1. moss says:

    Is this a paranoid self-help group?

  2. bobbo, neutering gun nuts with their own lack of ammunition says:

    Hmeyers says:
    4/15/2013 at 4:25 am

    “Do you believe or not believe the Stat that a gun in the home is more likely to be used against a member of the Home than against an intruder?”

    It is true, so why would it matter if I believe it. /// Because you post in disregard of its truth.

    I don’t selectively pick information to believe or disbelieve in. Information is information. /// Thats impossible. Think again or do you read Astrology with the same belief as Science?

    I also think if everything you wanted happened on this issue, you would discover you were wrong in the future. /// Who knows what the future will bring?

    And I think you selectively dismiss important factors to the equation like police response times in rural/suburban areas, etc. // I think, but don’t actually know for 100% sure that NATIONAL STATISTICS include rural and suburbanareas, etc. You certainly are dumbostrating the thickness of a Rightwing Nut trying to justify their position. Disregard the truth, make up nonsense. Next you’ll make a call to Patriotism.

    Shouldn’t conceal-carry cause a great deal of crime and violence according to your perspective, for instance? // The whole point DingBat is that the USA DOES HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF CRIME. Thats the whole point and motivation to remove guns from our society. Haven’t you been reading this thread?

    Sheesh!!! You have the attention span of a gnat! FYI==thats not much.

    Gun Nuts………. they would enjoy it if you shot them.

    • deegee says:

      bobbo said:

      “Do you believe or not believe the Stat that a gun in the home is more likely to be used against a member of the Home than against an intruder?”

      It is true, so why would it matter if I believe it.”

      Stats can be cherry-picked to say anything they want to.

      The huge majority of gun related murders are gang related.
      The number of home invasions and break-ins is smaller in areas where home owners are allowed to own guns.
      So the likelihood that your gun would be used against an invader becomes statistically smaller.
      So let’s cherry-pick that “stat” to show our agenda…

      This “stat” is EXACTLY the same kind of idiotic stat as having a swimming pool at your home has a higher statistical rate of child drowning.

      In our modern moronic pampered society, no one wants to take the blame for their mistakes, schools don’t grade children, sports games don’t keep score, all because we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings or “oppress” anyone for any little thing, even if it is their fault.

      Let’s blame owning a swimming pool for the cause of death (instead of the real causes, typically improper parental care or child training).

      And let’s blame owning a gun for the cause of some idiot who happens to use it as their means to hurt another.

      And for the record, in countries where firearms are banned or heavily restricted, you are more likely to be attacked by someone with a large knife. Which is why in countries like the UK there are groups who now want kitchen knives banned as well.

      If you agree with the direction of this type of thinking, where working down through banning anything and everything that may be used as a weapon will eventually stop all crime and turn the world in a loving place filled with rainbows and unicorns, then you really should get some professional help.

  3. MikeN says:

    Democrats have been trying to disarm blacks for over a century.

    http://youtube.com/embed/9RABZq5IoaQ

  4. orchidcup says:

    Gun Nuts………. they would enjoy it if you shot them.

    Sober up, bobbo, you have had three too many.

    I own guns because I have that right. I speak freely because I have that right. I don’t go to church and believe in magical beings because I have that right.

    If bobbo drives a car, is bobbo a Car Nut? If bobbo flies an airplane, is bobbo a Plane Nut? If bobbo drinks a beer, is bobbo a Beer Nut?

    Silly Bobbo.

  5. The0ne says:

    Had to think about this one for a bit. I didn’t want to take anyone’s right away but couldn’t help myself by voting the opposite because I still think there are too many lunatics out there to be having them. I can understand, if you’re not that type of person, that some people may want to carry them though and that’s perfectly fine. What’s not fine is that I don’t know you or anyone else out there.

  6. Ken says:

    Do you mean gun confiscation from private citizens? No. From government agents? Most certainly.

  7. cubicleman says:

    It’s time for the gun nuts and NRA scum to eff off. The 21st century doesn’t need them. A modern, civilised country doesn’t need an armed populace.

    • Mextli says:

      I see what you mean. I can detect your civility by the use of “NRA Scum”, “gun nuts”, and “eff off”. You must reside in this modern, civilized country.

    • alex says:

      Nor does a modern, civilized country need armed criminals. Eliminate that variable and then your illogical opinion will make some logical sense.

  8. jim g says:

    Stunning!

  9. MikeN says:

    All the more reason to oppose anything that requires gun registration. The instant background check is probably a bad idea for the same reason.

  10. Guyver says:

    Hell no!

  11. oldman says:

    I support the government to ban and confiscate bombs.

    • orchidcup says:

      I agree. The Constitution does not protect the right to have bombs.

      The Second Amendment pertains to guns.

  12. bobbo, neutering gun nuts with their own lack of ammunition says:

    deegee after only a quick scan providing the best response in months, but lets see how it stands up to Fisking says:
    4/15/2013 at 10:51 am

    bobbo said:

    “Do you believe or not believe the Stat that a gun in the home is more likely to be used against a member of the Home than against an intruder?”

    It is true, so why would it matter if I believe it.”

    Stats can be cherry-picked to say anything they want to. /// Not really. this is a lie that sounds like a truth only because it is too often repeated and sometime partially true “in a way” but ==not really. People do lie and manipulate about everything but the truth is still out there. Stats do not lie, only people lie. Stats are more misunderstood than wrong. Cherry picking is the evil, not the stat. so, let us continue…….

    The huge majority of gun related murders are gang related. // Now, is that cherrypicking or spin? In either case,…..so what? Gang related murders make entire neighborhoods/parts of town unsafe to even transit by car, much less walk around. Makes the barrio unsafe for “everyone” given collateral damage. The actual gang members involved are people too. What a racist, classists, niggardly thing to say and think much less argue with. Sadly, I agree with you. Still===this argument says NOTHING about the non-gang murders which is what gun control is all about. You make a distinction without meaning.

    The number of home invasions and break-ins is smaller in areas where home owners are allowed to own guns. // I’ve never seen a link to support that. But lets say its true.

    So the likelihood that your gun would be used against an invader becomes statistically smaller. /// OK–but the stat remains that guns in homes are still more likely to be used against home occupants than intruders and there are many links to that stat. Many homes are invaded without death or harm to the occupants. its the guns that kill people once again.

    So let’s cherry-pick that “stat” to show our agenda…

    This “stat” is EXACTLY the same kind of idiotic stat as having a swimming pool at your home has a higher statistical rate of child drowning. /// Ha, ha. Very Good deegee. It took me .5 seconds to catch the error. Because you are right=====>>>>and that is why one should not install a pool to prevent burglaries. Silly boy. Also note the rules that have been put into place to prevent child drownings like fences and gates. Lock boxes and finger print controls over home based firearms would be the analogy there.

    In our modern moronic pampered society, no one wants to take the blame for their mistakes, schools don’t grade children, sports games don’t keep score, all because we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings or “oppress” anyone for any little thing, even if it is their fault. /// Your point here escapes me.

    Let’s blame owning a swimming pool for the cause of death (instead of the real causes, typically improper parental care or child training). /// Your swimming pool cannot be used to kill me. Your thinking is off in the deep end without an exit ladder.

    And let’s blame owning a gun for the cause of some idiot who happens to use it as their means to hurt another. /// Thats what we are saying. Ha, ha!—ok, I shouldn’t take advantage of your rush to post. Responding to what you “meant:”==the goal/agenda of gun control is not to punish but rather to prevent the murder of innocent people. Keep your eye on the ball.

    And for the record, in countries where firearms are banned or heavily restricted, you are more likely to be attacked by someone with a large knife. /// GAWD–like flies to a shit pile you gunnuts are on this meme. Just yesterday in the USA (not as in China repeatedly) some knife nut did attack a dozen or so people. The telling result: lots of injuries===NO DEATHS. Seems to me this argument speaks against your position. So much for cherry picking.

    Which is why in countries like the UK there are groups who now want kitchen knives banned as well. /// So what? ARE kitchen knives going to be banned? If I have to ban kitchen knives to get the guns, I say…. lets go.

    If you agree with the direction of this type of thinking, where working down through banning anything and everything that may be used as a weapon will eventually stop all crime and turn the world in a loving place filled with rainbows and unicorns, then you really should get some professional help. //// I agree that individuals can get pretty issue driven. How to stop such excesses?/////////Oh!==how about MAJORITY WILL. You know==as your single issue gun nuttery is revealed by the MAJORITY WILL wanting gun regulations. Another excellent argument that actually cuts, or on topic blows away, your position.

    Well deegee=====the best argued post in months and in each and every point made you are a total failure.

    And so it goes……………………………

  13. orchidcup says:

    No matter how many petitions are circulated and signed, such activity will have zero effect on the Second Amendment.

    There is a prescribed method in the Constitution for the repeal of a constitutional amendment.

    Signing a petition is not one of them.

    Go ahead and sign your petitions while I laugh.

    Silly Hoomans.

  14. MikeN says:

    Toomey-Manchin background check bill doesn’t have the votes. Now the Democrats are going to switch their votes to no to pretend like they support the 2nd Amendment.

  15. stephen Hines says:

    The experts agree, GUN CONTROL WORKS!

    Just ask: Adolph Hitler, Fidel Castro, Muammar al-gadafi, Joseph Stalin, Idi Amin, Mao Zedong, Pol pot, Kim Jong-il.

    Of course I voted “NO”. It’s not only about guns. It’s our freedom………………..What Constitution? I think we would find out very quickly.