Home - List All Discussions

investment tip

buy guns now.

by: faithman

If certain folk get elected, then the assault on second amendment rights will heat up again. Fire arms values will go back thru the roof. Case in point: A ruger 1022 [22 caliber carbine] can take an ammo clip of up to 50 rounds. The brady bill made the clip illegal, accept for the ones that were grand fathered in. These pre-ban clips were going for $150 at gun shows. After the time ran out on the ban, the same clip could be bought for $20 at the local gun store. I bought 4 25 round clips for my 1022. I plan to buy more. If the ban goes back in, I could do quite well selling them. If not, it means I have several hundred rounds before I have to start reloading clips. Even if you don't like guns, it would be a pretty solid investment if a gun grabber made it to the white house.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

So, you don't support abortion because it's 'murder', but you love guns? You know what guns are for, right?

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Many things.
Namely shooting things. People or animals. Shooting is done to injure or to kill. Most of the time, to kill.

reply from: faithman

Many things.
Namely shooting things. People or animals. Shooting is done to injure or to kill. Most of the time, to kill.
...and as a skilled sporting event using non living targets.

reply from: 4given

Okay. I like guns. I sold my 22 and 45 because of the small children that frequent my home. I would not ever want to be denied ownership.. especially if I felt the need to own a firearm. I am not a felon, so it should not matter, right? I am not sure what this has to do w/ abortion, but I can assume the demoncrats are proposing a restriction to/on the innocent? No one deserves assault weapons really.. unless they are in war. Right?

reply from: LolitaOlivia

I don't believe in war. It solves nothing.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Many things.
Namely shooting things. People or animals. Shooting is done to injure or to kill. Most of the time, to kill.
...and as a skilled sporting event using non living targets.
Which is fine and dandy if you use non-lethal guns (perfectly legal even in Hilary's dream America).

reply from: faithman

You are straying from the intent of the thred. The point is investment. The price of certain gun related stuff will go up, and make a tidy little profit. Then you could use the money to invest in pro-life.

reply from: joe

LolitaOlivia, objection to guns? Its amazing how you freaks support the tools of death but you object to the tools of defense. You spineless cowards fear those who could defend themselves but kill the defenseless. Next time you lust to kill a human try to kill one that owns a gun, then make sure you post here and let me know how that turned out. Now go and play toys with your pathetic friends.

reply from: AshMarie88

Many things.
Namely shooting things. People or animals. Shooting is done to injure or to kill. Most of the time, to kill.
Not all people with guns use them to kill other people, and when they do, they're the ones who shouldn't have them in the first place. Millions of law abiding citizens, each day, do NOT go out and massacre people with their guns, a very small percentage of gun owners do that!
And guns aren't the ONLY things used by criminals to kill people with. You talk about guns being so dangerous in hands... Well, many other things are dangerous in the same hands, such as rope, knives, scissors, vehicles, and heck, even the hands themselves! Why don't you start banning all of those too? After all, people die each day from being hung, being stabbed, being run over by vehicles, and strangled.
What do you plan to do about all of this? Ban the weapons?
Instead of banning the weapons themselves, how about we ban the criminals who have them? If you take away their weapons, they'll still find ways to kill. The only way to stop crime is to stop the people themselves, whether that's by lethal deadly force or putting them in jail. That's how the crime rate would go down.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

I don't believe in war. It solves nothing.
Unfortunately, it's a dog eat dog world out there. People are vicious. There are groups of people, ideologies and nations that would like to come into this country and kick our butt and take charge. After 9/11 I obtained Little Leaque sluggers and guns. The ammo and guns are locked in different cases. Did you realize, on 9/11, that there are people who would like to see us dead? They danced in the streets in Gaza at the death of the 9/11 murder victims. To paraphrase the Quran, "Allah deceives best. Allah puts terror into hearts." Islam's goal is to subjugate the world and make Sharia law the law of the land. Coming to a neighborhood near you, unless you wake up and repell that evil.
Do you remember President Bush saying these thugs (Extremists, terrorists) want to impose their dark vision all over the world? He now says we must be vigilent to repell such evil forces as the Iranian threat (they want Israel, a pro-Western democracy, wiped off the map). There are Jihadis trying to impose Islam and Sharia law on you. Their goal is to make Islam the law of the land, worldwide. That is what they live for (or die for in their case). Allah deceives best!

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Lolita,
What if he wants it for self defense?

reply from: jujujellybean

Many things.
Namely shooting things. People or animals. Shooting is done to injure or to kill. Most of the time, to kill.
...and as a skilled sporting event using non living targets.
Which is fine and dandy if you use non-lethal guns (perfectly legal even in Hilary's dream America).
Hilary's dream America is crud. She would make our country worse off than it already is. Are you really supporting her? Why am I not surprised?

reply from: jujujellybean

don't you realize Kay that defending yourself just isn't an option? Anytime you use a gun is wrong cause it could hurt somebody, even if you yourself are going to die!

reply from: LolitaOlivia

People don't need guns, even for self-defense. Millions of people don't have guns, and I doubt they ever wish they did. If you need a gun to feel safe, you're paranoid.
Hilary Clinton is my idol. I hate when people smear her good name.

reply from: coco

Olivia I am with you!! I dont like Hill though, I want OBAMA!!

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Obama's cool too. I think they'd work great together, if only they got along better. Politicians it's something you see on both sides. Everyone wants to be nominated so they start bashing eachother.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Have you ever been in a situation where your life was in danger? Or your life was threatened? It doesn't mean you are paranoid.
And you say people do not need guns to defend themselves. That also means people do not need guns to kill.
And if guns were banned, do you think a murderer will really give a damn whether or not they got it legally?
And it is a personal choice to get a gun for self defense. It is also in our constitution.

reply from: coco

kay personally, I have gotten in a few fights, but of course they were fists!! I think guns should stop being manufactured and real men and women fight with thier fists!!

reply from: Hereforareason

"People don't need guns, even for self-defense. Millions of people don't have guns, and I doubt they ever wish they did. If you need a gun to feel safe, you're paranoid."
Olivia, I am very surprised at your statement. Do you ever watch the news? Will no one ever break into your house to rob you or worse? no drunk or crazy people out there with guns? The outlaws will always have them, so you had better be armed or you are a sitting duck.
Paranoid? No, smart, prepared.
Amber

reply from: LolitaOlivia

People don't need guns, even for self-defense. Millions of people don't have guns, and I doubt they ever wish they did. If you need a gun to feel safe, you're paranoid.
Hilary Clinton is my idol. I hate when people smear her good name.
And you don't really need a driver's license until you get pulled over, but it's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it...Guns aren't for the weak hearted. I recommend if somebody invades your home, just give them what they want and hope for the best. They might beat you, rape you, and rob you, but maybe, just maybe, they won't kill you. A gun won't do any good unless you're prepared to use it.
I find it odd that you insist you must be allowed to kill your own children, yet seem to be opposed to law abiding citizens owning fire arms...
Do you realize how often firearms are used against their owners? When a criminal breaks into your house, the first thing he'll look for is your gun. Someone broke into my ex-boyfriend's house when he wasn't home last year. He came back to find his TV missing. He also found his bedside drawer had been dumped out. You know why? Because people who have guns often keep them there. Had he had a gun, the criminal would've taken it and probably used it to kill an innocent.
And you'll notice, world wide, the US has the highest gun crime rate of developed nations.
Link:
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

I think it's ironic you think you can shoot anyone who comes in your house even if it puts your own family at risk, but a woman can't defend her womb against an invasion.

reply from: yoda

Would you use a gun to shoot the "invading" fetus?
ROTFLMAO!!
p.s. By all means, do not keep any guns in your house, and let all the criminals in your town know about it.... put an ad in the paper, okay?

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Would you use a gun to shoot the "invading" fetus?
ROTFLMAO!!
p.s. By all means, do not keep any guns in your house, and let all the criminals in your town know about it.... put an ad in the paper, okay?
I'm a member of several anti-gun groups and am proud of it. If they were looking to commit crimes against people without guns, they could easily get my name and address off one of those lists. So far no one has attacked me, or anyone else in any of my groups.
And guns have been used by desperate women when they can't access an abortion, and they have killed women in the process.

reply from: yoda

Maybe you haven't spread the list around enough?
Put it in the paper, in a great big ad.... or are you all hot air?
OR JUST PUT A GREAT BIG SIGN ON YOUR HOUSE, OR IN YOUR FRONT YARD:
"No guns in this house"!!
Do it!

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Maybe you haven't spread the list around enough?
Put it in the paper, in a great big ad.... or are you all hot air?
OR JUST PUT A GREAT BIG SIGN ON YOUR HOUSE, OR IN YOUR FRONT YARD:
"No guns in this house"!!
Do it!
I already have an anti-gun sign in my yard, next to my Hilary Clinton '08 sign. And I have three anti-gun bumper stickers on my car, too, incase someone wants to carjack me. Nothing's happened.

reply from: yoda

That doesn't mean a thing!! Lots of "anti-gun" people are the biggest hypocrites in the world, and keep guns hidden in their houses. Rosie O'Donnel, the big anti-gun nut, hired ARMED BODYGUARDS!
Put a sign out that says you have NO GUNS in your house!!
Let the world know you won't resist if they break in, or you're a hypocrite and a coward!!

reply from: LolitaOlivia

That doesn't mean a thing!! Lots of "anti-gun" people are the biggest hypocrites in the world, and keep guns hidden in their houses. Rosie O'Donnel, the big anti-gun nut, hired ARMED BODYGUARDS!
Put a sign out that says you have NO GUNS in your house!!
Let the world know you won't resist if they break in, or you're a hypocrite and a coward!!
I could still resist. I have kitchen knives and fists. My boyfriend has a baseball bat And no one looking at my house would think I can afford armed bodyguards. Besides, most people in my area don't have guns so no criminal would be worried about that.

reply from: yoda

EXACTLY!! YOU don't need a gun!!
So put up that SIGN that says "NO GUNS IN THE HOUSE", or you're a raving coward hypocrite!!
GO ON, DO IT!!

reply from: LolitaOlivia

EXACTLY!! YOU don't need a gun!!
So put up that SIGN that says "NO GUNS IN THE HOUSE", or you're a raving coward hypocrite!!
GO ON, DO IT!!
Why would I be hypocrite for not doing it?

reply from: yoda

Because it proves you really don't believe in doing away with guns!!
Be proud!! Tell the world!!
Put a sign on your house, on your car, and on your purse that says "NO GUNS HERE", or "GUN FREE ZONE".
What's wrong, don't really believe your own propaganda?

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Because it proves you really don't believe in doing away with guns!!
Be proud!! Tell the world!!
Put a sign on your house, on your car, and on your purse that says "NO GUNS HERE", or "GUN FREE ZONE".
What's wrong, don't really believe your own propaganda?
Fine, I'll put one up. But if anyone was targeting people who don't own guns, the obviously anti-gun sign and bumper sticker would clue them in. Again, it's pointless to have a sign, as most Americans don't own guns.

reply from: yoda

No, not at all. Without a sign, a burglar is just "playing the odds", as you well know.
But you also well know that many people count on that, don't you? You want the burglar to think that you "might" have a gun, don't you?

reply from: AshMarie88

Well that wouldn't do much good if you two are sleeping one night and wake up to the sound of an armed burglar breaking into your room and then pointing his/her gun at you. It wouldn't do anything if you had that knife or baseball bat beside your bed, whereas if you had a gun you could get it and quickly shoot the person aiming his gun at you.
And are you stupid? I mean, really, are you? You think that just because your neighborhood is "safe", that nothing bad will happen?

reply from: AshMarie88

When I'm older (I'm only 19 right now) I'm going to choose to buy and license my own gun. Why? Oh because I want to go kill innocent animals and people in the streets. I wanna go shoot up a city high school and kill innocent students.
Just kidding.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

No, not at all. Without a sign, a burglar is just "playing the odds", as you well know.
But you also well know that many people count on that, don't you? You want the burglar to think that you "might" have a gun, don't you?
No, I would never want to be associated with one of those horrid people.
First of all, I'm not saying nothing could happen, just that I don't believe a gun would help. And how do you know it'd be easier to reach a gun? Criminals look for them in bedside drawers, so you'd probably want to keep that locked. You think it's easy to get the gun out (possibly having to undo a lock), turn off the safety, and get out of bed? Besides, what if he has a better gun? Or what if he doesn't even have a gun, but ends up reaching ours before we do?
And I watch my friends' kids sometimes. What if one of them got to it?
I firmly believe guns cause more harm than good.

reply from: yoda

WHAT "horrid people"?
In your case, I'd agree. NEVER buy a gun!

reply from: AshMarie88

Don't like guns? Don't buy one!

reply from: faithman

Guys, guys, guys. The point of the thred is the fact that gun grabbers could be voted in on both sides. That means a "brady bill" of some kind. At present, multi round clips are legal and cheap. If history repeats, those same clips would multiply many times in value if restrictions are re-instated. Wheather you like guns or not, there is a good investment oportunity. You don't have to buy the whole gun, just the multi round clips. You don't even have to buy bullets. A "brady bill" 1022 Ruger, 25 round clip, went for $150 at the gun shows. That same clip is around $20 right now. Now I don't think anyone is going to get mad at me if I throw empty clips at a burglar. Of course the 110 rounds I do have loaded might say a little something too.

reply from: Hereforareason

"Don't like guns? Don't buy one!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Don't like abortion? Don't have one! "
Hm, "Don't want to protect yourself, don't" vs "Don't want to kill your own baby, don't, but let us kill ours".
Spinwiddy..........are you really trying to make a logic point with that? Protect your LIFE vs take the life of one inconveniencing you...........................?
Amber

reply from: LolitaOlivia

You mean, protect your life by harming others? The only purpose of a gun is to harm another.

reply from: AshMarie88

Will this new chick ever respond to my post? Sigh.

reply from: 4given

CP: I so admire your patience! Is it because of having teenagers?! Really, at what point do you ignore foolish posters? You should put your daughter on!

reply from: LolitaOlivia

That doesn't mean a thing!! Lots of "anti-gun" people are the biggest hypocrites in the world, and keep guns hidden in their houses. Rosie O'Donnel, the big anti-gun nut, hired ARMED BODYGUARDS!
Put a sign out that says you have NO GUNS in your house!!
Let the world know you won't resist if they break in, or you're a hypocrite and a coward!!
I could still resist. I have kitchen knives and fists. My boyfriend has a baseball bat And no one looking at my house would think I can afford armed bodyguards. Besides, most people in my area don't have guns so no criminal would be worried about that.
She's against owning fire arms because they harm people, but she feels hacking an intruder with a butcher knife is simply "gentle persuasion," I guess....And while he might beat her to the gun, there's no possibility of the intruder getting to the knife before her... Let me guess, top kitchen drawer?
Butcher knives? I don't have any of those. And more people are murdered with guns than anything else in this country.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Well, butcher knives are for cutting meat, and my boyfriend's a vegetarian. I don't like to eat meat around him, so I only have a vegan cook set.
Well, that would give law enforcement an excuse to lock up criminals. Search the house, if they find a gun, the guy goes to jail. That way they'll know who's a criminal when they're looking at suspects for a crime. And it's easier to escape from a knife than a gun. With a knife, the guy's got to get a lot closer to you, and it's easier to run away. If he has a gun, he'll shoot you the second you start to run.

reply from: 4given

God knows I needed a good laugh today! Of course they are here for our entertainment.

reply from: yoda

Unfortunately, yes. Self-defense sometimes requires that, doesn't it? Since you said you would use other weapons to defend yourself against a burglar, you're being rather hypocritical now, aren't you?
It's kind of like having an abortion to save a mother's life, isn't it?

reply from: yoda

Riiiiiiight..... hacking and slashing someone with a butcher knife doesn't really "harm anyone", does it?
Can we all say H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E at the same time?

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Unfortunately, yes. Self-defense sometimes requires that, doesn't it? Since you said you would use other weapons to defend yourself against a burglar, you're being rather hypocritical now, aren't you?
It's kind of like having an abortion to save a mother's life, isn't it?
First of all, you don't know he's going to kill you. He could just steal your stuff, or tie you up, or who knows what. Just like a pregnancy can be dangerous without knowing it'll kill you.
He's more likely to survive that then a gun shot. That way he'll be hurt, but it's more likely the police can take him alive, which is what they want.

reply from: yoda

ROTFLMAO!!! A burglar is coming at you in your own home, and you're gong to stop and try to decide whether he means to kill you or not??? ROTFLMAO!!
ROTFLMAO!! You're just toooo funny!!

reply from: LolitaOlivia

ROTFLMAO!!! A burglar is coming at you in your own home, and you're gong to stop and try to decide whether he means to kill you or not??? ROTFLMAO!!
ROTFLMAO!! You're just toooo funny!!
So, you have no argument except pulling the old "it's silly" card? And most burglars don't kill, even if they people wake up. Most of them have records, and they don't want to go down for murder. Burglary won't get you much time, they could be back out in a few years. Murder? Most won't risk it.

reply from: yoda

I'm sorry I lost control on that post..... you're just too funny for words sometimes. Like I say, please DO NOT buy a gun, and hurry up and put up that sign in your front yard, okay?

reply from: kayluvzchoice

:: Don't like guns? Don't buy one!::
I actually agree with Ashmarie on that. Right now, I would never consider a gun. But I am not everyone and I do not know my future. I may need one in 10 years.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

I'm sorry I lost control on that post..... you're just too funny for words sometimes. Like I say, please DO NOT buy a gun, and hurry up and put up that sign in your front yard, okay?
I'd be more afraid of being harmed by my own gun that getting harmed because I don't have a gun. Guns are horrid things, and the world would be a lot better off if we didn't have them.
Even if I was at risk by not owning a gun, I'd rather die than own a gun.

reply from: faithman

Guys, guys, guys. The point of the thred is the fact that gun grabbers could be voted in on both sides. That means a "brady bill" of some kind. At present, multi round clips are legal and cheap. If history repeats, those same clips would multiply many times in value if restrictions are re-instated. Wheather you like guns or not, there is a good investment oportunity. You don't have to buy the whole gun, just the multi round clips. You don't even have to buy bullets. A "brady bill" 1022 Ruger, 25 round clip, went for $150 at the gun shows. That same clip is around $20 right now. Now I don't think anyone is going to get mad at me if I throw empty clips at a burglar. Of course the 110 rounds I do have loaded might say a little something too.

reply from: Hereforareason

"He's more likely to survive that then a gun shot. That way he'll be hurt, but it's more likely the police can take him alive, which is what they want."
And therefore he is alive to fight back and try to get you out of his way so he can get out. He might want to kill you to make sure you can't identify him. You want to get close enough to injure with a knife....you are close enough for him to take it away from you, or kill you with his knife.
I am shocked at how you speak on self defense. You would rather die than own a gun? I don't know how you can say that in this day where people are killed all the time. Most times just having a gun and showing it stops the crime, if you need to use it, you have it.
Amber

reply from: LolitaOlivia

The majority of Americans don't own guns, and the majority of Americans won't get attacked in a way having a gun would make a difference. Guns can hurt you as much as they help you. Children die from playing with guns. If you drop your gun with the safety off, it could fire back at you. Someone could take your gun and use it against you or someone else. Guns horrify me and I think there's nothing more reckless than owning a gun. Thousands of guns are stolen each year and used by criminals.
http://www.gun-control-network.org/CO15.htm

reply from: Hereforareason

Does the idea of watching your parents being held up and maybe attacked without being able to do anything horrify you?
I think you can agree that guns are here, and they won't all disappear anytime soon. So do not try to debate about guns, using the "they shouldn't be here" line. It doesn't matter, they are.
Amber

reply from: Skippy

You can't cherry-pick the Constitution, and only pay attention to the parts you like. Well, you can, but it makes you look sort of silly.
It's fine to say "OMG I think guns are evil and bad and I would never EVER own one!" It's not fine to try to disarm law-abiding citizens. They don't deserve to be harmed by criminals just because guns squick you out.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

You can't cherry-pick the Constitution, and only pay attention to the parts you like. Well, you can, but it makes you look sort of silly.
It's fine to say "OMG I think guns are evil and bad and I would never EVER own one!" It's not fine to try to disarm law-abiding citizens. They don't deserve to be harmed by criminals just because guns squick you out.
Guns kill more people than they save.
It's questionable whether or not the second amendment even relates to modern gun politics.
From wikipedia:
From http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=second:

If you feel like serving in a militia or even forming your own, then you can have a gun.

reply from: faithman

The point of the thred is that guns, and gun related stuff, will bring a very good price if gun grabbing socialist take control. With gas predicted to go up to $5 a gallon, and hyper inflation a real threat. One should invest in things that hold value, and can be traded for nessesities. Guns just happens to be a smart investment now. 22LR ammo can be bought at wal-mart for around $10 for 500 rounds. A very good small game/ home deffence weapon, is the ruger 1022 carbine. I have the stanless steal alweather version, with neopreme stock and hand gripe. It don't mind getting a little wet. It can also be bought at wal-mart for around $200. It comes with a 10 round clip, and with the 4 multi's I bought, I have 110 rounds before I have to reload a clip. Target practice is a blast with this little plinker, and the kidds love the fact that they can blast away before reload. Ammo at $10 for 500 rounds makes it real cheap fun. We like to take a picture of Tiller, and try to shoot a smile on his face. But thats just us.

reply from: Skippy

Prove it. And not with a study from Gun Grabbers Inc., mmmkay?
Wikipedia is your source for scholarly legal analysis regarding the Constitution? I can't decide whether that's extremely amusing, or merely sad.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

It's hard to know how many people guns "save", but this seems to put it in perspective:
Source: http://science-community.sciam.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300004368
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

And wikipedia's error rate is about the same or less than Britannica.
Source:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/15/1352207&from=rss
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2005/12/15/Wikipedia-review051215.html

So, anyone can edit it. Anyone can right a book or post on any other website. Anyone can write an essay or make a documentary. At least wikipedia (for the most part) lists its sources.
One popular book (that has been cited in essays and has a fanbase) claims Elizabeth I gave birth to Shakespeare and that the Freemasons helped cover it up.
Link:
http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Son-Queen-Elizabeth-I/dp/0971349800

People don't pull that*****on wikipedia without getting blocked.

reply from: Skippy

It's hard to know how many people guns "save", but this seems to put it in perspective:
Your definition of a gun being "used" to deter a criminal act appears to require the gun to be fired. But for every case where the trigger is pulled, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of cases where guns prevent a criminal act without being fired.
Oh, and Kellermann's "research" has long since been revealed to be a steaming pile of bulkogi.

reply from: Banned Member

I'm anti gun control, but I think that the argument of self defence is used much to liberally. If that was the reason for having guns no one would ever need automatic or semiautomatic weapons, no one would ever need to have more than one gun, either. Not to mention that if you are a responsible gun owner, particularly one with small children you don't keep your weapons loaded & you keep them locked up in a safe place. This doesn't leave them very accessible in need of immediate self defense.
I don't hunt, don't have it in me to kill an animal, not that I find anything wrong with as long as the animal is being eaten & all other usable parts being used. But, I find there to be nothing better to blow off steam than to go to a shooting range & fire off a few rounds at a target.
We have a Constitutional right to bear arms. The reason that right was written into Constitution is so that, should the need ever arise, we could rise up against a tyrannical government.

reply from: faithman

The point of the thred is that guns, and gun related stuff, will bring a very good price if gun grabbing socialist take control. With gas predicted to go up to $5 a gallon, and hyper inflation a real threat. One should invest in things that hold value, and can be traded for nessesities. Guns just happens to be a smart investment now. 22LR ammo can be bought at wal-mart for around $10 for 500 rounds. A very good small game/ home deffence weapon, is the ruger 1022 carbine. I have the stanless steal alweather version, with neopreme stock and hand gripe. It don't mind getting a little wet. It can also be bought at wal-mart for around $200. It comes with a 10 round clip, and with the 4 multi's I bought, I have 110 rounds before I have to reload a clip. Target practice is a blast with this little plinker, and the kidds love the fact that they can blast away before reload. Ammo at $10 for 500 rounds makes it real cheap fun. We like to take a picture of Tiller, and try to shoot a smile on his face. But thats just us.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

I think it's fine to have guns for hunting, or shooting range, as long as their properly stored and under lock and key when not in use. I think the crime rate would go down if guns were kept in special safes or lockers at the hunting lodge or shooting range. That way we could keep track of who uses the gun, what they use it for, and where it is at all times. Plus, it would make things a lot harder for criminals to steal them. I just don't like it when guns are kept where children and criminals can get to them.

reply from: faithman

Children should be introduced early to supervised use of fire arms. The boy scouts use to do a good job, and some states provide good gun safty programs for youth. If one is to have guns in the house, then all the family members should be trained in their use, and proper safty. We had a gun in the house growing up that never was locked up. But my dad let us know to never touch it. If you knew my dad, you would know why we never did.

reply from: Banned Member

I agree with you to an extent. I think that if you have guns in the home a child of reasonable age should be taught proper care & safety. But, depending on the household in question, should still be kept locked. A kid may have a friend over who doesn't know anything about guns & accidents can happen. Of course if you are in a household where there is an adult present & supervising the youths at all times, then this wouldn't be an issue.

reply from: yoda

Isn't she an absolutely perfect proabort?

reply from: Hereforareason

"
It's questionable whether or not the second amendment even relates to modern gun politics."
OH wow, That was definitely a load of something. Hey, the everyday citizens were the army back then. The right of the PEOPLE to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed. Hello!!!!!! This was intended not only for our protection from other citizens, but to defend our rights against the government. Let me as you, what happens if the citizens are not allowed to own guns, the military is, and someone gets into power that decides they want to do something drastic. We couldn't defend ourselves.
I really pity you, I don't see how you can possibly think that you are safe anywhere you go with a knife, a short range weapon that allows the attacker to get way too close to you.
"I'm anti gun control, but I think that the argument of self defence is used much to liberally. If that was the reason for having guns no one would ever need automatic or semiautomatic weapons, no one would ever need to have more than one gun, either."
Sorry, that is very, very wrong. If someone breaks through my bedroom window and I don't have a chance to run down to the study, I sure hope I have a gun in my room. There are different guns for different purposes. In case of an invasion (Enemy militants, or our own government....remember how we won our freedom in the first place?) I sure hope I have as many automatic guns as possible. But that doesn't even matter. It is my right to own it, it shall not be infringed.
"Not to mention that if you are a responsible gun owner, particularly one with small children you don't keep your weapons loaded & you keep them locked up in a safe place. This doesn't leave them very accessible in need of immediate self defense."
You noticed that it doesn't leave them very accessible huh? Right. If I am a responsible gun owner with my children in the house, I teach my children about guns. I teach them never to play with them and how to use them if needed. Because you will bring up the argument of neighbor children coming over, no, I don't necessarily recommend leaving the loaded, unlocked gun on the dining room table. But it if is taken apart, trigger locked, and locked in a cabinet, you almost might as well not have it.
That brings to remembrance a story about several girls alone at home. A crazy man with an ax broke in, and started attacking the younger girls. The older girl was not able to get the cabinet open and the gun readied, in time to save her sisters.

This is a story I love. A woman lived in the country and was near the wooded part of their property hanging clothes. (Yes, it was awhile ago) A man came out of the woods and threatened her with a knife. The woman's 5 year old came out of the house with the families gun and told the man to leave his mommy alone. The attacker smiled and told the kid he didn't know how to use the gun. In response, the 5 year old chambered a round. The man left, fast and not as dry as he had come.
Guns can be very scary things. But they are not always an instrument of evil. Know them well, properly train yourself in their use, and be able to protect yourself against intruders.
By the way, you have to instruct your kids about the knives in the house as well, and any mace you may have. Any dangerous things in the house, broken glass is dangerous.
Sorry to have hijacked your thread Faithman. I hope you don't mind too much. Thanks for the tip
Amber

reply from: Banned Member

Ummm...Hello...this is something we agree on, pretty much, especially about the government, did you not see that part of my post? I may not agree with everyone's parenting skills where it concerns guns, (or where it concerns anything for that matter) But I don't believe it's something to be regulated. I just happen to think that the argument that we all need guns to protect ourselves is used to much.
Maybe you personally need a gun in every room to feel safe, but I personally feel it's not necessary.
I just don't really think we need an argument to keep our guns. It's our constitutional right, period. That's the only argument I need to have.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Again, why are you all so worried about not having a gun? That's paranoid. Most people in America don't have guns, and most of them will never be in position where they need one. Americans are too paranoid. Have you ever seen Bowling for Columbine? America is one of the most paranoid countries in the world. In Canada and many other countries, people don't even lock their doors at night. Nothing bad happens to most of those people. Don't worry so much. Besides, a security system is probably better at keeping you safe than a gun. Most crimes are committed by people the victim knows anyway. Most rapes are committed by boyfriends, husbands, friends, or fathers. People who would probably know where your gun is or that you'd trust enough to not have it out around them, thus making it pretty hard for you to use it against them. Or, in the case of husbands, boyfriends, and fathers, people who might actually use that gun against you.

reply from: Banned Member

I don't think people should have guns at all, only if they want one. But, look at this very realistic scenario...Lets suppose that we get another war-mongering president like Bush in the up coming election. Someone who believes in torture & the right to spy on any & every one they wish without cause or reason. The kind of leader that thinks it's acceptable to hold people prisoner for years with out ever giving them an attorney or even charging them with a crime. The kind of leader that leads people into war based on lies propagated by fear....How far away do you think a state of Marshal Law is in a nation ruled by a leader like that? That's the only self defense I'm concerned with. Thank Gods Bush is out of there in a year, lets hope the American People have wizened up this time around.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Source #1:
http://www.aaets.org/article119.htm

"Fact: Most sexual assaults and rapes are committed by someone the victim knows. Among victims aged 18 to 29, two-thirds had a prior relationship with the offender(1). During 2000, about six in ten rape or sexual assault victims stated the offender was an intimate, other relative, a friend or an acquaintance(2). A study of sexual victimization of college women showed that most victims knew the person who sexually victimized them. For both completed and attempted rapes, about 9 in 10 offenders were known to the victim(3). Most often, a boyfriend, ex-boyfriend, classmate, friend, acquaintance, or co-worker sexually victimized the women(4). Sexual assault can be committed within any type of relationship, including in marriage, in dating relationships, or by friends, acquaintances or co-workers. Sexual assault can occur in heterosexual or same-gender relationships. It does not matter whether there is a current or past relationship between the victim and offender; unwanted sexual activity is still sexual assault and is a serious crime."
Source #2:
http://www.wcstx.com/rapemyth.htm

"FACT: Over 80% of rapes are committed by someone the victim knows. People are at greater risk because they do not recognize familiar people or people from the same social, economic, racial, or cultural backgrounds as possible rapists. The majority of assaults occur in the home of the victim or the offender, or someone the victim or offender knows. Over 50% of assaults occur during the day."
Source #3:
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/victims/qa02610.asp?qaDate=20050531

"About 1 in 8 violent crime victims of juvenile offenders (5% + 7%) and adult offenders (1% + 11%) was a stranger."
I can find more if necessary.

reply from: AshMarie88

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/301881_gunrebut01.html

Evidence says gun laws don't work
By MICHAEL S. BROWN
The anti-gun op-ed by Dr. Clifford M. Herman ("Bowing down to NRA is dangerous," Jan. 23) certainly fits in with the renewed push by the P-I for more gun laws. As with previous articles, this one demonizes the NRA, offers anecdotal insights and questions the meaning of the Second Amendment. What it does not do is address the essential question.
Honest legislators must ask: Which gun laws, if any, will truly reduce violence? Thanks to the Clinton administration and the Centers for Disease Control, we have a pretty good idea. A group of scientists reviewed the extensive literature on the effectiveness of gun laws and released its report in 2003. With so many gun laws enacted in the latter half of the 20th century, there were numerous examples to study, but they were unable to find convincing evidence that any gun laws have ever been effective.
Their search included Herman's 1988 Seattle-Vancouver study. Given that Herman is vociferously anti-gun, what are the chances that his study was scientifically sound and unbiased? That's right, and virtually every anti-gun study ever done was created by the same kind of people and funded by openly anti-gun foundations. Their built-in bias makes them useless for public policy debate.
Washingtonians are not stupid. We are aware that gun laws have failed miserably wherever they have been tried. Anyone who knows how to visit the FBI Web site can tell you that the most dangerous places in the United States often are the places with the strictest gun laws. Gun laws overseas have been no more successful. Asking the Legislature to give us more is a colossal waste of time and an insult to our intelligence.
The real reason for the resurgence of anti-gun rhetoric is a long-running culture war between the two sides of the gun debate. From 1994 until the 2006 elections, the once powerful gun control lobby got kicked around by the NRA. Now that they have new friends in office, they want some payback.
Knowing that gun laws don't work, what is the anti-gun lobby to do with its renewed political influence? Here in Washington, it is promoting a bill that will end private sales of guns at gun shows. But wait, the Department of Justice tells us that less than 1 percent of crime guns were purchased at gun shows, so why support such a useless law? The answer, in a word, is payback.
You see, although gun shows are not a significant source of crime guns, they are both a tool and symbol of the gun rights movement. People gather to discuss their hobby, curse the gun grabbers and enjoy spirited haggling over the price of treasured objects. They also recruit new members and raise funds for gun rights organizations. What better target for the wrath of those who despise guns and gun owners?
The concept of reducing violence by passing gun laws is a fallacy, as evidenced by several decades of failure. The only proven solution is to put criminals in prison and keep them there as long as you can. This is not a popular way to spend tax dollars, hence the opening for culture warriors to hijack the lawmaking process for their own ends.

reply from: AshMarie88

Gun Control: Myths and Realities
by David Lampo
..May 13, 2000-->
David Lampo is the publications director at the Cato Institute.
The number of well-publicized public shootings during the past few years, especially the tragedy at Columbine High School, has re-energized the gun control movement.
As a show of strength, a coalition of gun control groups has organized a "Million Mom March" to be held in Washington, D.C. on Mother's Day, an event designed to stir up emotions rather than promote rational thought.
And when one looks at the facts about gun control, it's easy to see why the anti-gun lobby relies on emotion rather than logic to make its case.
Think you know the facts about gun control? If your only source of information is the mainstream media, what you think you know may not be correct.
Take the quiz below and test your knowledge.
1. Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents.
False. Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn't know it from listening to the mainstream media.
In 1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642.
More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings.
The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes "children" up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence.
2. Gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals.
False. Contrary to President Clinton's claims, there is no "gun show loophole." All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks, and the only people exempt from them are the small number of non-commercial sellers.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks.
3. The tragedy at Columbine High School a year ago illustrates the deficiencies of current gun control laws.
False. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated close to 20 firearms laws in amassing their cache of weapons (not to mention the law against murder), so it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws might have prevented this tragedy.
The two shotguns and rifle used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by a girlfriend who would have passed a background check, and the TEC-9 handgun used by them was already illegal.
4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don't.
True. The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons.
In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.
5. Waiting periods lower crime rates.
False. Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of waiting periods, both before and after the federal Brady bill was passed in 1993. Those studies consistently show that there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates.
Florida State University professor Gary Kleck analyzed data from every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 and found that waiting periods had no statistically significant effect.
Even University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell found that "waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides."
6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.
False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures.
In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations.
Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States."
A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.
The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason.
Let's hope more people are catching on.

reply from: AshMarie88

40 reasons to support gun control:
http://attrition.org/technical/firearms/40_gun_control.html

26 reasons:
http://www.usiap.org/Constitutional%20Principles/Principles.htm

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Maybe it's the gun laws, maybe it's the paranoia, but we have the highest gun crime rate among developed nations. This is higher than the right of some developing countries. Gun laws must have something to do with it, it's the one other developed nations have more of.
Look at our percentage for firearm homicides vs. non-firearm homicides. That rate is higher than Mexico.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

reply from: faithman

The point of the thred is that guns, and gun related stuff, will bring a very good price if gun grabbing socialist take control. With gas predicted to go up to $5 a gallon, and hyper inflation a real threat. One should invest in things that hold value, and can be traded for nessesities. Guns just happens to be a smart investment now. 22LR ammo can be bought at wal-mart for around $10 for 500 rounds. A very good small game/ home deffence weapon, is the ruger 1022 carbine. I have the stanless steal alweather version, with neopreme stock and hand gripe. It don't mind getting a little wet. It can also be bought at wal-mart for around $200. It comes with a 10 round clip, and with the 4 multi's I bought, I have 110 rounds before I have to reload a clip. Target practice is a blast with this little plinker, and the kidds love the fact that they can blast away before reload. Ammo at $10 for 500 rounds makes it real cheap fun. We like to take a picture of Tiller, and try to shoot a smile on his face. But thats just us.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

How about just one that actually supports your argument? You said, "Most crimes are committed by people the victim knows anyway." Are you now contending that "most crimes" are rapes and/or committed by juvenile offenders? These were all that were addressed by your sources. They would only support your argument if you contend that other crimes are not relevant to your views on gun control...
Can you read?
"About 1 in 8 violent crime victims of juvenile offenders (5% + 7%) and adult offenders (1% + 11%) was a stranger."
This covers violent crimes in general, dividing up by juvenile and adult offenders (who usually have different rates). And the other sources covered rape, which is a very popular crime to commit in the US right now, and is a crime where a husband, father, or boyfriend might use a household gun against a woman who lives there and might've even bought the gun in the first place.
Link:
http://www.endabuse.org/resources/facts/Guns.pdf

"Guns and domestic violence are a lethal combination - injuring and killing women every day in the United States. A gun is the weapon most commonly used in domestic homicides. In fact, more than three times as many women are murdered by guns used by their husbands or intimate acquaintances than are killed by strangers' guns, knives or other weapons combined.i Contrary to many public perceptions, many women who are murdered are killed not by strangers but by men they know. "
"Nearly one-third of all women murdered in the United States in recent years were murdered by a current or former intimate partner. In 2000, 1,247 women, more than three a day, were killed by their intimate partners.ii"

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Can you? It clearly says "violent crimes," which obviously does not imply that they are referring to armed assaults. Do you think some kid punching his friend in the mouth is relevant to a discussion about gun control laws? Gee, get you head out of your ass...
That's what I was talking about. These posts weren't about gun crime rates (which ARE high, though), but about the supposed need to have a gun for "self-defense". If most violent crimes are committed by people the victim knows, the chances of a gun helping are slimmer. You don't bring a gun when you visit someone's house. You don't keep it out when you have a fight with your husband. If they know you they might know where you keep it and use it against you. Having a gun by your bed might help you kill the big bad stranger who comes in in the middle of the night, but it won't do you much good when your own husband beats and rapes you. Or when your friend decides to rob you when you invite him over for lunch. And that's more likely to happen. So, even if you are a victim of a crime (and there's a chance you never will be), chances are it won't be a crime where having a gun will help you out.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

They value themselves and their friends above random fetuses, if that's what you mean. Of course they're pro-choice. I wouldn't be friends with people who aren't.

reply from: AshMarie88

They value themselves and their friends above random fetuses, if that's what you mean. Of course they're pro-choice. I wouldn't be friends with people who aren't.
LOL... close minded much?

reply from: LolitaOlivia

No, my friends wouldn't hurt me. But people can betray their friends. It does happen. Trust can be broken.
No, this doesn't include statutory rape. And date rape is a crime as serious as any other type of rape. If one person doesn't consent, it's rape no matter who does it. And these are cases when the police are involved. The occasional fist fight among friends doesn't normally warrant police involvement.
Yes they are. Gun nuts use the high crime rate to justify owning a gun for self-defense, when in reality most violent crimes can't be defended against with a gun.
But if your only purpose to keep guns legal is for self-defense, then the fact that most people will never be in a situation where a gun will save them is relevant.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

It's possible for anyone to hurt anyone.
No, I'm saying simple fist fights and such probably weren't. When one friend shoots another in the head, that probably would be.
Statutory rape is never included in rape statistics because it's a different type of crime.
It doesn't. Did you even read why I posted this stuff? No? It's because the whole "I need to get me a gun so them evil strangers don't go attacking me!" is stupid because most crimes take place in the home and are committed by people you know, so you wouldn't have your gun ready and they'd know where it is anyway.
Let's see...
Nuclear Attack
Plane Crashing into your house
Most explosives
Anything in a school or office (where guns are banned)
Poisoning
Infanticide (can your baby use a gun?)
Any attack where the bad guys have more/bigger guns than you
Guns could be used to defend yourself during a domestic attack (which most rapes and assaults are), but that's assuming the violent one doesn't get to it first and use it against the rest of the family.
It's just another reason. Every gun in this country could fall into the wrong hands and harm someone at any moment. Most of those guns will never save anyone. It's not worth it.
When guns hurt more people than they help, there's no reason to allow such a dangerous thing just so some people can feel safer.

reply from: AshMarie88

Yes there is a good reason to allow such a thing, it's called the CONSTITUTION.
Oh... I forgot... you believe it's outdated...

reply from: AshMarie88

And keep ignoring my past post, you'll just remain close minded and ignorant until you grasp it...

reply from: Hereforareason

"
Ummm...Hello...this is something we agree on, pretty much, especially about the government, did you not see that part of my post? I may not agree with everyone's parenting skills where it concerns guns, (or where it concerns anything for that matter) But I don't believe it's something to be regulated. I just happen to think that the argument that we all need guns to protect ourselves is used to much.
Maybe you personally need a gun in every room to feel safe, but I personally feel it's not necessary.
I just don't really think we need an argument to keep our guns. It's our constitutional right, period. That's the only argument I need to have."
Syrenity, I was replying to olivia. Sorry, I do agree with most of what you have been saying about this.
I don't necessarily feel that I need to have a gun in every room of the house, but I should be able to if I want to.
Olivia, why? Because it is our RIGHT! And more and more of our rights are being infringed upon by a Government that is way too big for anyone's good, but the government.
Are you suggesting that we should leave our doors unlocked? We have crime rates that suggest that maybe we shouldn't. If we want to live that is. Trust me, I am not paranoid. I like to believe that most people have good intentions. But unfortunately, sin has vastly corrupted human kind and some people don't even seem to have a conscience any more.
"When guns hurt more people than they help, there's no reason to allow such a dangerous thing just so some people can feel safer.
"
Olivia, are you proposing to have all of the guns confiscated and destroyed?
Amber

reply from: faithman

The point of the thred is that guns, and gun related stuff, will bring a very good price if gun grabbing socialist take control. With gas predicted to go up to $5 a gallon, and hyper inflation a real threat. One should invest in things that hold value, and can be traded for nessesities. Guns just happens to be a smart investment now. 22LR ammo can be bought at wal-mart for around $10 for 500 rounds. A very good small game/ home deffence weapon, is the ruger 1022 carbine. I have the stanless steal alweather version, with neopreme stock and hand gripe. It don't mind getting a little wet. It can also be bought at wal-mart for around $200. It comes with a 10 round clip, and with the 4 multi's I bought, I have 110 rounds before I have to reload a clip. Target practice is a blast with this little plinker, and the kidds love the fact that they can blast away before reload. Ammo at $10 for 500 rounds makes it real cheap fun. We like to take a picture of Tiller, and try to shoot a smile on his face. But thats just us.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

I never said that, just if a crime isn't serious (like you implied fist fights were) the police probably wouldn't be contacted.
No. It says "sexual violence" at the top of the page. Statutory rape (unless the child is young enough it's also child molestation) is never classified as "sexual violence" unless there's violence involved (which normally makes it more than statutory).
I did supply sources for that. Only on in eight crimes are committed against stranger by both juveniles and adults, though adults are slightly more likely to go after strangers, but still barely over 10%. And I couldn't find a source for it because it's such common knowledge that most crimes, especially crimes against women and children, take place in the home.
Link:
http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/RichardDavis/articles/77201/

I certainly think it is.
If you're on the plane, but not if you're inside the house.
Before it goes off? And even then, only if you're there when it's planted.
No ones talking about taking guns away from cops.
If you catch them poisoning you, you can just not eat the food and avoid the risk all together.
Only if you're there.
You could fight back, but it'd probably get you shot quicker.
It's not intruders I'm talking about, but people in your family.
Because they're dangerous? If Iran has nuclear weapons, they may never go off, but is that still something you want to risk? Same thing with guns.
http://www.co.missoula.mt.us/Measures/ViolentC.htm

reply from: yoda

Olivia, have you noticed that no one here agrees with you on this issue?
Or that no one cares whether YOU own a gun or not?

reply from: faithman

Actually she is the very reason for this thread. She would have all of us helpless against the secular humanist take over of our country by socialist globalist, that now devour millions of womb children a day thru abortion. The fact of the matter is that we may have to take up arms, or see our republic desolve into the socialist globalism beuocracy our poloticians are selling us out to on bothsides of the isle. She is only a useful idiot of the socialist, and is a fine example of why everyone of legal age should buy up arms now before people like her make it imposible for us to defend ourselves, our families, and the soveriegnty of our constitutional Republic. The founders said that"we have given you a republic, if you can keep it". They gave us the second amendment to empower the individual to do just that. Just the thought of an armed citizenry, has kept america free of military invasion. Now the socialist would have us give up that security by taking away our weapons. Every American should arm themselves, not because they will ever have to use them, but because it sends the message to the enemies of our republic that we will if we have too. No one is your friend who tries to disarm you. They only want to make you easier to defeat.
If we want to invest in America's future, Buy guns and ammo now.

reply from: faithman

Actually she is the very reason for this thread. She would have all of us helpless against the secular humanist take over of our country by socialist globalist, that now devour millions of womb children a day thru abortion. The fact of the matter is that we may have to take up arms, or see our republic desolve into the socialist globalism beuocracy our poloticians are selling us out to on bothsides of the isle. She is only a useful idiot of the socialist, and is a fine example of why everyone of legal age should buy up arms now before people like her make it imposible for us to defend ourselves, our families, and the soveriegnty of our constitutional Republic. The founders said that"we have given you a republic, if you can keep it". They gave us the second amendment to empower the individual to do just that. Just the thought of an armed citizenry, has kept america free of military invasion. Now the socialist would have us give up that security by taking away our weapons. Every American should arm themselves, not because they will ever have to use them, but because it sends the message to the enemies of our republic that we will if we have too. No one is your friend who tries to disarm you. They only want to make you easier to defeat.
If we want to invest in America's future, Buy guns and ammo now.

reply from: faithman

Speculation isn't proof. I assume battery is included in "violent crime." Your say you don't think so proves only how stubborn you are.
Sexual assualt is "sexual violence." All sexual assualts are "classified" as violent crimes, even statutory rape. You seem to be assuming that if I rape you without beating you up, it's not really a violent crime. It is. You claim statutory rape is never classified as "sexual violence," but bthe term used in your quote was "sexual assault," and you're just pulling this out of your ass anyway.
What this means is that the guy who robs the store has probably been in the store before, etc. I checked out the cources given by the authors of the articles you cited. When they say "stranger," they are talking about someone you have never had any prior contact with, not somebody you actually knew in the sense that you know familiy and friends. After you were vrobbed, or whatever, the police ask if you knew the guy. If you say you've seen him around the neighborhood, he is not considered a "stranger," but a "neighbor." If shoot this "neighbor" in self defense, you can't really count that as if it were an innocent man who was injured, as you seem to be implying. You, and other gun control proponents want to imply that owning a gun means you are likely to shoot your brother, your wife, or your child. That just isn't shown by the stats, and it is dishonest to imply otherwise.
It is equally dishonest to portray domestic violence stats as if they all involved accidental shootings. If more violence occurs in the home, that doesn't prove it is dangerous to innocent people for me to own a gun...
I certainly think it is.
Fair enough. And my owning a gun will cause nuclear war, or cause more people to die as a result of nuclear war? You're just getting downright silly in your desperation to be right about something.
If you're on the plane, but not if you're inside the house.
You are the one who claimed this was a crime that could not be defended against with a gun, So now you're saying it can, but only under the right conditions? I proved you were wrong, so now you change the question? The same is true of your other objections.
"People you know" doesn't mean "people in your family." You are twisting the stats to suit your agenda. As I pointed out, when the stats speak of "strangers" committing only the minority of crimes, they are speaking of random crimes against random victims. If a guy comes in a store or bank several times to "case the joint" (as criminals often do), or if a guy who once worked there, and knew the layout, where the valuables were kept, etc., he is not considered a "stranger" for the purposes of the statistics, but the author of the article you cited as your "source" has misrepresented those stats to make it appear that they say your "friends and family" are committing most crimes against you. The stats do not use the word "stranger" in the same sense as you are implying...
Guns are not "dangerous." You can live in a house full of guns, and the chance that one will ever "go off" is almost nil. It is the way some people use guns that can be "dangerous."

I'm still waiting for you to prove this is the case.....
This doesn't take into account the crimes that are prevented by a defender with a gun, where no one is actually injured, therefore it by no means proves that guns "hurt more people than they help." It addresses only those who are hurt, not those who are helped, therefore no comparison is made between the two.
Once more, "someone they know" doesn't mean "friends and family," even if some dishonest people try to imply it does. "Someone you know" means someone you are familiar with, not necessarily someone you actually associate with. I am familiar with serial killer "Charles Manson," so if he came in and killed my family, and I told the cops it was him that did it, the fact that I identified him would mean it must be listed as a crime committed by someone I "knew." See how that works? The author of your article has dishonestly represented the facts, and in your eagerness to condemn gun ownership, you blindly accepted it.
I'm done here. You are not engaged in a discussion, you are just trying to be right, even when you are wrong. Every time I show you are wrong, you just see how you can twist it so that you can appear to be right. Then I have to address your new objection, and when I do, you twist that as well...I don't want to play anymore. This game is a waste of time. I have proven I can win, but this is like being in a one on one basketball game where the score doesn't matter. You think the last one to post wins, even if they haven'y scored a single point. If you think all your arguments can be defeated, but you still win if you get the last word, then you win. I quit.
AAAAAHHHHH ya reap what ya sow huh monky boy? Now you know what it's like trying to talk sence to you.

reply from: Banned Member

No, I don't. You don't either. To do so would require that what you say actually make "sence." <sic>
I don't pay much attention to your ranting anymore, since I have come to the conclusion that attempting to reason with you is pointless...I agree with you that guns should not be outlawed, but we certainly differ in the reasoning by which we arrived at that conclusion. People like you are part of why I think the rest of us should be armed, if the truth be told. I view the militant AOG and "dominionist" philosophies as a greater potential threat to personal civil liberty in this country than, well, anything else...
Wow, CP, who knew we would ever so fully agree on anything.

reply from: faithman

I have stood on the line beside Norma at a clinic in Dallas, while she held a bloody picture and hollard out for women not to kill their baby. We are not the unloving ones. The ones who kill their own child have that one sown up.

reply from: lukesmom

Very well said CP! I am one of the religious ones but when I faced "the choice" I didn't make my decision because of my religion (although it can be argued that religion is what formed my values and morals) or because I am prolife but I gave my child life because I am a mother and I will not harm any of my children knowingly, born or unborn. When faced with the "choice" there is no religion and no political soapbox, just a woman and her child. I pity those who chose to kill their child and learn the truth too late. Unfortunantly I am seeing this more and more in the past few years...

reply from: lukesmom

I have stood on the line beside Norma at a clinic in Dallas, while she held a bloody picture and hollard out for women not to kill their baby. We are not the unloving ones. The ones who kill their own child have that one sown up.
fman, we all work to save babies in our own ways. Unfortunantly many of the women I "talk" too are a product of our society and actually have bought into the "easy" solution of abortion, only to find out too late the actual pain of a child lost, unfortunantly by their (the mother's) own action. I grieve an angel child and I can't begin to imaging the pain and regret these mothers feel after the fact. Here we mainly seem to see the cold hearted such as carifairy, vexing. lolita etc. They are sad in how deluded they are and how they lead other mothers to trust and destroy their children. They, with good reason, draw our ire. Unfortunantly the lurkers may be turned off by this nastiness. I am guilty too, BTW! I am hoping the lurkers can learn the truth and not be turned away by some of the ugly things said here.

reply from: joe

According to you all human rights issues need to be solved with diplomacy. I would like to believe this but it goes against our history.
1. Germany holocaust
2. Slavery
3. War on terror
It is my understanding that in every one of these events force was used. The fact remains that abortion makes these events seem like child's play.
Why didn't we use diplomacy (for 35 years) with the Taliban? They are religious and can't be reasoned with? Guess what concernedparent, the majority of pro-choice advocates for whatever reason are religious to the fullest extend of the word in their belief. They want people like you to calm the passion of our movement. If half of the pro-life movement had passion roe vs wade would be overturned legally. They would hear the righteous yells of multiple millions to stop this slaughter, but they prefer people like you who talk nice and pose no real threat to this holocaust.
I support the free speech of all pro life advocates and to say any fragment is wrong is foolish. Prove your point that any passion turns away pro choice advocates with a study and I might give your argument some review. The fact is 35 years of diplomacy yielded no victory whatsoever, we need passion.
We need millions to cause a civil uproar so our leaders know this needs to be addressed and overturned immediately. We need our military to destroy every office that took part of this crime and law enforcement to imprison all "doctors" who took part of this evil. Its time to face the truth concernedparent this infringement of the inherent right to life will only be overturned with passion. The passion we had for all human rights violations in the past and present.

reply from: joe

You're a liar, Joe. I have not even implied that is the case. I do insist that diplomacy should be the first thing we try to solve problems, but in the case of the abortion issue, it is the only viable option. I'm only talking about one issue here, and that is legal abortion on demand. You stated that our efforts have failed for over 30 years, and that is true, but that would include the violent actions of militants, right? Anti abortion violence has obviously not ended abortion, right? Who is responsible, ultimately, for each abortion? The mother, right? Can she be deterred by threats to others? Obviously not...Stop comparing the abortion issue to crimes against humanity that can be prevented by killing the aggressors. Just stop being a dumbass, Joe...
What in the world? Do you have a problem understanding my point? Let me make it simple.
Do not judge the work of any pro life group or individual unless you can provide proof stating it is detrimental to our cause (since you made the accusation).
If the logic of a certain group makes you feel uncomfortable, I understand but don't infringe on their right to free speech and make their case. Debate it but don't try to shut it out like a coward.
One more thing concernedparent, this is a human rights issue, the inherent right to life and it can be dramatically reduced by our military and law enforcement.

reply from: joe

Prove militant activism (which is not the same as military action, military action is legal) can stop legal abortion on demand.
You really have some issues to work out. First you ignore my point (which I did highlight in case you missed it), second you spin my words (I said military, not militant).
The burden of proof is on your shoulders, you made the accusation that our views are detrimental. (Still waiting).
We want the media talking about abortion, we need it on the front pages. They are biased but my hope is that people can do the work necessary to find the truth.
Finally, stop calling another pro lifer names just cause you can't answer his challenge. It shows weakness, but if you want to go that route then I will respond.

reply from: faithman

I have stood on the line beside Norma at a clinic in Dallas, while she held a bloody picture and hollard out for women not to kill their baby. We are not the unloving ones. The ones who kill their own child have that one sown up.
fman, we all work to save babies in our own ways. Unfortunantly many of the women I "talk" too are a product of our society and actually have bought into the "easy" solution of abortion, only to find out too late the actual pain of a child lost, unfortunantly by their (the mother's) own action. I grieve an angel child and I can't begin to imaging the pain and regret these mothers feel after the fact. Here we mainly seem to see the cold hearted such as carifairy, vexing. lolita etc. They are sad in how deluded they are and how they lead other mothers to trust and destroy their children. They, with good reason, draw our ire. Unfortunantly the lurkers may be turned off by this nastiness. I am guilty too, BTW! I am hoping the lurkers can learn the truth and not be turned away by some of the ugly things said here.
My dealings with women in crisis are different than here. That is why I developed the IAAP cards. They are some of the most non confrontational weapons we have. I have personaly over seen the production, and distribution, of over 150,000 pieces of IAAP literature. I hope and pray for a peaceful end. But I will never apologize, nor change the way I address the creeps like the ones you named. Lurkers need to grow up if they get their feelings hurt. The biggest mistake made on this forum, is thinking that "debate" does any good. You do not reason with the unreasonable, you defeat them. It is the only way the childern stop dying.

reply from: yoda

I just watched a great movie on the Black Entertainment Network called "Boycott", about the bus boycott in Montgomery Alabama in 1955. It was inspiring on many levels, not the least of which was the connection between the philosophy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and that of Mohandas Gandhi. Both these men believed that non-violence was the key to overcoming the oppression forced upon the weak by the strong in our society. And both of these men believed it was the right way to throw off that yoke, with the smallest number of casualties on both sides.
Both men were also realists. They knew that getting such a large number of people to cooperate and remain non-violent in the face of oppressive violence would be a very difficult undertaking. In the case of India, there were many other organizations besides Gandhi's that did not remain non-violent. Fortunately, they constituted a small fraction of the total number of Indian citizens taking part in the struggle. In Dr. King's struggle, besides rival groups that seemed to endorse violence, there were elements within the many marchers whom neither he nor anyone else could completely control or contain. In his last major action, there was so much violence in Memphis that he abandoned the march in order not to be associated with it. Fortunately, these violent men remained a small but minority in the civil rights movement overall. In the end, both Gandhi and Dr. King successfully led their people into a better place by the use of non-violent tactics.
And I think there is a lesson here for those of us in the present day struggle against abortion. While I see nothing immoral or disgraceful about any individual exercising their right to self-defense, I think the greater good is served by sacrificing some of our own "bodily integrity" for the sake of the unborn. And this applies to verbal, as well as physical attacks.
So let the oppressive forces of abortion do their worst to abuse and intimidate us as we try to stand up and speak out for the defenseless millions of unborn babies being slaughtered. In the end, it will be as Mohandas Gandhi said: "We will not strike a blow but we will receive them . . .They may torture my body, break my bones, or even kill me. Then they will have my dead body, but not my obedience."

reply from: faithman

You can look at history with passifist colored glasses if you want, but it was also the fact that america was burning down in those years, and they weren't small riots by a few either. South central LA, Detroit, Washington DC, to name just a few. Civil rights were passed just as much to keep America from burning down, as it was the efforts of King. You can try to play that down all you want too, but it is still historic fact. King also said, with the reasonable, follow Gandhi, with the unreasonable follow Bonhoffer. It to a war to free the slaves. It took a war to stop the Nazi Holocost. With all my heart I hope we can accomplish this peaceful. But I will not trust in poly anna hopes of passifism, based on half truth history.

reply from: faithman

Quid pro quo, dumbass.
Prove militant activism (which is not the same as military action, military action is legal) can stop legal abortion on demand.
The fact that the "choice" biased media highly publicizes every illegal action by pro-lifers speaks for itself. Why do they do it? To turn public opinion against us. I have not denied your right to say what you want, only advised you not to say things that compromise prolife efforts. I'm not denying your right to say it, just asking you not to be a dumbass.
Your the dumbass monky boy. Fact: Abortion clinics are having a hard time getting doctors because med students wont follow a career path that includes wearing a flack jacket [I have personally heard an ex abortionist say he quit because he was afraid of getting shot]. Fact: When clinics catch fire, insurance rates go up, and clinics can't reopen, and others close because they can't afford the premiums. Fact: when an abortionist goes down, many workers [nurses,counsilors,aides] quit out of fear, and potential thousands of children are saved by his/her career being cut short.. Fact: the media is beginning to down play clinic fires, because they know what I am saying is true, and when they report them, it hurts their cause many more times than it ever would ours, as women shy away from a place that is so dangerous. Fact: when a clinic goes out, they can't kill babies. Clinic fires do ten times more good, than any humanist flake posting on a forum.

reply from: joe

Man, do we really have to do this. You concernedparent are making it clear you are a bigot hiding under the banner of pro-life. The "proof" you provided is considered commentary not evidence. I have read it, thanks for your failed effort.
I advocate the combining and respect of all pro life members for the good of the unborn.
Now here are your flaws:
1. You care more about political correctness than the sacred live of the unborn.
2. You advocate restrictions on free speech.
3. You consider dividing the pro life advocates so we focus our energies on each other instead of the unborn.
A true pro lifer is more concerned about the child about to be ripped apart than any other issue. You have clearly shown your hypocrisy in that matter. You are more concerned about being right on this forum than right in your heart. When I see the pictures of the mutilated unborn there is only one thing I want, it to end. I don't care about what minor differences other pro lifers have I just want it to end. Unity in this cause will give us greater strength than division.
I really hate the division you started and I am willing to end it. I never judged you until you started insulted members of the pro life community. I don't care what you think of them but when you publicly insult their sacrifice you should be called on it.

reply from: faithman

Man, do we really have to do this. You concernedparent are making it clear you are a bigot hiding under the banner of pro-life. The "proof" you provided is considered commentary not evidence. I have read it, thanks for your failed effort.
I advocate the combining and respect of all pro life members for the good of the unborn.
Now here are your flaws:
1. You care more about political correctness than the sacred live of the unborn.
2. You advocate restrictions on free speech.
3. You consider dividing the pro life advocates so we focus our energies on each other instead of the unborn.
A true pro lifer is more concerned about the child about to be ripped apart than any other issue. You have clearly shown your hypocrisy in that matter. You are more concerned about being right on this forum than right in your heart. When I see the pictures of the mutilated unborn there is only one thing I want, it to end. I don't care about what minor differences other pro lifers have I just want it to end. Unity in this cause will give us greater strength than division.
I really hate the division you started and I am willing to end it. I never judged you until you started insulted members of the pro life community. I don't care what you think of them but when you publicly insult their sacrifice you should be called on it.
...and by the way, FACE was passed to stop the recue movement that was totally passifist.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, I could.... but pacifism and non-violent protest are not the same thing. Non-violent protest requires that you not be aggressive or violent while you are protesting, not 24 hours a day.
Yep, that's so. And you may also recall that both King and Gandhi were assassinated. So violence will come, even to those who don't return it. And of course, a nation would not stand long if it tried to have no army or a non-violent one. It would be overrun in a heartbeat.
But civic protest is a horse of a different color. In that particular arena, public opinion is more important than troops, guns, and bodycounts. And you win more public opinion by non-violent protest, and even sacrificing your own life if necessary, than by armed insurrection.

reply from: yoda

Oh puleeeze! Barbara "I never saw an abortion I didn't love" Boxer????

reply from: joe

Your digging a hole for yourself concernedparent, posting commentaries from a child murderer is hardly the proof I am looking for. What I want is what you cannot show, an unbiased exhaustive study showing a correlation between the extreme element and public opinion. It doesn't exist, so I will not judge any group until proof is provided.
You are clearly showing your connection with the child murderers, I now have to question your motives. "65% of Americans do no want Roe vs. Wade overturned." That was from your commentary, if this is true obviously no one is winning and no one element is capable of influencing such a majority.
Justice Scalia and Thomas are considered "extremists". I didn't know we had militants in the Supreme Court.
Bottom line concernedparent you try to shut the mouths of pro life advocates who broke no laws. You are inconsistent in your own beliefs.
You would walk on by the victims of the holocaust and attack a hero trying to stop the gas chamber operators because it is the "law". You would not say anything against Hitler because that would be tyranny. You are a coward to the fullest extend of the word. Your words say your pro-life, your heart shows your a killer. Hypocrite.

reply from: faithman

Oh puleeeze! Barbara "I never saw an abortion I didn't love" Boxer????
You didn't think it was prolife politicians who were using the rantings of the crazies and the violence they encourage and/or commit against us, did you? Anyway, you're right. I can hope to accomplish nothing by continuing here. They are resorting to their old tactics for recruitment. Anyone who objects to violence can not be "prolife" in their view, and they can't be wrong. No evidence would suffice, and I can certainly provide evidence...It will just never convince the dumbasses. I'll just let Joe/Fboy have this trainwreck to himselves.
Once again you use Pro-death rhetoric from rabid death scancs to make a point. And once again you prove when it comes right down to it, you will sell the womb child out because you care more about what a borthead thinks, than actually saveing babies. The train wreck has been caused by the likes of you, who would rather cow down, than actually stand up. Slither back under your rock, it is odvious that you like to live in darkness.

reply from: faithman

Yeah, I could.... but pacifism and non-violent protest are not the same thing. Non-violent protest requires that you not be aggressive or violent while you are protesting, not 24 hours a day.
Yep, that's so. And you may also recall that both King and Gandhi were assassinated. So violence will come, even to those who don't return it. And of course, a nation would not stand long if it tried to have no army or a non-violent one. It would be overrun in a heartbeat.
But civic protest is a horse of a different color. In that particular arena, public opinion is more important than troops, guns, and bodycounts. And you win more public opinion by non-violent protest, and even sacrificing your own life if necessary, than by armed insurrection.
On that we are agreed. I am just tired of the constant slamming of folk who have given so much. I am also tired of the 5th colum lies that are told against brave men and women, who's actions say that a womb child deserves protection from those who would harm them. The founders ran into exactly the samething. Many in the colonies, condemned the actions of the patriots, as they fought for liberty. The same can be said for abolitionist exsetra,exsetra,exsetra....

reply from: faithman

The point of the thred is that guns, and gun related stuff, will bring a very good price if gun grabbing socialist take control. With gas predicted to go up to $5 a gallon, and hyper inflation a real threat. One should invest in things that hold value, and can be traded for nessesities. Guns just happens to be a smart investment now. 22LR ammo can be bought at wal-mart for around $10 for 500 rounds. A very good small game/ home deffence weapon, is the ruger 1022 carbine. I have the stanless steal alweather version, with neopreme stock and hand gripe. It don't mind getting a little wet. It can also be bought at wal-mart for around $200. It comes with a 10 round clip, and with the 4 multi's I bought, I have 110 rounds before I have to reload a clip. Target practice is a blast with this little plinker, and the kidds love the fact that they can blast away before reload. Ammo at $10 for 500 rounds makes it real cheap fun. We like to take a picture of Tiller, and try to shoot a smile on his face. But thats just us.

reply from: yoda

I know what you mean. I am constantly being humbled by the sacrifices that I see that others have made for the sake of the unborn, and how little I have actually sacrificed. These are people who actually could've had very financially rewarding careers in other fields, if they had put themselves (and their families) first. They don't just say a few words on an online forum, and then go back to their "other life", they walk the talk every day. By comparison, I feel like a midget among giants.

reply from: yoda

Not only that, if things get real bad, they might come in handy in other ways. And the same can be said of things like water purification tablets, long term storage foods, first aid kits, extra medicine stores, and other general emergency supplies. An ounce of prevention......

reply from: faithman

Not only that, if things get real bad, they might come in handy in other ways. And the same can be said of things like water purification tablets, long term storage foods, first aid kits, extra medicine stores, and other general emergency supplies. An ounce of prevention......
With hyper inflation a real threat, it would be smart to invest in nessesities now, before they become unobtainably expensive, and your money becomes worthless.

reply from: yoda

Yep. Anyone who waits until the last minute to try to make preparations will find them extremely expensive and hard to get.

reply from: faithman

Yep. Anyone who waits until the last minute to try to make preparations will find them extremely expensive and hard to get.
tuna was a shelf life of 5 years. We bought a bunch for Y2K, and when it didn't happen, we had plenty of something we ate any way. A can of tuna, and a bottle of water a day, will keep you alive for a long time. The price of shoes and clothes will soon go thru the roof, so it make sence to buy kids clothes in sizes they will need in the future now at a huge savings. Utilities are already climbing, so it would pay to figure ways to cut costs now. Bicycles, motorcycles, and economy cars are sure to go up in price. The bottom is already falling out of over priced real estate. If you can, dump it now. In a year or two, you may be able to buy it back for pennies on the dollar. Get out of debt as much as you can. Grow a garden. Chickens don't take up much room, are easy to raise, and many cities will let you grow them in your back yard. Rabits don't lay eggs [except the easter bunny] but they tend to be quieter, and are very tasty protien. Many wild plants and weeds are etible [I love dandy lions] and there are field guides on the net. Stalking the Wild asparigus is a great book by yule gibbons.

reply from: yoda

That's the frustration in debating anything with him, joe.... all he cares about is "winning", nothing else really matters. Not even the babies are as important to him as winning.

reply from: faithman

That's the frustration in debating anything with him, joe.... all he cares about is "winning", nothing else really matters. Not even the babies are as important to him as winning.
...and the sick part is the only place this punk wins is in his own mind. He would stomp right over real time action to be the chimp chump champion of self proclaimed victory of the game of slander. Sadly, more often than not, fact and truth are the victims of this run away train of deluded ego.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics