Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

40 reasons to ban guns

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
mvccd1000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 11:26 AM
Original message
40 reasons to ban guns
Saw this on another site and got a chuckle out of it. Feel free to pick them apart at your leisure (or to sputter and spew if you're one of the antis who won't be swayed by logic or common sense).

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington, DC's, low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 magnum, will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense - give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases, "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "the powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons," but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles'' because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms, and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to four controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers, but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as former president of the NRA, was a cheap lunatic who should've been ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc., is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. This is pretty good.
Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
2. My new neighbor has three pit bulls and thinks it's all right letting
them run free unrestrained. Now I'm thinking of getting a gun. I wish it was legal to leave poisoned meat out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
24. Not a good idea
whatever animal injests the meat could die under your house, or even go crazy from the poison and attack a human or someone's pet before it dies.

Just saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
3. "Saw this on another site and got a chuckle out of it."

And I've seen it umpty brazillion times on this very site. And thought it was just as dumb and disrespectful of all members of DU each time as it was the time before.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. What's disrespectful about it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvccd1000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Re-run
I didn't realize it was a re-run here. Maybe this is where the poster on the other site found it. :)

I'm sorry that you consider the list to be dumb and disrespectful. Do you have any specific numbers you can reference as examples?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. "numbers"?


Why would you ask me for numbers? I didn't say anything about numbers. I said your decision to put this shit in this forum was disrespectful. What's that got to do with numbers?

But since you ask.

In 2005, the homicide rate in the District of Columbia was 29.1/100,000.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

Is there a reason that you would choose to offer the claim that the rate is 69/100,000?

(No need to ask why you would choose to offer a comparison of DC with Indianapolis. That one's obvious. It has to do with having so little respect for your readers that you choose to offer specious comparisons as if they were meaningful, in the hope of swaying public opinion by something other than candid, good faith argument.)

Since your little screed appears to originate sometime around 1994 (if we can assume that the particular claim in question was actually honest when it was written), I would say no, the place where you got it from did not get it from here.

I would say the place where you got it is just one of the usual tired, dishonest, right-wing places where people hereabouts inexplicably seem to love to spend their time.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22Guess+what%3F+You+have+the+wrong+hands.%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Results 1 - 30 of about 806 for "Guess what? You have the wrong hands."


The fact that your disrespect was intentional is as obvious as everything else.

Feel free to pick them apart at your leisure (or to sputter and spew if you're one of the antis who won't be swayed by logic or common sense).

Feel free to produce any further ignorant dishonest right-wing screeds you might run across in your travels around the dark, dirty, ignorant, dishonest, right-wing corners of the internet.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
19. What do you know if you split the difference,
of both of your figures you come out with right at the 20 year average which is about 51/100,000. One question though Iverglas is it possible to be a strong defender of the 2nd Amendment and still be a liberal?


David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. meow

One question though Iverglas is it possible to be a strong defender of the 2nd Amendment and still be a liberal?

Why don't you ask someone who cares?

Your second amendment is irrelevant noise to me, and under the only meaningful interpretation I see it is just as completely irrelevant to the US in the 21st century.

Liberals make my skin itch, so I don't really care what they do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wcross Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-04-08 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. Your second amendment is irrelevant noise to me?
Yet the majority of your posting is done in the "guns" forum? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-05-08 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. uh huh ... and ...

If there were no second amendment in the forest, would guns disappear?

I think this calls for one of those :shrug: things. Or maybe a :wtf:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wcross Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-05-08 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. If there were no Canadians debating gun policy in the United States this forum would be dead.
I now know how you achieved such a prolific post count. Too bad they don't rate them for content.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-05-08 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. don't you know it

Nobody else at this site would foul their feet by stepping in this.

Me, I have the benefit of distance.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wcross Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-05-08 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Or, they feel that giving up ONE of their rights will lead to more losses.
Of course, having the benefit of "distance" (others may say lack of citizenship ergo nothing to lose) makes your opinion on our gun laws a moot point. Are there not any Canadian gun control forums you could frequent that you might actually have a RIGHT to an opinion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. my, my, my

you might actually have a RIGHT to an opinion

Say no more, eh?

You may say you value your rights, all your rights, but what you mean is rights are yours, all yours.

Not that I ever doubted that.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wcross Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. I find it odd you have posted 21,747 times.
The majority in the "guns" forum. You have more than an "opinion" Sparky. It's called an agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-12-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. wow, good on yer

I post in a forum known to be frequented by right-wing assholes spouting right-wing bullshit and right-wing opinion, where I express contrary opinion and expose bullshit. I wonder what my agenda might be.

Hmm. To counter right-wing lies and right-wing agitation? I wonder.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-18-08 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #41
60. ahh
Edited on Wed Jun-18-08 12:53 PM by bossy22
the evil right wing....its everywhere....

then again im not surprised you think that way
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-18-08 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #32
54. Wcross, I just used the "Ignore" feature on all the obvious Canadians
on this forum and the world has become a much better place.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-18-08 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #54
56. ah, but what about the stealth Canadians?


Imagine how much nicer this place would be for me if I used the "ignore" feature on all the obvious right-wing assholes!

But then I'd just look kinda stupid, wouldn't I? Pretending to live in a world where there were only me and my friends ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-19-08 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #54
66. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-19-08 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #66
67. aren't you the clever clogs then??


Whoever you were, fuck you-shut up.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Cursing the darkness ... imagine not being to see the enemy -- one would be firing blind.

Seems I've become a stealth Canadian. ;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Parse carefully...
Edited on Mon Jun-02-08 12:58 PM by beevul
"Results 1 - 30 of about 806 for "Guess what? You have the wrong hands."




My advice to you, is to parse carefully the words written to you in the reply by the poster that uttered the words "candid, good faith argument" in that reply. One wouldn't think one would or should have to do such a thing, to the words of someone that would utter such words. Around here though, you'll find that what a poster says, particularly where those words and what they mean are concerned, can be quite a different thing than what a poster does.

Diamondback gun safes website, and a PC magazine forum for example, and gamespots website are just 3 of those 806 hits that poster referred to, right before spitefully muttering something halfbaked about your travels around the dark, dirty, ignorant, dishonest, right-wing corners of the internet.

Parse carefully.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. well hey now


Wasn't it just finely honest and candid of me to offer a link to ALL of the sites where the screed was found on a quick google? (There are shorter, presumably older versions of it that would not appear on a search for the last line of this particular version.)

I'm sure the poster will tell us exactly where s/he did lift the thing from. Aren't you?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Sure it was.
"Feel free to produce any further ignorant dishonest right-wing screeds you might run across in your travels around the dark, dirty, ignorant, dishonest, right-wing corners of the internet."

That on the other hand is nothing less that an implication, and much less than a fine or honest one.


"I'm sure the poster will tell us exactly where s/he did lift the thing from. Aren't you?"

I have no idea, and frankly, I could care less. I base my views on most subjects that I am able to fully understand , 99% on what I myself am able to figure out about that subject, and on what I myself am able to determine as truth or not. I need no crutch to lean on such as "thats right wing blah blah blah" to impeach or discredit a statement or a source, when the facts within most statements work just fine to determine their validity or not.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. "facts"


One hardly knows what to say. There are facts in issue here somewhere?

The screed in issue isn't about facts. I'm sure you don't need a crutch to figure that out, eh?

I actually did manage to find a "fact" buried in the shit.

It was a lie.

Any others there you're having trouble deciding what to do with? If you can find one, I'll try to help you out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. I never said...
"The screed in issue isn't about facts."

I never said it was, and I never said it wasn't.


Of course, I don't see it as a "screed" per se, I see it as a bunch of individual statements with numbers in front of them, that can be either proven as true or false.

You have thus far found a number in one single statement that you claim wasn't what it was represented as.


I'll be waiting for you to address the other statements or...to lean on the crutch, since I only claimed that I don't need to lean on that crutch, and never claimed that applied to you.

Me, I'm not having trouble with any of this. I find it to be quite funny.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. will you be holding your breath?


I'll be waiting for you to address the other statements

Let me know how it's going. If you need something to address in the interim, you can work on these:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=173898&mesg_id=174158

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Nope.
"Let me know how it's going. If you need something to address in the interim, you can work on these:"


I didn't address them, but I did add one of my own:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x173898#174168
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Just letting you know, the wait is going great.
You asked to let you know and all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. hell, some people even give the proper credit


http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22It%27s+amazing+what+one+has+to+believe+to+believe%22+michael+williamson&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Results 1 - 21 of 21 for "It's amazing what one has to believe to believe" michael williamson.

That's the original, I believe, considerably altered in the retelling over the years.

"©Copyright 1999, 2000 by Michael Z. Williamson."

The original (sorry, I'm not going to link to the icky places where it's found) does include that problematic little bit:

"That Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is attributable to the lack of gun control."

... when, in 1999, the DC homicide rate was 46.4/100,000. Oh, maybe it was waaay higher in Washington than in whatever other bits of geography and population are covered by DC, hm?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. When did YOU, become a spokesman for DU???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. When did YOU stop beating your dog?????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. alternative response
Edited on Mon Jun-02-08 01:55 PM by iverglas


Sometime after I had that gender reassignment surgery, I guess.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxidivine Donating Member (356 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-05-08 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #16
29. What the hell is wrong with you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-05-08 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. I give up

Have you got a clue?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxidivine Donating Member (356 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #30
35. all I can see is raging
manhate and an unwillingness to act civil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. how interesting


All I saw was exclusionary language and the misogyny it reflects.

I'm still needing a pair of those funny spectacles, aren't I?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wcross Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-05-08 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. What the hell is wrong with you?
:think: :crazy: :silly: :freak:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #16
38. it seems there are a few here who require help

When did I become a spokesMAN for DU?

Right after I had that gender reassignment surgery.

There now.

Don't you all feel as stupid as you look?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
5. On # 5
we all have to take off our shoes because some asshole lit a match ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Only if we choose to fly via commercial airliners. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
23. Clever + a dab of humor
Of course, most antis won't find any humor in some of the cold truth's there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radioburning Donating Member (146 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-04-08 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
25. This is funny, true, and sad that it even needs to be said...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-05-08 02:25 AM
Response to Original message
27. # 18 is junk.
Edited on Thu Jun-05-08 02:32 AM by AtheistCrusader
"18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms, and there were no school shootings."


"Aug. 1, 1966: Charles Whitman, 25, points a rifle from the observation deck of the University of Texas at Austin's Tower and begins shooting in a 96-minute homicidal rampage. 16 people are killed, 31 wounded."


I can't imagine there was NEVER a school shooting prior to the Texas shooting. It just wasn't reported as a 'School Shooting(TM)' and probably not readily discoverable on the Internet.. MASS shootings seem to have increased, and society seems to have changed a bit, and the 'availability of guns' argument is specious, but the statement above is flawed. I wasn't around for it, but I immediately thought of this incident when I read that claim.


Edit: I see the intent of the author, but many of these are... damaged goods. Perhaps a good project would be to clarify or improve the list? #13 could stand to gain a significant amount of detail, such as pay, penalties for AWOL, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adolphson Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-12-08 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
40. Be Careful, the truth hurts
Can't believe people get so offended by stuff like this. Ive posted similar things on Yahoo Answers, though in the form of a question of what people think and, instantly deleted. Go figure, free speech is limited to how emotional people can get over anything but their opinions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-12-08 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. Some of it is offensive because it is wildly inaccurate.
I started to post the ones that were factually wrong, decided they needed more attention than I could spare at the time, moved on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adolphson Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-12-08 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. True
True, many facts and most notably, the statistics are usually faulty and manipulated, on both sides. This leads the average person to have to go on an internet excursion to find the facts, I didnt bother either, however, I posted some exerpts (SP?) and asked who could discount them, and there were flames for about 20 min then deleted. Nothing racist or blah blah, but issues and opinions. Almost numbered. Though they were deleted, and it seems to me, most posts that get deleted are simply reported by thin-skinned individuals who abuse the system (Y Answers). Its probably easier for admins to just delete/ban them. Hrm.... I question free speech though. Its hell if we ever reach Canadian standards of free speech. The odd thing is, this is the internet, but it goes to prove, when a big corporation gets behind a URL, political pressure rises. Im glad places like this arent so apprehensive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-13-08 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #43
45. I think it would be worthwhile to go point by point
Edited on Fri Jun-13-08 09:54 AM by AtheistCrusader
through that list and examine each claim in detail. Clean it up. Make it factually correct, and then see what we have left. A couple of the points seem reasonable to me, but are they correct?

For instance, 1 is useless, it could mean anything, 2 is easily falsifiable, and based on Iverglas's link, looks broken, 3 and 4 clearly contradict each other, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-13-08 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. oh look, a demonstration, at no charge

Its hell if we ever reach Canadian standards of free speech.

It certainly would be for GWBush, wouldn't it??

Hell indeed; he might have to look at people expressing dissent.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adolphson Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-13-08 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Canadian Law
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-13-08 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. hahahaha -- more freebie demonstrations!

http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/24000/articl...

hahahaha.
Welcome to the online edition of Issues & Views. The hard copy edition of this newsletter was founded in 1985 by black Americans who advocate self-help and business enterprise and the protection of constitutional rights. It is a forum for dissidents, genuine conservatives, and plain old mavericks -- all those who are concerned about liberties lost, especially through the ongoing exploitation of race.


http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/04/support-c...

• Ezra Levant (famous for his stirring YouTube video of his confrontation with the Canadian Human Rights tribunal after he published the “Mohammed Cartoons”)
• FreeDominion.ca (Canada’s answer to FreeRepublic.com)
• Kate McMillan of SmallDeadAnimals.com
• Jonathan Kay of the National Post daily newspaper and its in-house blog
• and me, Kathy Shaidle of FiveFeetOfFury.com

Pieces of militant right-wing shit every one, using "free speech" in exactly the same way they use "gun rights". As a club to destroy liberal democracy.

But quite the authoritative blog from an unknown loonytarian, ta.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_count...

My my. "Free speech zones" and all that other homeland security stuff in the USofA just seems to have gone right over wiki's head, don't it?



Uhm, yea, there IS alot of censorship.

Um, hmm, what's your agenda, chum?


I'd love to hear your own words on "censorship" in Canada. Won't you gives us a short exposé?

I'll have to check back later. Off out for the night and morning, look forward to a good old jaw.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adolphson Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-14-08 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. yaaarp.....
#1 is not valid because they mention conservatives, oh and please tell me about the exploitation of race. I would love to hear that.

#2 Degradation of religeous characters, and other totally retarded people. That doesn't happen in the US right? I dont hear anyone pitching a bitch anymore when the Bible, Buddhism, and etc happens on American TV. No riots in streets, and no poloticians going nuts to fight for their rights. Free speech is free speech, you start censoring any of it and you've made one more step in the wrong direction. Im no bible belt political psycho, and everything is fair game in the name of humor, people that dont like it should change the channel or develop some thick skin.

Personally, I don't care too much about what Canada does. Thats their perogotive, but, it seems that Americans tend to look at other countries and say "Ooo look, they have this, and they have that, why dont we?? Instead of looking into the facts and results of these different laws/standards they just believe they sound better. Im tired of hearing about Europeans and Canadians. Ive been to Canada, and ive lived in Europe, and while there are some advantages to both places, there also exists alot of disadvatanges that people dont seem to grasp just reading an article, or watching the news. Historically(US), free speech was made a right not to be infringed upon because people understood the weight of limiting any of it, and I believe in that, even when people say stuff that pisses me off. Nothing is perfect, but I think we are just a bit more free in the speech department here than in Canada. Its true, they arent limiting anything TRULY important like opinions on the government, but thats not the point to me. A limitation, is always a step towards more limitation. When you start saying one person doesnt have that right, it is assured that if the public doesnt jump on the bandwagon then its going to be more. Thats my two cents.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. yeah, who would know

Sorry but I just don't understand how a nation could possibly be succesful and united when there are people portraying each other as pieces of shit for expressing themselves in a way that iverglas doesn't think is proper. Fuck you iverglas, we have enough on our plates without your bullshit hatemongering.

What. Ever.

If you don't know what liberal democracy is, you might want to take a course.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-18-08 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #48
58. they still hae a right to voice their oppinion
even if they are "right wing peices of shit"

thats the problem with your type- its only free speech if you approve of it

but whats the use, you act like far far far left wing nut- which is just as bad as a far far far right wing nut in my mind
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-19-08 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #47
69. They have given up any right
to free speech in favor of governmentally mandated political correctness, and criticise those who have not followed their "enlightened" ways.

Canada is the facist state of North America, and they don't even realize it.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-18-08 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #46
57. LOL- canadian free speech
more like free speech which the govt approves of

maybe you can talk to Mark Steyn and ask him what he thinks of canadian free speech

i already know what your response is going to be- "he is a vile peice of right-wing shit...blah blah blah..."

luckily in america we still have the right to hate people for any reason we deem- and we can voice that feeling as long as it is not intended to advocate violence.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-18-08 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #57
62. "maybe you can talk to Mark Steyn"

... and ask him what he thinks of canadian free speech

Gee. I could also talk to Mark Steyn and ask him what he thinks of, oh, universal access health care.

Hell, I can find what Mark Steyn thinks about that and just about anything else right here:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760

And I would care what he thinks about any of it because ..........?

Still thinking. Haven't thought of a reason yet.

Why don't you go ask Sarah Brady what she thinks of US firearms control?

That won't actually make us even. There's really nothing about Sarah Brady you could offer that could approach the depths of bigoted racist right-wing filth that comprise Mark Steyn's brain. But maybe you'll have a tiny idea of how hard I laugh when you suggest I ask Mark Steyn about anything.


luckily in america we still have the right to hate people for any reason we deem- and we can voice that feeling as long as it is not intended to advocate violence.

If I can just complete that thought for you --

Luckily for straight Christian white boys in the US who don't give a shit about anybody else, they still have the right ...

The damned thing is that very few other people actually WANT to "voice that feeling", don't you find?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-18-08 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-19-08 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #63
64. and you mean that

in the most affectionate way, right?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-19-08 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #64
65. exactly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-19-08 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #57
68. some Canadian free speech for you

in case you've missed it.



Tuesday Nevember 30, 2004 indymedia
http://www.nowar-paix.ca/notobush /

I'm standing just to the left and a little down from the photographer, outside the frame. On the steps of Centre Block, the building that houses the House of Commons and Senate of Canada.




... I'm in there somewhere (although maybe not in that frame) ... dark green puffy coat, long brown hair, glasses ... not the one with the white scarf, although that could have been me 'n the co-vivant 30 years earlier ...

You may notice Canadians being fonder of using four-letter words in public than you're used to, I'm not sure. We use 'em on prime-time TV all the time.




George W. Bush was having lunch in the building just out of the frame on the right -- I guess at some point he had to cross the road from the hotel on the left, presumably in a bullet-proof car. I think I was having lunch around the corner at that moment; we got to that site after the excitement when a few of yer usual black-bandana assholes started throwing things at the cops.


So I'm betting that I've been part of a massive protest within spitting distance of your President, and you haven't.

But then, you don't have to use your freedom of speech to speak out against imperialist oppression and exploitation by your government. You can use it to squeal about somebody trying to be the boss of you and advocating policies in the public interest to reduce the risk of other people suffering harm and other people's communities remaining unsafe and underdeveloped. Your choice.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radiofreepress Donating Member (8 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-12-08 11:54 PM
Response to Original message
44. All guns?
or just handguns and assault rifles?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-18-08 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #44
59. assault rifles are already banned
and the USSC is probably going to rule that you can't ban handguns
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackeye101 Donating Member (14 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
50. Thanks
I just printed these for the office meeting tomorrow morning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvccd1000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-18-08 04:32 AM
Response to Reply #50
53. Well I'm glad somebody enjoyed 'em...
Without getting all wound up. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-18-08 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
55. Thanks for this post.
Made me laugh and made good points as well.
I always liked the advice to just give a robber what he wants, and you will be OK. Sure, I will trust my life to the good judgement and sense of fairness of a drug crazed idiot whose best career option is armed robbery.

Sounds like good advice to me.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thelvyn Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-18-08 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
61. I've always liked that list.
I’ve always like that list; though it isn’t going to change any anti’s minds....just make them look even more down their nose at gun owners than they already do.

My favorite argument from the gun-grabbing side is when they say “well why not tanks or nukes”. Most people don’t know how to handle that, but I do. Even though I think there is a line way before those, I know how to throw it right back in their face. You just say:

Well why not allow tanks or nukes under the 2nd? Do you know how much a legal 1986 machine gun costs? Usually between $10,000 and $20,000. Most people can’t afford that, let alone the cost of a tank or a nuke. You’d need hundreds of thousands of dollars to afford a tank and it’s storage. And you’d need millions of dollars to afford a nuke and it’s storage. So even if they were legalized, the only people that could afford them would be Bill Gates or Oprah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 12:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC