An Open Letter to Lovers of the Gun

reply to post by nixie_nox


I think the government is seriously screwed up and has been for a long time.

Do I think they're comming for my guns? No

Do I think I could fight an entire Army? No

But I do laugh at the thought of a drone comming after me. This ain't the movies.

You sound like my little brother. But the government has nukes and drones! LMAO

reply to post by nixie_nox


Either:
You yourself are so frightened by the prospect of government tyranny that you vehemently deny the possibility as a defense mechanism,
OR
You are so ignorant of history and human nature that you honestly do not comprehend the motives the founders had in mind when drafting the US Constitution.

Strong opinions are a good thing, so long as they are built upon logic and understanding.

NavyDoc

nixie_nox

NavyDoc

nixie_nox

KawRider9
Cars kill waaay more people than guns!

Ban 'em Deano...

Which is why measures for car safety exponentially improve every single year. Which is why there are speed limits, seat belts, and air bags, that are all required.

So the same measures are needed for guns, whose technology have NOT improved, ever, to make them safer.

Besides, this is a silly comparison. People need cars, people don't need guns.

Apparently, you don't know much about guns. Firearm technology has improved quite a bit over the years and they are some of the safest mechanical products out there. You cannot, however, engineer the human out of the equation.

You mean we can track and disable guns remotely like we can do with cars? Do they have chips in them so they can be tracked?

AH, so you are not talking about "safety" you are talking about tracking. So safety isn't your concern, control is.

That is exactly the kind of response I would expect from a gun nut. The exact mentality that shouldn't be owning guns.

What a good little NRA acolyte you are, seeing any safety measures with fear and suspicion.

I fail to see how controlling your own equipment and knowing its status, is a problem.

reply to post by nixie_nox


(Reuters) - Mexican soldiers have arrested an alleged perpetrator of the massacre of 49 people whose corpses were decapitated, dismembered and dumped on a highway last week.


This can go on all day if you wish.
Point is mass killings do not need a gun.

thesaneone
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

What argument have you proved?
Just more trolling.

Just because you are losing the argument dear doesn't mean I am a troll. If I was trolling, you would know it.

Because other than a subway fire that is 11 years old and half a world over, you have yet to prove a mass murder with anything other than a gun.

nixie_nox

NavyDoc

nixie_nox

NavyDoc

nixie_nox

KawRider9
Cars kill waaay more people than guns!

Ban 'em Deano...

Which is why measures for car safety exponentially improve every single year. Which is why there are speed limits, seat belts, and air bags, that are all required.

So the same measures are needed for guns, whose technology have NOT improved, ever, to make them safer.

Besides, this is a silly comparison. People need cars, people don't need guns.

Apparently, you don't know much about guns. Firearm technology has improved quite a bit over the years and they are some of the safest mechanical products out there. You cannot, however, engineer the human out of the equation.

You mean we can track and disable guns remotely like we can do with cars? Do they have chips in them so they can be tracked?

AH, so you are not talking about "safety" you are talking about tracking. So safety isn't your concern, control is.

That is exactly the kind of response I would expect from a gun nut. The exact mentality that shouldn't be owning guns.

What a good little NRA acolyte you are, seeing any safety measures with fear and suspicion.

I fail to see how controlling your own equipment and knowing its status, is a problem.

So, since logic and reason are foreign to you, you resort to personal insults and emotional histrionics. Thus I see that apparently your basis of opinion on this is not reason or logic" but mindless emotion.

How is a tracking chip or disabling chip a "safety measure?" Who controls it? Who is responsible when it fails and a person cannot defend herself from a rapist? What secondary measures that enable the rightful owner to utilize her firearm if the chip fails to work properly? What right does the state have to modify your property, anyway?

There is a lot of intellectual arguments against, but not much more than OMGZ emotion for, such measures.

OpenMindedRealist
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

Need has nothing to do with constitutional rights. Thankfully so, because debating the definition of 'need' can be tedious when progressives are involved.

With that established, a car is not something you need to survive. You only think so because you cannot imagine life without one. That line of thinking is why things like cell phones, internet access, and birth control are erroneously referred to as 'needs.'

IN my area, no you can't get by without a car. You are not allowed to walk on highways or interstates. There is no public transportation, so you have no choice but to drive.

And I don't have a cell phone.

And birth control is needed, because it is used just as often as a medicine for a variety of problems, as much as for bc.

So if you don't NEED a gun, why have one?

Who wants to have a killing machine hanging around, just because?

reply to post by nixie_nox


I have lost nothing I still have my guns.

reply to post by nixie_nox

Who wants to have a killing machine hanging around, just because?

Maybe some people are thinking ....

"Just in case" ?

Perhaps better safe that sorry.

Mental case killers have illegal guns.

KawRider9
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

I think the government is seriously screwed up and has been for a long time.

Do I think they're comming for my guns? No

Do I think I could fight an entire Army? No

But I do laugh at the thought of a drone comming after me. This ain't the movies.

You sound like my little brother. But the government has nukes and drones! LMAO

Then you don't need a gun. Point solved. You are the one who brought up tyrannical government, not me.

and I am sorry that the point about the drones eludes you. I will try to dumb it down: The government has bigger toys than you, you will lose.

nixie_nox
Who wants to have a killing machine hanging around, just because?

The only killing machine out there is us humans we don't need a gun to kill someone.

reply to post by thesaneone


Wow that is a vague point that I can't even dispute, not enough information. Mind clarifying the story?

reply to post by nixie_nox


A big knife was used to kill many people.
Did I dumb it down enough for you.

reply to post by nixie_nox


I'm a hunter, therefore, I need a gun. I'm also a sportsman and shoot on several teams. Throwing rocks at targets does not sound all that fun.

Oh, and the "government has bigger/better toys" is a very silly arguement.

nixie_nox
reply to post by KawRider9

 

So you are confessing then that you don't think the government is tyrannical?

Based on this statement, I am going to bet you fit the second description I described in my previous post: you are sincerely unaware of the patterns in human history and behavior that invariably lead to tyranny by those in power.

The question is not whether the current government is tyrannical. The Bill of Rights was not written after the federal government had already restricted freedoms of speech and self-defense; it was a proactive measure carefully constructed to prevent tyranny by the government, be it state or federal.

Please don't take the responses you are getting as personal attacks. We're just embracing the whole "deny ignorance" thing.

nixie_nox
reply to post by thesaneone

 

Wow that is a vague point that I can't even dispute, not enough information. Mind clarifying the story?

Guns arent machines.

But people tend to do crazy stuff, and the gun is a great tool to keep said crazy stuff from harming you.

Not to mention it putting food on the table.

City folks have different views than us country folk. Ciry government has convinc ed its people to cede their responsibility for protecting themselves. In the country we do it differently.

NavyDoc

AH, so you are not talking about "safety" you are talking about tracking. So safety isn't your concern, control is.

That is exactly the kind of response I would expect from a gun nut. The exact mentality that shouldn't be owning guns.
What a good little NRA acolyte you are, seeing any safety measures with fear and suspicion.
I fail to see how controlling your own equipment and knowing its status, is a problem.


So, since logic and reason are foreign to you, you resort to personal insults and emotional histrionics. Thus I see that apparently your basis of opinion on this is not reason or logic" but mindless emotion.

How is a tracking chip or disabling chip a "safety measure?" Who controls it? Who is responsible when it fails and a person cannot defend herself from a rapist? What secondary measures that enable the rightful owner to utilize her firearm if the chip fails to work properly? What right does the state have to modify your property, anyway?

If you weren't so paranoid and jumped and jittered at the word tracker, and actually thought about it, you wouldn't have to ask these questions.

Just like a homeowner can shut off their own lights and lock their own locks remotely, people can do the same by shutting down their own guns, that they are notified if the gun is ever touched by anyone but themselves.

The tech is out there, but as usual, the NRA is fighting it. surprise surprise. They wouldn't want to lose money for their constituents.

There is a lot of intellectual arguments against, but not much more than OMGZ emotion for, such measures.


Funny how you immediately poo poo the potential failing of technology that could save lives, but so strongly defend guns in the first place, that kill 30,000 people each year in the US, either by suicide or homicide.

But god forbid that one fail and a woman gets raped.

And you call me emotional.

reply to post by thesaneone


Ok, when you get bigger and learn to read, you can clarify the story for me. But saying 50 Mexicans die is neither a point or proof of anything.

reply to post by nixie_nox


Are you that thick? Those 50 Mexicans were killed with a knife and not a gun.
All you are doing is trolling there are many examples out there that show you can go on a mass killing spree and be successful without a gun.

IN my area, no you can't get by without a car. You are not allowed to walk on highways or interstates. There is no public transportation, so you have no choice but to drive.

And I don't have a cell phone.

And birth control is needed, because it is used just as often as a medicine for a variety of problems, as much as for bc.

So if you don't NEED a gun, why have one?

Who wants to have a killing machine hanging around, just because?

reply to post by nixie_nox


Well,,,,, Don't know where you live, but, I won't live there, I like to Walk and Not Feel Trapped or Caged because I couldn't get to a Doctor's appointment if it was to cold to walk or to far because I had no Public Transportation.
But, that's your Choice.
You need to own a car, that's not by choice, that is a necessity because of where you choose to live.
Now, you don't choose to own a gun. That's your Choice.
But, I may choose Not To Own A car, Because, I can Walk or use Public Transportation where I Live, That's my Choice in Life, Much Like it is to Own Guns!

So,,,I own guns because I want to, I can own a car because I want to, I can walk because I want to I can use public transportation because I want to and, I can know that if for what ever reason, my self and my husband need to support our self and our family by hunting and farming for our food, I Can and if for some unknown reason some one attacks a family member, I can respond in kind to assist that family member or neighbor, I Can.
You on the other hand, Choose Not To!

ETA: You know after reading your responses to many members here trying to explain gun safety and how people have been killed with deadly weapons other than guns, I have to add.