Oh those funny gun lovers . . .

[Biggs3535]

I have also been held up at gun point and so I know, from first hand experience

Yes, I remember you telling the story of you going to an ATM and a young black teenager robbed you.   You mentioned you could have kicked his ass if he didn't have a gun.

correct, if he didn't have a gun.

 If i had a gun it would have been in my car in the parking lot of if on my person, in a holster. The young kid who robbed me -- likely a gang member committing the crime as part of an initiation (there were three or four other kids behind him in a car) - was terrified and probably would have shot me over $300. It would not have been worth it to try and pull a gun to "defend" myself over $300. It was simpler and safer to simply talk through the event and give over the money.  Only weeks after I was robbed TWO people were shot, one resisted and one was a needless act of violence.

I can't imagine why you were the target.

[VinBucFan]

I have also been held up at gun point and so I know, from first hand experience

Yes, I remember you telling the story of you going to an ATM and a young black teenager robbed you.   You mentioned you could have kicked his ass if he didn't have a gun.

correct, if he didn't have a gun.

 If i had a gun it would have been in my car in the parking lot of if on my person, in a holster. The young kid who robbed me -- likely a gang member committing the crime as part of an initiation (there were three or four other kids behind him in a car) - was terrified and probably would have shot me over $300. It would not have been worth it to try and pull a gun to "defend" myself over $300. It was simpler and safer to simply talk through the event and give over the money.  Only weeks after I was robbed TWO people were shot, one resisted and one was a needless act of violence.

I can't imagine why you were the target.

judging by your posts, you cant imagine much, so that's hardly surprising.

Buggsy =  can't get out of his own way

[spartan]

correct, if he didn't have a gun.

 If i had a gun it would have been in my car in the parking lot of if on my person, in a holster. The young kid who robbed me -- likely a gang member committing the crime as part of an initiation (there were three or four other kids behind him in a car) - was terrified and probably would have shot me over $300. It would not have been worth it to try and pull a gun to "defend" myself over $300. It was simpler and safer to simply talk through the event and give over the money.  Only weeks after I was robbed TWO people were shot, one resisted and one was a needless act of violence.

And that was more than likely not only the smart, but correct thing to do.

But, if someone had tried to break into my house when I and my kids were in bed I would have a different opinion. Yet, that really isn't the real reason behind my defense of the 2nd amendment. When I came to this country I struggled to understand how a 'civilized' society would need to own firearms. As time went on, I began to understand that it was not only a symbolic, but also a practical flag to those who would want to supborn our liberties.  As Thomas Jefferson said “He who trades liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both.” I believe that, I truly do, and that for me is what the 2nd Amendment is all about. And, yes, I think the sacrifice is worth it because those who want to do bad things will do bad things, but in the grand scope of things, acts like the Connecticut shootings are not the normal. Inevitably, I believe that my position will save more lives and prevent more deaths than any gun law will.

[VinBucFan]

Inevitably, I believe that my position will save more lives and prevent more deaths than any gun law will.

I respect your point of view and your right to have that point of view, but a couple things to consider:

1. We live in the society that is arguably least likely to have its own government come in and take away everyone's rights
2. We live in  the society that generally has the most guns and most gun deaths

 I am not sure how you can reach or support the conclusion above if you believe/accept numbers 1 and 2 as the truth.

I understand having a gun for safety, but people have assault weapons primarily for sport not safety and no gun -- in 2013 -- is going to protect you from our government turning against us.

Btw, I hope I can ask you in a few years if you still support the 2nd Amendment because I am pretty sure you are going to fund out it does not mean what you think it does

[Chief Joseph]

 " We live in the society that is arguably least likely to have its own government come in and take away everyone's rights."

I wonder why that is?

Lol. Vin - proving your point for you.

[VinBucFan]

 " We live in the society that is arguably least likely to have its own government come in and take away everyone's rights."

I wonder why that is?

Lol. Vin - proving your point for you.

No doubt because Lanza had access to 5 guns including an assault weapon.  I saw it on C-Span.  A week before the Newtown massacre Congress was discussing taking away all of our liberties and I know I heard one of those Congressman say, "but wait, Lanza's mom has 5 guns . . . . . .

If you think its because there are a lot of guns in society, well . . . . at what point did Ms. Lanza scare the US government off? Was it when she bought the first semi-automatic pistol? The second? Or, was it only when she bought the AR? If so, does that mean everyone in the US should have an AR to preserve our liberties? Is this just a new fear the US government has because Its citizens haven't been armed with ARs forever? 


hey, you post your name and address yet?

[Pewter Pirate]

Inevitably, I believe that my position will save more lives and prevent more deaths than any gun law will.

I respect your point of view and your right to have that point of view, but a couple things to consider:

1. We live in the society that is arguably least likely to have its own government come in and take away everyone's rights
2. We live in  the society that generally has the most guns and most gun deaths

 I am not sure how you can reach or support the conclusion above if you believe/accept numbers 1 and 2 as the truth.

I understand having a gun for safety, but people have assault weapons primarily for sport not safety and no gun -- in 2013 -- is going to protect you from our government turning against us.

Btw, I hope I can ask you in a few years if you still support the 2nd Amendment because I am pretty sure you are going to fund out it does not mean what you think it does

Uh....what about in 30 years what will the gov't look like them?  The problem with the logic that it is the the gov't least likely take away rights is the present.  Taking Gus away is taking rights away now that may affect a future generation with a government looking to take rights away. 

The world is more dangerous when the government has all of the assault weapons rather than a few crazy people having some of the assault weapons.

[VinBucFan]

Inevitably, I believe that my position will save more lives and prevent more deaths than any gun law will.

I respect your point of view and your right to have that point of view, but a couple things to consider:

1. We live in the society that is arguably least likely to have its own government come in and take away everyone's rights
2. We live in  the society that generally has the most guns and most gun deaths

 I am not sure how you can reach or support the conclusion above if you believe/accept numbers 1 and 2 as the truth.

I understand having a gun for safety, but people have assault weapons primarily for sport not safety and no gun -- in 2013 -- is going to protect you from our government turning against us.

Btw, I hope I can ask you in a few years if you still support the 2nd Amendment because I am pretty sure you are going to fund out it does not mean what you think it does

Uh....what about in 30 years what will the gov't look like them?  The problem with the logic that it is the the gov't least likely take away rights is the present.  Taking Gus away is taking rights away now that may affect a future generation with a government looking to take rights away. 

The world is more dangerous when the government has all of the assault weapons rather than a few crazy people having some of the assault weapons.

1. no one is saying take all guns away, just reduce the availability from 310 million
2. an assault weapon is not going to protect future generations against a tank
3. roughly 30,000 lives lost every year or more for each of those next 30 years is too much for the most remote happening.

just a few things to consider.

[GameTime]

my take is guns arent the problem, society is.  but i also dont understand the need for anyone to own a (so-called) assault rifle.

[Pewter Pirate]

Inevitably, I believe that my position will save more lives and prevent more deaths than any gun law will.

I respect your point of view and your right to have that point of view, but a couple things to consider:

1. We live in the society that is arguably least likely to have its own government come in and take away everyone's rights
2. We live in  the society that generally has the most guns and most gun deaths

 I am not sure how you can reach or support the conclusion above if you believe/accept numbers 1 and 2 as the truth.

I understand having a gun for safety, but people have assault weapons primarily for sport not safety and no gun -- in 2013 -- is going to protect you from our government turning against us.

Btw, I hope I can ask you in a few years if you still support the 2nd Amendment because I am pretty sure you are going to fund out it does not mean what you think it does

Uh....what about in 30 years what will the gov't look like them?  The problem with the logic that it is the the gov't least likely take away rights is the present.  Taking Gus away is taking rights away now that may affect a future generation with a government looking to take rights away. 

The world is more dangerous when the government has all of the assault weapons rather than a few crazy people having some of the assault weapons.

1. no one is saying take all guns away, just reduce the availability from 310 million
2. an assault weapon is not going to protect future generations against a tank
3. roughly 30,000 lives lost every year or more for each of those next 30 years is too much for the most remote happening.

just a few things to consider.

1.  When you start taking away rights, it is a step to eliminating rights.  History proves this.
2. I'd rather have an assault weapon against a tank than a knife.  They have to come out of that tank sometime.
3. Yes and most of those deaths occur in cities with tougher gun bans.  Which shows bans are an emotional response to a tragedy, but does not work.  Are you going to ban cars, next.  People are killed every day.

[olafberserker]

my take is guns arent the problem, society is.  but i also dont understand the need for anyone to own a (so-called) assault rifle.

this,

you can legislate guns however you want it isn't going to change the way our society is today.   we are completely desensitized to violence.   

[olafberserker]

Inevitably, I believe that my position will save more lives and prevent more deaths than any gun law will.

I respect your point of view and your right to have that point of view, but a couple things to consider:

1. We live in the society that is arguably least likely to have its own government come in and take away everyone's rights
2. We live in  the society that generally has the most guns and most gun deaths

 I am not sure how you can reach or support the conclusion above if you believe/accept numbers 1 and 2 as the truth.

I understand having a gun for safety, but people have assault weapons primarily for sport not safety and no gun -- in 2013 -- is going to protect you from our government turning against us.

Btw, I hope I can ask you in a few years if you still support the 2nd Amendment because I am pretty sure you are going to fund out it does not mean what you think it does

Uh....what about in 30 years what will the gov't look like them?  The problem with the logic that it is the the gov't least likely take away rights is the present.  Taking Gus away is taking rights away now that may affect a future generation with a government looking to take rights away. 

The world is more dangerous when the government has all of the assault weapons rather than a few crazy people having some of the assault weapons.

1. no one is saying take all guns away, just reduce the availability from 310 million
2. an assault weapon is not going to protect future generations against a tank
3. roughly 30,000 lives lost every year or more for each of those next 30 years is too much for the most remote happening.

just a few things to consider.

1.  When you start taking away rights, it is a step to eliminating rights.  History proves this.
2. I'd rather have an assault weapon against a tank than a knife.  They have to come out of that tank sometime.
3. Yes and most of those deaths occur in cities with tougher gun bans.  Which shows bans are an emotional response to a tragedy, but does not work.  Are you going to ban cars, next.  People are killed every day.

you're wasting your time ..... his theory is simple ban guns and violence ends .....

[Pewter Pirate]

my take is guns arent the problem, society is.  but i also dont understand the need for anyone to own a (so-called) assault rifle.

If you read history, and what happens when the government has most of the weapons you would understand.

[VinBucFan]

Inevitably, I believe that my position will save more lives and prevent more deaths than any gun law will.

I respect your point of view and your right to have that point of view, but a couple things to consider:

1. We live in the society that is arguably least likely to have its own government come in and take away everyone's rights
2. We live in  the society that generally has the most guns and most gun deaths

 I am not sure how you can reach or support the conclusion above if you believe/accept numbers 1 and 2 as the truth.

I understand having a gun for safety, but people have assault weapons primarily for sport not safety and no gun -- in 2013 -- is going to protect you from our government turning against us.

Btw, I hope I can ask you in a few years if you still support the 2nd Amendment because I am pretty sure you are going to fund out it does not mean what you think it does

Uh....what about in 30 years what will the gov't look like them?  The problem with the logic that it is the the gov't least likely take away rights is the present.  Taking Gus away is taking rights away now that may affect a future generation with a government looking to take rights away. 

The world is more dangerous when the government has all of the assault weapons rather than a few crazy people having some of the assault weapons.

1. no one is saying take all guns away, just reduce the availability from 310 million
2. an assault weapon is not going to protect future generations against a tank
3. roughly 30,000 lives lost every year or more for each of those next 30 years is too much for the most remote happening.

just a few things to consider.

1.  When you start taking away rights, it is a step to eliminating rights.  History proves this.
2. I'd rather have an assault weapon against a tank than a knife.  They have to come out of that tank sometime.
3. Yes and most of those deaths occur in cities with tougher gun bans.  Which shows bans are an emotional response to a tragedy, but does not work.  Are you going to ban cars, next.  People are killed every day.

you're wasting your time ..... his theory is simple ban guns and violence ends .....

yeah, that's my "theory"  . . . . after you run it through about a 12 pack of Pabst   

[Pewter Pirate]

my take is guns arent the problem, society is.  but i also dont understand the need for anyone to own a (so-called) assault rifle.

The reason we have the right to bear arms as well regulated militia, is to stop an out of control tyrannical govt't.  If the government has all of the "assault" weapons, a militia could never exist to stop the gov't.