrote:

Face it - the 2nd amendment is obsolete. It codified our right to keep arms at a point in time when citizens' arms and the govt's arms were evenly matched. However, today these idiot gun nuts think they need their semi-autos to keep them safe from a govt armed with chemical weapons, an air force, nukes, non-lethals, remote drones, etc...

Face it, you're a moron. You have no clue how much fire power is in the hands of the citizenry and have conveniently forgotten that the military can't exist without civilian industry.

Buford wrote:

If the 2nd amendment was originally intended to maintain 'a free state', we're well past that today. Outlaw handguns and assault rifles now.

You know nothing about the 2nd Amendment. You're just a trolling sock puppet.

Stan wrote:

Also the Teabaggers have turned the rest of Bill of Rights into a cruel and deadly hoax. Check it out:
1st Amendment - "We can say the n-word in public and nothing will happen to us."
2nd Amendment - "I can have a tank up on blocks in the front yard."
3rd Amendment - "Wha?...There's a third amendment?"
4th Amendment - "Those n-words are getting away with murder."
5th Amendment - "it's okay to shoot the cops when they come to your front door...like that Jesus wannabee at Waco did."
6th Amendment - "Obama is coming to take your guns!"
7th Amendment - See 6th Amendment
8th Amendment - "Arrest? It's my constitutional right to weat a gun into a city council meeting. This is violation of free speech!"
9th Amendment - "Where's the Birth Certificate?"
10th Amendment - "The sovereign state of South Carolina secedes from the union!"
11th Amendment - "They go that high? It's Obama's fault!!"

Ah yes, the sock puppet has spoken again. After bending over for Obama's propaganda up your wazoo, you now have his spooge in your brains...and nothing else.

Maybe the movie was just not up to par for the gun nut?

Maybe we need more open carry?

More guns, more gun nuts.