Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > for the gun control people [CLOSED      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 aSydneyMale
Joined: 5/16/2006
Msg: 126
for the gun control peoplePage 6 of 19    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)

I'm assuming you are not from the U.S., for how you referance it and your name kinda says you may not be from the states.

Well-spotted.


Essentially, that means I'm not going to bother aurguing/debating gun laws and the culture and history of the US with you. Thanks for your concern, but no thanks at the same time.


YES

I won't waist my time trying to explain why as you either get it or you don't.

Is that the forum equivilent of 'taking your ball and going home'?

The problem is, whilst you are waiting for the opportunity to defend yourselves as the government knocks your door down, people continue to die.

Anyway, as you gentlemen mentioned, I'm an outsider and can't possibly understand your love-affair with deadly weapons. I have no guns in my house and neither does anybody I know (with the exception of my two late uncles, who were both farmers).
 arthur55a
Joined: 9/1/2009
Msg: 127
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/15/2009 1:58:29 AM
Don't be too harsh on us Mr Frzhusker. We have been raised in a society where firearms are comparatively rare and not as contested a social issue as in your amazing land.

You also have to appreciate that this is an international forum, not just the U.S.A.
 FL CO
Joined: 12/23/2008
Msg: 128
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/15/2009 6:05:04 AM
I just checked that site myself and they state theyare not a gun ban organization. They do however want to ban certain guns such as the uzi and ak47 for example. Now the question would be can they be trusted to stop there or are they going to call for further bans if these are successful? If successful they would have no reason to elicit funds from the public unless they do expand on the ban program. It does look like a well thought out corporation and although they are claiming charity status via an education exemption they are set up to do the background checks on potential gun owners. That in itself should bring in enough funds to keep the corporation alive without the charity status and donations from the public. This tells me that if they want to keep the big money flowing in then they need to work toward a total ban in steps. Maybe they are sincere but i doubt it, a liberal is a liberal and not to be trusted.


If you look through the site they are strictly anti-gun, but understand that they can't push for an outright ban all at once. Look at the state ratings. Any state of liberal gun laws gets a low grade, but the more a state restricts the 2nd amendment the better grade they get. They also get some big money donators. I forgot where to find it, but there's a list out there with some of the donations they've received in the millions from individuals. First its "assault rifles", then hand guns, then anything that holds more than a round or two, and finally an outright ban.


In regards to the comment about not trusting the NRA by another poster, there's an organization that isn't willing to compromise. I don't know if you've heard of the JPFO? Unfortunately, while its a strong group, its not as strong as the NRA. While I don't like the NRA compromising our rights away, they do, do alot to keep them from getting taken away completely in a lot of areas
 msquared
Joined: 8/31/2004
Msg: 129
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/15/2009 9:55:09 AM

First its "assault rifles", then hand guns, then anything that holds more than a round or two, and finally an outright ban.


Cite?
 msquared
Joined: 8/31/2004
Msg: 130
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/15/2009 12:02:40 PM

Really don't need to cite anything as it is a known that the Brady group and most of the anti gun people know they will never abolish the 2nd amendment. If you have looked into any of the anti gun plans or manifestos they want to regulate it out of existence through piece meal legislation, fees and taxes over time.


If it is known, then why is it I have been asking for two days for a cite to show any serious movement toward a complete ban of guns, and as of yet no one has been able to do so?
 FL CO
Joined: 12/23/2008
Msg: 131
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/15/2009 12:34:29 PM
Because that agenda would never get passed. They're trying to do it a little at a time. Its like erosion. It may seem like nothing is happening, but before you know it the beach (or whatever) has eroded away
 aSydneyMale
Joined: 5/16/2006
Msg: 132
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/15/2009 7:36:47 PM

No this is the equivalent of I don't care what you think about a country you don't live in.

Well, here's the problem with that line of thinking, apart from this being and international forum. Much of what happens in the US impacts upon the rest of the world, the world-wide economic crisis had it's epicentre at Wall Street, US foreign policy affects all of us, in the Middle East particularly.

Saddam Hussain was a product of US foreign policy, as was the Taliban, so we all have a stake in what goes on in the US.
 JWG86
Joined: 7/5/2008
Msg: 133
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/15/2009 8:10:40 PM
The problem is, whilst you are waiting for the opportunity to defend yourselves as the government knocks your door down, people continue to die.

Anyway, as you gentlemen mentioned, I'm an outsider and can't possibly understand your love-affair with deadly weapons. I have no guns in my house and neither does anybody I know (with the exception of my two late uncles, who were both farmers).


The thing is, I see vehicles in your pictures, in the background. Vehicles are involved in many times more deaths than firearms are, yet you justify them for convenience that they provide. I justify my firearm ownership with enjoyment, practical use (snakes, whatnot), and self-defense as well as the fact that when a populace is disarmed, the balance of government is shifted unacceptably. It becomes a government over the people instead of a people who have elected a government.

So...back to cars. You seem to have rationalized them, and I have rationalized firearm ownership. Moving along.
 msquared
Joined: 8/31/2004
Msg: 134
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/15/2009 8:50:09 PM
Several people have claimed that various groups are trying to ban guns altogether, but not one of them have supplied me with a cite to show this. Until someone does, I am forced to conclude that this threat to gun ownership is either very unlikely or doesn't exist at all.
 aSydneyMale
Joined: 5/16/2006
Msg: 135
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/15/2009 9:18:02 PM

and self-defense as well as the fact that when a populace is disarmed, the balance of government is shifted unacceptably. It becomes a government over the people instead of a people who have elected a government.

The problem with this argument is the government's guns will always be bigger than yours. The bigger the guns you have, the bigger the guns your elected authorities will use to deal with you. The accumulation of weapons just breeds more violence.

Your comparision with cars holds no water, you compare apples with oranges. Cars are a method of transportation, the overwhelming majority of automobile deaths are due to accidents involving their use. They are often used to save lives and make livings. Very rarely are vehicles deliberately driven at people in order to kill them. They are not specifically made to kill people.

There has been much legislation and regulation over here in order to bring the road toll down because even one death is too many. We accept regulation is necessary for the road system to work safely. We also accept driving on the road is a privilege because cars can be dangerous in the wrong hands, which is why licences are restricted.
 raxarsr
Joined: 7/10/2008
Msg: 136
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/15/2009 9:33:47 PM
here you go msquared....this is "handgun inc's"agenda

http://www.varmintal.com/hci.htm

i found this in about 3 min of searching...i'll look for a few more.....though.....this one says everything people have been telling you.........as you can see......the plan is to start small.and work their way up.....ever heard the saying about the camels nose?
 msquared
Joined: 8/31/2004
Msg: 137
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/15/2009 9:55:14 PM
here you go msquared....this is "handgun inc's"agenda


Well, let's examine this:

- It's a memo with inconsistencies, which can't be substantiated, on a gun owner's web site.
-It is from 16 years ago, with separate agendas for five and fifteen years, and as far as I can tell, none of the things on the agendas have come to pass.
-It is from an organization which no longer exists in the form it was then.

This is your smoking gun, that shows there is a current movement to completely ban guns?
 raxarsr
Joined: 7/10/2008
Msg: 138
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/15/2009 10:04:25 PM
sigh...........there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.................


while its proubly pointless.heres a site that shreds the anti gunners claims

http://www.guncite.com/
 msquared
Joined: 8/31/2004
Msg: 139
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/15/2009 10:21:17 PM

sigh...........there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.................


There is nothing of relevance to see there.


while its proubly pointless.heres a site that shreds the anti gunners claims

http://www.guncite.com/


Maybe, maybe not, but what it doesn't have is evidence of a threat of guns being banned altogether.
 JWG86
Joined: 7/5/2008
Msg: 140
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/15/2009 10:21:20 PM
The problem with this argument is the government's guns will always be bigger than yours. The bigger the guns you have, the bigger the guns your elected authorities will use to deal with you. The accumulation of weapons just breeds more violence.

Your comparision with cars holds no water, you compare apples with oranges. Cars are a method of transportation, the overwhelming majority of automobile deaths are due to accidents involving their use. They are often used to save lives and make livings. Very rarely are vehicles deliberately driven at people in order to kill them. They are not specifically made to kill people.

There has been much legislation and regulation over here in order to bring the road toll down because even one death is too many. We accept regulation is necessary for the road system to work safely. We also accept driving on the road is a privilege because cars can be dangerous in the wrong hands, which is why licences are restricted.


Okay...wow... I will address this in order.

I have yet to see the average grunt issued weaponry as nice as mine. All my former USMC friends marvel over how much more reliable, accurate, etc. my stuff is. No, it isn't full-auto, but full-auto just looks good on TV. Even the military has gotten away from it except in the form of area/support fire. So it's a wash there. They get stuff made by who-ever uncle sam picks, I get whatever I want and can load whatever I want in it. Advantage:me in that case.

Now on to guns/vehicles. Guns are not made to kill people either. They are made to stop a threat, to put food on the table, and to provide entertainment/sporting-use. There are plenty of accidents with them, just as with cars. There are plenty of homocides with them as well, just as with cars. It is apples to apples. Oh, and I would consider that police, wilderness guides, security detail, are also valid jobs that would not be possible in their current capacity without the possession of a firearm. Firearms save plenty of lives, just as cars do. It's called self-defense. Also, PLENTY of cars are involved in DWI's. A DWI is a crime and is usually pre-meditated, ergo not passable off as involuntary manslaughter. Sorry. Vehicles are intentionally used in reckless ways that often result in death. Plenty MORE deaths than firearms.

There are background checks and legislation that controls who owns firearms as well. There are licenses issued for conceiled carry, and federal forms/checks for FA/Silenced/SBR/SBS's.

So far you have drawn up some VERY strong parallels between cars and firearms and strengthened my case considerably. I would also wager that your problem is one of familiarity. You are familiar with cars, but apparently not firearms, except through proxy. I wonder why all the dozens of weapons I am around don't take on lives of their own and go around slaughtering people? I would wager it is the same reason my car doesn't.

I know you will argue that the military uses firearms, firearms designed to kill people. Okay, valid point, but what about everything else? They train a soldier how to kill with his hands. Are my hands now to be banned? Heck, I have had hand-to-hand training that has proven very effective, should I not be allowed out of shackles?

What you fail to take into account is that a firearm is a tool. A tool is only as good as the intentions of the person using it. All you have told me is that you view your fellow man in a very dim light, and on that point I cannot fully disagree with you, which is one reason that I own a firearm.

All of this talk of banning firearms is pure idiocy. THere are plenty of them on the market. Let me tell ya something. I had a car that required R12 Freon. You know, the stuff the govt. taxed out of existance in the states? Well, my car never wanted for R12 no-matter how often the AC system leaked, I just had to pay a premium for it. There are a LOT! more firearms/ammo out there than there is R12. If someone wants a firearm, they will procure one. Period. Murder/assault are already illegal, so what will you hope to accomplish by making firearms illegal? You hope to disarm honest people who will turn them in, or do you think criminals will suddly have a change of heart when possession of an illegal weapon is threatened to be added to aggravated rape and attempted murder? Please explain your logic.
 aSydneyMale
Joined: 5/16/2006
Msg: 141
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 12:13:29 AM

America was the FIRST country in the world founded on liberalism with the agenda of individual freedoms for all. Where people do not have to bow down to their freakin government, where you have the right to say whatever you want about them. No other country in this world can say that.

True, the US has much to be proud of in that respect, but in my country we can, and do, say whatever we want about our leaders, in the press, television and public forums. People would even verbally abuse our former Prime Minister, John Howard whilst he was on his morning exercise. We have pretty close contact with all our politicians over here. The same is true for all of the first-world democracies.


I would suggest you take a good hard long look at your own country's history, see if your country has never "wronged" anyone. If you can do that, then throw the stone, if not, well then piss off.

In this country we constantly examine ourselves, good and bad, our treatment of our indigenous population has been less than stirling to say the least. I'm also happy to be told to 'piss-off' by somebody who is capable of reason, whether I agree with them or not.


Actually, if I am not mistaken are not you from a country that was, or still is, a colony of the Brits?

Former British colony, whilst the Queen is technically our Head of State, we are a sovereign nation and probably will end up a republic in due course, the problem is, nobody can agree upon a model that won't be at risk of corruption. The system we have at the moment is not perfect, but it has very effective checks and balances.

So I thank you for a thoughtful reply, in particular your views on US (and British and French) foreign policy.
 msquared
Joined: 8/31/2004
Msg: 142
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 5:58:41 AM

Cite?


Alright.

http://forums.plentyoffish.com/10141047datingPostpage11.aspx

Notice how this guy has been for two days asking for a cite to show a threat of a total gun ban, and no one has been able to provide him with one?
 msquared
Joined: 8/31/2004
Msg: 143
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 10:48:45 AM

so if we were to meet on the street..and we had a discussion would you then insist that any comment I make..needs to be supported?..would you tell me to go to the library and bring back books as proof?..


If you were to make a claim such as the one in this thread, then yes, I would want some confirmation before I accepted it as fact.
 msquared
Joined: 8/31/2004
Msg: 144
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 12:53:00 PM

Well since you seem to be anti gun


I'm not really against guns. I'm against them being in the hands of people who want them for the wrong reasons. Unfortunately, many gun owners fall into this category.

If, for example, you (and I mean a generic you, not necessarily any particular person in this thread) want the gun in case someone breaks into their home, that is the wrong reason. In this situation, many people with a gun will suddenly think they are Harry Callahan or Rambo, and decide to give the criminal what for. What they don't take into account is that if the criminal also has a gun, the criminal is likely better at using it. In this scenario, the things in your house aren't important. Your family and yourself are important, and you should be doing whatever you can to reduce the amount of danger to them. Unfortunately, going out to do battle with the criminals greatly increases that danger.

On another note, based on what I see of people in my job and my daily life, I do not want many of those people having access to a butter knife, let alone a gun.
 msquared
Joined: 8/31/2004
Msg: 145
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 12:55:17 PM

Do some of you honestly believe that all these folks would turn their guns on their own families? Some may, but I'm sure the majority would not; the US is more intergrated then it was in the time of Lincoln and Davis (the Civil War).


That, however, is not an argument conducive to needing a gun. If the majority of the people with guns are on your side, then you have no need for one.
 JWG86
Joined: 7/5/2008
Msg: 146
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 4:16:31 PM
Fzrhusker brings a valid point to the table. This is more for the folks who believe that the US military will "turn" on them. Think about it, besides the Oath, every man and woman in the military is either someones father, brother, nephiew, husband, uncle, son, daughter, aunt, mother, niece, grandkid and the list goes on. Do some of you honestly believe that all these folks would turn their guns on their own families?


Law abiding citizens of my state have been disarmed at gun-point by the national guard on their own property while in their own homes. It can happen, and I am sure it will be attempted again.


I'm not really against guns. I'm against them being in the hands of people who want them for the wrong reasons. Unfortunately, many gun owners fall into this category.

If, for example, you (and I mean a generic you, not necessarily any particular person in this thread) want the gun in case someone breaks into their home, that is the wrong reason. In this situation, many people with a gun will suddenly think they are Harry Callahan or Rambo, and decide to give the criminal what for. What they don't take into account is that if the criminal also has a gun, the criminal is likely better at using it. In this scenario, the things in your house aren't important. Your family and yourself are important, and you should be doing whatever you can to reduce the amount of danger to them. Unfortunately, going out to do battle with the criminals greatly increases that danger.

On another note, based on what I see of people in my job and my daily life, I do not want many of those people having access to a butter knife, let alone a gun.


This is rediculous. You are saying that owning a weapon will turn a family man into some kind of Rambo killing machine. Basically, you are saying that one should not own a hammer for the use of hammering nails because if you have a hammer, you might smash your thumb. Yeah, you just might, but without a hammer, you sure as hell won't be building any cabinets. Same as with a car. With a car, you could kill/be killed, yeah? Well without one you are disadvantaged greatly in many areas. With a firearm, you also have the potential to do/recieve harm, but without one, you are powerless to stop harm from being done to you.

One word for you: Responsibility. You learn a lot about that when you get your driver's license/first dog/whatever. It should carry over.

As to the people you know who you would not trust with a butter-knife, well they have access to a 3500# missile known as a vehicle. That would worry me a lot more.

I really think you are fishing for a reason where there is not one.
 FL CO
Joined: 12/23/2008
Msg: 147
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 5:51:00 PM

I'm not really against guns. I'm against them being in the hands of people who want them for the wrong reasons. Unfortunately, many gun owners fall into this category.

If, for example, you (and I mean a generic you, not necessarily any particular person in this thread) want the gun in case someone breaks into their home, that is the wrong reason. In this situation, many people with a gun will suddenly think they are Harry Callahan or Rambo, and decide to give the criminal what for. What they don't take into account is that if the criminal also has a gun, the criminal is likely better at using it. In this scenario, the things in your house aren't important. Your family and yourself are important, and you should be doing whatever you can to reduce the amount of danger to them. Unfortunately, going out to do battle with the criminals greatly increases that danger.


So you'd prefer to let the criminal come in, might as well open the door so that you don't have the hassel or expense of replacing the broken door frame, and taking what he wants? After he's done robbing you blind, he then starting eyeballing your wife and daughter. Are you going to hand him some rubbers so you don't risk them getting pregnant or catching an STD? OR are you going to fight back? Now if you chose to fight back and the criminal is armed, would it be smarted to be armed as well, or try to fight ball with whatever is close at hand? Protecting yourself and your loved ones is the a good reason to own a firearm. Their level of danger doesnt go up at all in a home invasion because you're aremed. And for the record, most criminals are lousy shots. You'll probably want a cite for that too. For that, I can offer my first hand observations, as well as direct you to numberous news stories where the hit ratio is horrible. There was one recently with 20rds fired and no one was hit.
 JWG86
Joined: 7/5/2008
Msg: 148
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 9:45:46 PM
This country will end the same way every other country similar to it did. The people will empower the government because they are "unable" to take care of themselves and want someone to do it for them. The government will abuse that power. We will slowly sink into economic ruin due to this, and the rest will follow as predicted. Erosion is the way of all good things, sadly I feel that prepairing for it rather than trying to prevent it is energy better spent. We can prolong, but not prevent.
 msquared
Joined: 8/31/2004
Msg: 149
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/17/2009 9:59:55 AM

I really think you are fishing for a reason where there is not one.


Say what you will, we both know that what I posted was right.
 FL CO
Joined: 12/23/2008
Msg: 150
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/17/2009 10:39:06 AM

My personal opinion, is that I believe government does have the right to REGULATE guns. For example, I would like to see the loop hole closed that allows individuals to purchase at gun shows w/o a background check.


Dealers have to perform a background check. The only people that don't have to do a background check is private sellers, because they don't have the means. Someone going to a show to sell off a few of their dads old guns isn't the problem. The problem is that the criminals aren't being punished like they should, and that you can't profile because its "racist".
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > for the gun control people [CLOSED