How do you feel about guns?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by lixluke, Jul 31, 2006.

?

Guns

  1. Have no place in this world. Should be abolished like slavery.

    33 vote(s)
    36.7%
  2. Are every human's right.

    57 vote(s)
    63.3%
  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,852
    Fine. Whatever. Call it "certification" or "registry". It is not an abridgment of your rights to demand that you know how to use the damn thing.

    And that includes criminals. Hmm. Complication. However, if we read the Second Amendment according to what it says, we can justify regulation as part of the security of a free state. You know, the Second Amendment? Then again, I must bear in mind that gun-advocacy rhetoric doesn't generally care about the security of a free state.

    You know, in my public school, they did teach firearm safety equivalent to not going near powerlines: Stay away from guns. Beyond that, your proposition of teaching the basics to every American only indoctrinates people into the culture of gun violence. Which seems to be your goal: the more guns, the merrier.

    And it's fairly easy: Stay away from guns.

    By your agenda, "Teaching everyone how not to misuse a gun" is a disingenuous characterization. You're advocating teachng children how to shoot. With public money. The government should keep its hands off your weapon, right? Unless, of course, it's handing one to you? Selfish and hypocritical. You're welcome to your paranoid fantasies and lethal force, but I find it offensive that you would use state money to indoctrinate my child into that world.

    Neither would I let a paranoid person teach safety. If you think this is harsh, consider your own inconsistency:

    This is what is, or at least was twenty-five years ago, taught in schools. At least it was at mine. It sounds to me like you're complaining for no reason. Of course, with the damage conservatives have done to the curriculum during that period, things could have changed.

    But it is inconsistent with what you wrote earlier in your own post. And as I've noted, it's a ridiculous and offensive proposal to use public money to indoctrinate children in the methods and philosophies of gun violence.

    Good. That was the point. It's almost as ridiculous as taking children away from parents who don't want their kids forcibly trained in the operation and use of firearms.

    It hardly constitutes teaching her how to operate and use the effing gun. Truly, Mr. Scott, that was the point I was wondering about, and when you wrote that every American "should be taught the basics of firearm safety and use", you demonstrated how ridiculous your proposition is.

    You keep shying away from what constitutes proper use. Answer me a question, please:

    Is every person who calls themselves a "responsible gun owner" responsible?

    I would think we could actually agree on the answer, but I'll wait for your two cents. Because I don't see why you're so afraid of a standard to describe responsible use.

    Er ... okay. Whatever you say. (That sentence doesn't make enough sense for me to attempt to interpret.)

    No, I'm simply not frightened of every possibility.

    So ... you're condescending for no reason at all? You're a sad joke.

    Neither that nor your examples are much of an answer. Besides, you left out a possibility. You could be disarmed and shot with your own weapon.

    And I've seen what some people consider a threat. It ain't necessarily pretty, and it ain't necessarily smart. Your oversensitivity, for instance, I would hope is limited to your online experiences.

    Just about everyone is capable of using a gun, Mr. Scott, and that can be scary. Even the stupid can protect themselves against imagined threats.

    Carrying a gun at all times because you're frightened of your neighbor is not the right outlined in the Second Amendment. If regulating a well-regulated militia is too much to ask, perhaps you should consider the wisdom of exercising this particular right of yours.

    My driver's license isn't what I would call "expensive". Insurance is more about the poor, and I'll skip the question about how thick you are.

    Answer the question: Is replacing training with number of rounds conducive to security?

    There is a difference between teaching reading, writing, math, honesty, &c., and teaching children how to shoot. Try an honest comparison sometime, Mr. Scott.

    Well, "unarmed" is certainly a fair word for it, at least.

    Yes, because it is domestic violence. So much for the minimal-violence response, eh? Consistency, Mr. Scott, would help reduce your appearance of dishonesty.

    I came across a bit yesterday where someone was bitching about the infamous 43:1 ratio, pointing out that the statistic only counted when the intruder was killed or wounded, and did not account for the number of times simply flashing a weapon sufficed. Interestingly, the gun advocates tend to shoot down any "last resort" rhetoric by flashing their guns dozens of times because they've scared themselves so badly.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,149
    Actually very technically it is. I mean we let anyone speak and let anyone practice religon. Arms falls under that purview. When you start realizing that you'll start realizing how much the right has been eroded. Now I agree we should know who has purchased legal firearsm, however this registration should be free and should in no way refect negatively on the purchaser.

    Actually we do. The point that criminals would be allowed weaponry as well is moot point. They get them anyway and much better and more powerful ones than police carry. Saying that the gun advocacy does not care about the secuirity of a free state is like saying a journalist does not care about freedom of press. We care, we know the only sure way to protect the people is to arm the people.

    And why is it wrong to teach people a skill that applies to real life, that keeps proud traditions alive, and will have the benefit of reducing crimes and accidents. Yes your school may ahve taught kids to stay away from weapons, but i don't wish to instill fear into people. I wish to give them confidence.

    No it is not that easy. if it was that easy there would be no gun accident fatalities, no drug addicted children, and so on. You are taking a highly complex issue and trying to boil it down to simple terms and your prejudice is showing.

    Okay, so it is wrong of me to think that perhaps the government live up to the rights it is bound by. It's also wrong of me to assume that our school systems should fully educate people in a skill that many find invaluable. Now I am not saying teach 8 years olds to bust a cap, in fact I would hold off actual shooting until 14 or so.

    I'm not the one that expects every other person in the world prove that they are crack shot before letting them consider a practical an efficent means of defense.

    Can we say missing the point? And no it was the liberals that mined stuff even remotely like this out of schools. I should know I am one. I am talking going beyond what has been taught before.

    It's offensive to not use the public money to improve our shools, And yes this would be an improvment. Children who are given a sense of self confidence and identity are less likely to become the bad element of the future. Hell if I had my way school would 10 hours a day, include all the basics as well as firearm safety, basic finances, ballroom dancing, sports and other programs designed to empower. We have stepped away from actually teaching kids anything and instead are not just trying to occupy them.

    I can see now that you just too prejudiced. You are one of those people that actively believes it is the thing that is the problem. You fail to realize the truth that minus the human element a gun is nothing more than a lump of chemicals. It is my fervant hope that your daughter grows up well adjusted dispite your influences.

    Sis you think my progmram would take aside 4 year old and start them shooting? That's just insane and not even implied in my idea. If you thought that perhaps you need to test yourself for a learning disability or perhaps you're just being a demogoge. I would not have children firing real firearms untill they are at least 12 and I would prefer 14

    I would say no, but then again I would also say not every self proclaimed responsible driver is, or every self proclaimed responsible parent. It's a case by cases basis and you know this.

    Oh, so obviously not a high schol graduate. My statement is that that: A Knives require training to be truly effective. B: As with all melee weaponry you are hampered by the fact that your opponent can retaliate.

    And neither am I. I'm just prepared.

    No, I have a reason for condescension, I'm speaking to a prejudiced emotional demogogue who even when her point is answered rehashes it. And it is upsetting becuase normally she seems so intelligent and charming instead of like a rabid howler monkey.

    How come everyone alsmot believes it is so easy to disarm someone. That is gun control's biggest argument. Suddenly every fucking criminal is Jackie Chan. Obviously there is the danger of that, but if your oppnenet could do that do you think you knife or martial arts moves are going to do any better. At least during disarm you might get a shot off and alert others in a voice much louder than your own.

    Well as long as they don't fire, shut up. Not your business.

    They can also protect themselves from real ones. You see that is your problem you are focussing too much on the negative.

    Listen and actually hear me this time you lightyear-thick-headed delusional person. Why a person carries a gun is none of your damn business. They have the right. Militias are well regulated, however the people still have the right to bear arms.

    True a driver's license isn't but some gun carriage licenses are. And yes, it is hard to answer that question Big Blue has been working it for a month now and it semes variable. Most of the time you are quite reasonable, but when it comes to guns you seem to have a width wider than Beetlebrok's ego.

    Perhaps. Of course I will pose my question: Does it matter.

    True there is reading, writing and math can be done sitting down and rather passively. Shooting requires some effort and a deeper connection to the adults teaching you.

    Well glad we agree that you are the moron and I am not. And you did agree

    Obviously you have never even met a victim of domestic abuse. Sometimes the gun hot really is the only way out.

    The 43:1 ration is a falacy anyway. The CDC and the other doctors collecting the data admit that they assumed certain levels of knowledge and they the removed any one 'known' byt the homeowner from the home invader list. The ratio is a farce, alwaus has been.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,852
    You really haven't a clue, do you?

    Actually, we do not. If your statement were true:

    - Hallucinogenic drugs used in religious rituals would be legal without question.
    - While the production of child pornography would remain illegal, its possession and transmission would be legal.
    - Market demands, and not laws, would prevent major networks from showing a Ron Jeremy filmfest during prime time.
    - Howard Stern, Janet Jackson ... ???
    - Sedition Acts would be unconstitutional. (I think they pretty much are, but that's just me.)
    - The list does go on.​

    A major difference between the First and Second Amendments is that the First does not speak of a well-regulated anything.

    There is no doubt that some gun policies, both proposed and enacted, have crossed the Constitution. But gun advocates in general do not demonstrate a rational understanding of the Second Amendment.

    Perhaps, but only until a bogus line is crossed. Only until you feel inconvenienced.

    Stop with the self-aggrandizing comparisons. It's easy enough to say you care, and it's easy enough to talk about preventing crime or standing up to the government. But while you're willing to admit that not all gun owners who think of themselves as responsible actually are, you're not willing to actually do anything in the public's interest about it except threaten freedom. The solution is not to take away people's right of conscience and force them to learn to shoot. It is well enough to claim to strive for peace, but you would punish people for believing in peace. Thanks for "protecting our freedoms".

    All of them? Obviously not. Unless, of course, violence is the only real peace. In order to "protect" the people, some people's right to bear arms would be abridged. For instance, the violently crazy? Violent criminals? Oh, right, right. If someone says they're a responsible gun owner, we're supposed to trust them. I forgot. Any real standard of responsibility is an abridgment of rights.

    Because the attraction of that solution is its bullshit machismo; it presumes much of the firearm that is not necessarily true; "proud traditions" are a crappy reason for anything; without a real standard of responsibility, "the benefit of reducing crimes and accidents" is a cheap presumption.

    (Chortle!)

    And it's a lot more gratifying to your outlook than conflict avoidance, a lot simpler than crime reduction. As long as there is inequality in society, we will experience certain kinds of crime. Shooting the criminals will do nothing to actually end crime. One less criminal? There's another one born tomorrow.

    You mean people don't always follow the notions they're taught? Oh, unless, of course, you're teaching them how to shoot. Silly me. I forgot the most obvious difference in the world.

    If gun advocates don't like the conclusions people draw from observations of behavior, then gun advocates ought to consider changing their behavior. After years of listening to oversensitive, dishonest, frightened gun advocates yammer on about how forthright and courageous they are, it's not a prejudice. If gun owners resent being thought of as creepy and frightened, they ought to stop acting so creepy and frightened.

    As to boiling down a highly complex issue, I'm not the one who has to cut a constitutional amendment in half in order to pretend I know what it says.

    First, you're not bound by rights. Hang onto that point for a few minutes; we'll come back to it.

    And yes, it is wrong of you to expect the government to live up to obligations that you invent instead of the obligations binding it. Furthermore, it is, indeed, wrong of you to assume that our school systems should fully educate people in the methods and philosophies of firearms. Not even I pretend the schools can get certain simple things right. Furthermore, you should at least be honest: Is is, indeed, wrong of you to assume that people should be obliged under threat of law to be fully educated in a skill you find invaluable.

    Nor am I. But you are the person that thinks children should be indoctrinated in the methods and philosophies of firearms or else be seized by the public authority.

    Sure. Missing the point is a skill you possess in abundance.

    Right. You're a liberal. Your approach to the constitution and the relationship between people, state, and society do not describe you as a liberal.

    Yes, you are.

    An improvement? How the hell am I supposed to even take you seriously at this point? Forcing children to handle firearms would be an improvement to the school system?

    Lots of criminals, you know, bad elements, get their sense of self-confidence and identity from their guns.

    Teaching rational thought and civic relationships would be better. Empowerment without rational thought is dangerous.

    I'm "too prejudiced" because I find it ridiculous to use the law to force children to be indoctrinated into the gun culture?

    Thank you for the chuckle.

    Something about missing the point? My problem isn't with the guns, but the creepy, oversensitive people for whom guns are the cornerstone of self-confidence and identity. If it wasn't for people, guns wouldn't exist. And the Universe would probably be a better place without people or their damn guns.

    Given your expressed outlook, you will most likely be very disappointed when she grows up to be well-adjusted. It is my own fervent hope that she does not come up to be so dishonest, selfish, and frightened as you; if she is well-adjusted according to your dimensions, I will have failed her, and society as well.

    Whatever you say.

    Whatever. But you'd have them firing real firearms under force of law. That sure as hell is protecting freedom with your gun, isn't it?

    Which is all the more reason for going by the honor system when carrying lethal weapons, right? You'd force everyone to learn to shoot, but you resent the idea that those who want to carry weapons should be able to meet a rational standard of competence?

    Let's try this again:

    Besides like I said, proper knife use is acquired skill and you have to pray that your opponent even semi trained or is big enough that a single stab is only going to piss him off.

    Learn to write a freakin' sentence. I've tried to overlook your basic communicative difficulties, but that damn sentence of yours makes no sense. Remember when I told you to hang onto a thought for a few minutes? Normally, I would have overlooked the phrase "the rights it is bound by", but I figure to take this moment to point out that someone who can't even compose a proper sentence for the insult they're slinging, e.g.--

    Oh, so obviously not a high schol graduate.

    --ought to reconsider the merits of attempting such an insult.

    Look, if English is your second language, fine. I understand. But go back to the guy who tutored you for the ToEFL and demand your money back.

    You could be prepared through other means. You just haven't the confidence to undertake them.

    If we're standing in Seattle and I ask you which way to Washington, D.C., you might answer, "Purple". And you'd be right to think it was an answer.

    Charming? Wow. Thank you. Would you treat a man this way? I mean, I'm just trying to find out what value "charming" has in your disappointment. Of course, some men find other men charming, too. I wouldn't want to accuse you of sexism, but there are plenty of intelligent people out there who aren't normally charming.

    Anyway, back to the regularly-scheduled rounds:

    It's not a matter of the biggest argument. It's merely a possibility.

    Attempting to escalate a potential conflict is not protecting oneself from crime. And it serves society none.

    I'm only working with what the gun advocates give me to work with. Like your attitude, for instance: Are you so damnably rude because you pack heat, or is it just a God-given gift?

    When you share it with the world, it's public domain. When those reasons are dishonest, it's a public concern.

    I'll just pretend I've heard a reasonable definition of a well-regulated militia. And you don't need to remind me that people have the right to bear arms. If you stuck to the issues at hand, perhaps you'd find this discussion less frustrating. I know I'd find you considerably less disingenuous.

    Well, you might want to brush up on your reading comprehension. Despite the misfire, I'll at least applaud your creativity.

    It would in the context of forcing people to learn to shoot. A lack of concern for other people is one of the things that makes the gun advocates sound so creepy.

    Beside the point. Your fixation on guns and shooting is one of the things that makes your gun advocacy sound so creepy.

    Given your difficulties with reading and writing, you shouldn't stretch so hard to make a joke. But I'll applaud the effort.

    You're far too presumptuous. I have met and even counseled victims of domestic abuse. And, by definition, I've been one before.

    I know I shouldn't challenge you with such obscure points. You've demonstrated quite clearly how offended you are when the situation requires you to think. I suppose I'm not surprised that you missed the point, so, for the record, I was making a point about the dishonesty of gun advocacy.

    If you don't like the way people perceive the gun advocates, then change the method and manner of presentation. It's one thing to say, "No, I'm not crying, it's just raining." But when the sun is shining and the sky is speckless blue, people will know you're lying.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Maybe everybody that likes guns should be shot to peices. Then all we would have left is antigun peace on earth.
     
  8. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023
    Baron, I'm thinking some of these anti gun people just don't care about their own safety. You do know a lot of people hate themselves and dont' care what happens to them.

    Still, how is a person supposed to protect themselves or their family if they have nothing? Join the police force?
     
  9. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023
    You idiot, if you did that people would move on to more dangerous weapons. Gun control is impossible, thats why I'm against it. I've never seen it work. In all the cities they attempt it in, all it accomplishes is disarming the most honest good hard working people, the criminals will get guns no matter what, even if they have to import then illegally like drugs are imported.

    Gun control like drug control never works and only makes people get guns from other places. If none of us had access to guns, a lot more people would be joining the police force. Let's be realsitic here, the criminals all have guns.

    How do we defend ourselves in a gunless society filled with violent savages?
     
  10. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023
    All gun control people have to say is this.

    How do you all defend yourselves from violent people when you have no weapon? If you were in prison, and you tried to disarm everyone in prison, would this make prison safe? No it wouldnt. They already try to disarm everyone in prison, and people get stabbed up, shot, and killed in prison, because guns find their way into prisons.

    So you see, if you are in prison, just because you won't carry a weapon, it doesnt mean your cellmate won't have one. How do you prevent yourself from being gang raped without a weapon while in prison?

    If gun control people can answer a single self defense question I'll take them seriously, but this turn the other cheek garbage, it does not work, it's not realistic, and if it did work people would be doing it in prison.
     
  11. swivel Sci-Fi Author Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,494
    I've just recently changed my opinion on this topic. I am now 100% against gun ownership. I think all guns everywhere should be destroyed, with some sort of reimbursement program, perhaps even tax credit.

    I used to think that banning guns was a hideous idea because it would leave law-abiding people unarmed and criminals left holding the guns. But then I realized that this would be a good thing. That way, if you saw a gun, you KNEW that it was owned by a bad guy. The current system has the market so flooded with the things that the bad ones blend right in.

    I think the argument for keeping the military in check was void 80 years ago. Military armament has outpaced the musket vs. musket days.

    My biggest gripe with guns is that they make killing too easy. You can make a rash decision, and it is over. With other killing methods you get a window of realization where the horror of what you are doing might shake your will. My boss has had one brother kill his father and another brother blow his brains out within the last year. Both were done in extreme bouts of depression and were regretted immediately. I have to wonder if three lives close to me would be restored if the same scenario was played out without guns.

    Here is another issue which keeps me from considering myself a Liberterian. As a conservative, pro-choice atheist, the Republicans won't have me. And I can't align myself with the Democrats, who are now a party of organized labor that finds fault with democracy and capitalism.

    So cold. So lonely. Need a hug....
     
  12. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,149
    All guns? So in your opinion the army does not need guns nor the police. Well you are allowed you opinion, no matter how stupid it is.

    Oh yes knowing that only a criminal could possibly own a gun is a great comfort when they just killed your wife and kids in front of you and left you to live with the grief. Yeah, you're right what sane human being would want guns in the hands of people who might have saved those lives.

    Yeah, but ask a soldier what is more daunting, an infantry man with an assault rifle or an experienced hunter with a scoped rifle.

    Killing is physically easy period, poisoning, stabbing, clubbing, hanging, strangulation, CO poisoning, drowning... all are physcially easy. More than likely it would have just chaged the death types once the mental hurdel was leapt to actually kill.
     
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,852
    Yoshimi battles the Pink Robots

    Those folks who are left completely unable to defend themselves are likely unable to handle a firearm. Furthermore, I don't see how arming prisoners would necessarily fix anything in prisons; I'm aware that you aren't directly advocating such a condition, but I don't see the point otherwise of invoking the prison comparison.

    Let's take the issue of rape. Why? Because it's one I've devoted a lot of consideration to, and serves well as an analogy in this case. It seems to me that the majority of rapes occurring in the U.S., for instance, are crimes resulting from some lack of proper resolution. The date rapist, for instance, fails to understand certain aspects of sexual relations between humans; the psychopath often bears open psychiatric wounds creating the conditions that motivate his crimes. Even if we overcome the ideological hurdles determining a certain number of rapes each year, we can never push that number to zero. There will always be a sociopath or psychopath out there who acts for any number of reasons. If we manage, as a species, to eliminate the value conflicts and alienations that generate certain sociopaths and psychopaths, we will still have to deal with a certain number of them dictated by nature either through genetic structure or other motivating variation.

    Even if you eliminate all other reasons for violence between prisoners, nature will dictate some condition that you simply cannot account for. The natural variation of the living endeavor seems to dictate it: diversity is, when we get down to it, infinite. As long as there is a God, there is an Antithesis of God. As long as there is an idea, there is a refutation. The validity does not necessarily matter: nature abhors a vacuum, demands a reaction to any action.

    The prison argument is invalid: Even if you controlled every imported and house-manufactured weapon in a prison, someone would still find a way to hurt someone else. Not only does nature demand, but the nature of prisoners demands, as well. Arming prisoners, or validating the arming thereof, is all but obviously an invalid refutation.

    The fact that people will hurt one another given the chance is no reason to escalate the violence. One of the tragedies of American politics, in recent years, is that some circles routinely and inconsistently apply "value of life" arguments. Anti-abortion folks, pro-death penalty folks, war hawks, industrialists, popular religious leadership: the list goes on.

    The power of the phrase is immense. If you're pro-choice, you lack an appreciation of the value of life. If you're anti-death penalty, you lack an appreciation of the value of life. If you're anti-war, you lack an appreciation of the value of life. If you're anti-industrial, you oppose progress and therefore lack an appreciation of the value of life. These are effective attacks. Democrats, rather than being politically liberal, attempt to identify with a "liberalized" version of the value of life.


    The value of life is all that and more. It's larger than anyone can express, much less a dullard mob.

    It isn't about banning guns. It's about agreeing on the value of (a) life.

    When gun advocates realize this, or at least demonstrate this understanding in their rhetoric, they will seem considerably less creepy and paranoid.
     
  14. jackkm Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    Wait. I'm confused.

    How did the right to bear arms get separated from it's counterpart--the militia?

    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


    We retain the right to bear arms in order to fight a potential tyrannical government. We were not given this right as an "equalizer" as someone earlier mentioned (e.g. someone who is weak can kill/maim/defend themselves from someone who is strong).

    IF our forefathers had intended guns for the purpose of shooting people who were bigger than us, or any other varied reading of this amendment, I'm sure they would have mentioned it, eloquently.

    Had my second grade English teacher written the second amendment on the board--as a sentence only, not as a discussion topic--and asked me to, using only information provided by the sentence, write and turn in why we were allowed to bear arms, I would write:
    Because a well regulated militia is necessary. -- And I would be, right.
    If I were to have written:
    Bad people might have guns, and we need to protect ourselves; We need guns to equalize fights; or even I like watermelons. --I would have failed the assignment. And possibly have been forced to seek psychiatric help for the last one.
    My point is:
    You have to consider an entire sentence before you determine its meaning. "Jumping the gun" can lead to all sorts of problems.

    --

    Now my personal standpoint as the question asks: I don't like guns. I wish they were never invented. However, because they were invented, I don't want their distribution to be limited. If my government can have guns, so can I. If my enemies can have guns, so can I. Law won't change this, nor should it.

    Now that guns have been created, they are needed. If ever guns become outlawed, that's when we know our rights are about to be severely trampled upon.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,737
    This is like saying "I wish the electric chair was never invented. But, seeing as it was, we should definitely use it."
     
  16. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    I don't really care about how other people feel about guns. I just like them and I like shooting them. Also I like that plebs(lowest) in the past have been able to KILL the president of the united states(the supposedly most powerful man in the world) with them. Now THAT is democracy!
     
  17. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848
    if other people have guns, then i need a gun or its not even.

    peace.
     
  18. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    I feel about guns the same way as I feel about nuns
    They have their place, but I'd prefer not to have one in the house.

    Now if you were talking about buns
    totally different kettle of fish.
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,852
    (Insert title here)

    Sándor Ferenczi would be proud.
     
  20. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Sandor Ferenczi, the Baker?

    If you are talking about Freudian slips, this isn't one.
    I have a follow-up line to do with spreading them with butter.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2007
  21. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    Here here!

    Apparently the anti-gun advocates would have you call 911 while your house is being robbed and your wife raped at knifepoint (or even 'better', gunpoint).
     
  22. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    I grew up in a military/hunting family. I've never held a gun. I hate guns. They scare me. Every person in my family hunts except me.
    But if you take away guns, you will end a way of life for many many people who have nothing to do with murder.
     
  23. Wisdom_Seeker Speaker of my truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,184
    Murder of humans maybe.
     

Share This Page