Z
zzigzzag
Guest
Make that three. Another one yesterday. Stray bullets.
Guns!
- Thread starter Gramps
- Start date
Z
zzigzzag
Guest
Service weapons are designed for self defense. Cops don't carry assault weapons designed for efficient multiple killing. They only call in the SWAT team when someone makes the firepower necessary with an overt threat and the apparent means to carry it out.Really?Nobody is trying to take them, you just want laws that prevent us from having them? Seriously?
Why don't you start by disarming Law Enforcement? They are public servants, after all, and they are obliged to at least listen to you as a member of the public, (unlike the rest of us). Explain that they don't need to be carrying "weapons that are made only for killing others", and that they should set an example. We can use them as test subjects, and after a couple years of watching how that works out for them, then we can finally dispose of this entire, nonsensical, argument.
Z
zzigzzag
Guest
Then you should have no problem pasting one of these denial posts. One will do.
Z
zzigzzag
Guest
I see you had to look it up. Good boy.
freyasman
Senator
I beg to differ; I have two uncles that are career LEOs in NW Iowa, (one just retired after an almost 40yr long career), and their daily carry for patrol is a Glock 22 in .40s&w with a minimum of 3 15rd mags (usually 5-6), an AR rifle in 5.56mm with 5 30rd mags, and a 12ga shotgun with a 5-8 rd capacity. That is what is considered a standard, everyday load out in a little farm town in Iowa, and if you ask around, you'll find that's pretty common in most parts of the country. If the police, who have a hell of a lot less chance of being targeted for a robbery, or rape, or other assault than a civilian does, feel that this is an appropriate level of armament to carry to deal with the threat of crime, why would I accept any less? After all, "The police are the public and the public are the police." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles
You may have, but, you do not know the dame the illegals will invade your home......she lived through the invasion, you may be like the person they invaded before her.....gone like dust in the wind☻
Your conclusion is nonsense. I own guns because I find them fun, interesting and useful. I feel no fear, save for an antipathy for those who would attempt to deprive me of them.
Oh, bull. Schlock amateur psychobabble at best. Why don't you also say that gun owners are substituting for their short penises while you're at it. I own guns, hunt and shoot targets in competition. So did my father. So did my grandfathers.
Z
zzigzzag
Guest
"The public" has no training, no hierarchy, no mandate, no authority, no deserved trust, no marked cars, no radios dispatching them to to crime scenes and no uniforms. If they have any common sense, it's a coincidence. It's not required to own a gun. Kinda important to be a police officer, though.
Other than that, they're just like the police.
Thanks for confirming my long-held belief that anti-gun liberals have no trust in the public, and believe that authority flows from the state and the police rather than from the people themselves.
That is effectively what you're saying when you say that the public has neither "mandate" (it is the public that PROVIDES the mandate), and no "deserved" trust.
Z
zzigzzag
Guest
The "I' argument again. No one is out to get you or take your guns, Trap.
Some others on here appear to be posting from padded cells. Their fantasies about the "righteous kill" are all over the board. It has nothing to do with being "fun, interesting and useful". It has to do with fear and paranoia, tiny tallywackers notwithstanding.
Z
zzigzzag
Guest
I trust them to use guns to kill themselves and others at a rate of 30,000 per year. That trust they have earned perennially.
That isn't true. I can name at least two Democratic senators and a host of commentators and activists who do indeed want to ban, restrict or confiscate some or all of the firearms I own.
There is such a thing as a justifiable homicide. That's not a fantasy. My guns are indeed fun -- I enjoy shooting them and working on them. They are interesting. I have several that are more than 100 years old and still functioning -- history in your hand. They are useful, for shooting targets, for shooting game, and as tools for self-defense.
But I'm unsurprised at the amateur Freudian reference. Penises are apparently an obsession for some people. I'm quite happy with my own -- I don't reference those of others.
Yes, that's true -- there are about 30,000 "gun deaths" each year. Most of them, about 66 percent, are suicides. Of the remaining 30 percent, about half are accidents and about half are murders, a term which anti-gunners lump together with self-defense shootings, even when they're done by officers in the line of duty.
Of course there are in the neighborhood of 150 million gun owners who are harming no one. They can be ignored in the name of stopping 12,000 murders, though, even if the effort fails, the millions of gun owners rights don't matter, right?
Z
zzigzzag
Guest
Again, for the 1000th time....your premise is that anyone who wants restrictions on high capacity weapons wants to take your guns. That's because you can't defend them....not because you're confused about it.
Gee....I didn't understand that it was just the nomenclature that offended you. OK. There are many here who fantasize about committing "justifiable homicide". Better?
marvin martian
Emperor
No, I'm basing it on their actual statements, such as Jesse Jackson, who said in a presidential debate, "We must ban handguns." As for the "restrictions" you think I should trust the political firearms opponents, and I don't. I think that this set of restrictions is just a step towards the next set -- just as it always has been.
I'm not certain that's a "fantasy" many people share. Self defense is, however, a legitimate thing to do.
marvin martian
Emperor
Obviously that was a bit of projection on Zig's part. Lefties are notoriously violent people...
Ben Arnold
Council Member
No. While crime rates vary from place to place, Chicago is a pretty fun place to visit, not that I'd live there. Seattle is too beautiful to give up permanently.
Other places I've enjoyed visiting that have homicides include but aren't limited to, LA, NYC, Paris, Frankfurt, Brussels, London, Rio de Janeiro, San Paulo, Tokyo, Caracas, Boston, Bonham (TX), Bend (OR), ...
So an infinitesimal risk of being murdered in Chicago frightens me less than a high probability I might meet folks like Righties on this site and get trapped in a conversation, in the backwater shit holes in rural Red State hell, which runs a risk of my killing myself for being so stupid as to get trapped speaking with such a pinhead, when I'd rather be enjoying serious deep dish pizza with others who have intelligence I more closely associate with human species.
That help?
Because obviously anyone who chooses to live in a rural environment, rather in a crowded and polluted urban one is an uneducated buffoon, right? I mean, in some conversation in some "rural Red State hell" you wouldn't meet people who have forgotten more about how to manage a farm or ranch than you'll ever know (most farms and ranches are multi-million dollar businesses). They couldn't possibly have actual reasons, much less thoughts or supportive evidence for their political positions -- they're just rural dupes.
I prefer them to ivory-tower eggheads who've never stepped off pavement, or done hard physical work, in their lives. But that's me -- maybe Chicago's south side is absolute paradise. At this remove, from my "rural Red State hell," it doesn't appear to be so.
