Separate names with a comma.
Are you a current member with account or password issues?
Please visit following page for more information
Discussion in 'The Breakroom' started by jda, Jan 25, 2011.
IMO...everything should handled by rock, paper scissor.
You'd see the same thing if they started talking about a ban the sale of new cell phones. Or cars. Or lightbulbs. Or just about anything else you can think of. Why is the firearms industry evil for meeting the demand created by others?
"The Obama Stimulus" was a very understandable fear. Dems had control across the board and for the first time ever, they actually stayed away from the gun control issue. They realized it was a "third rail" issue and pushing it would mean the loss of their new President's second term. Who knew they were going to show such unprecedented restraint?
Well, I did actually. I knew they'd stay away from it at least until 2012 and I still think so.
But if "The Bamster" gets himself re-elected then, may the Lord make us truly thankful for what we are about to receive.
And what part of that statement is untrue? What the hell is he supposed to say? "Oh don't worry about it people, go along, get along, do your own thing, ignore the man behind the podium." Do you think that's what's called for?
You really think Gaston Glock and the rest of the firearms industry is creating this "panic" out of thin air?
Is it Gaston Glock proposing HR 308?
Is it Gaston Glock filling the airwaves and print media with anti-gun "news" articles that don't even pretend to be non-biased?
Is it Gaston Glock blaming Sarah Palin and the American shooting public for the shooting of Gabby Giffords?
For one thing, Dozer didn't say that they were evil. That's your word (and an emotional word at that). Also, his criticism wasn't that they were meeting a demand created by others - his criticism was that they were fanning the flames of gun control fear for their own profit. Granted, they are a for-profit business and can rightfully be expected to use the market to their advantage. It's an interesting ethical situation.
No, those things aren't hot-button political topics. Few, if any, people have the same emotional energy invested for or against lightbulbs that they have invested in firearms.
I couldn't agree more. When I see the gun industry, I just see more big business. It's in their best interest to stoke the fear and they do it.
Gun owners are naive at times but they are not paranoid. Liberal democrats and republicans have been beating the drum of gun control for so long, it's Pavlovian. But the manufacturers, distributors and dealers know what the deal is and they stoke the fear to make more money. They are just like every other business.
Yep! I said it. Of course, Dozer said it too, he just beat around the bush sufficiently as to give himself plausible deniablity. I don't bother.
Yeah, all these philosophical dilemmas. It's a tough deal. If Glock ignores the situation and says nothing, he's not tuned in to the situation and an "empty suit" who's not willing to take a stand to defend his own industry. If he doesn't ignore the situation and takes a stand...
Screwed either way he goes isn't he?
But my point which I really don't think was all that difficult to figure out, is this...
With the massive media blitz carried out against guns and gun owners at every possible opportunity, and the constant stream of draconian anti-gun bills, and the POTUS standing up making veiled threats about gun control to come, does a single, moderately toned and tasteful one page ad from Gaston Glock really add up to anything more than a weak fart in the media hurricane which is driving the so-called 'panic" you speak of?
What matters the hot button to you and all those who think they can remove emotion from the equation?
First you chide and patronize me for using "emotional words" and then you tell me gun control is different because it's a "hot button" (meaning emotional) issue. Trying to have your cake and eat it too? ;D
And yet, here I am, quietly stocking up on lightbulbs because I'm convinced the standard incandescent bulb is going to be outlawed (banned) in the next couple of years and I have about a dozen good reasons to despise CFLs.
Perhaps if the CEO of Sylvania (the last maker of Incan bulbs in the US, now defunct) had stood up and raised a little hell to the public, he and his employees would still have jobs and I wouldn't have to be taking up so much closet space hoarding friggin' LIGHTBULBS of all things!
I didnt beat around the bush at anything I just stated how I see things. Do I think the gun industry is evil? Of course not, I happen to like guns and own a couple, but I also have comon sense about them. I dont see a need for assault rifles or 30 round mags for hand guns or the need to have dozens of them but if you do then go for it.
You shouldnt just assume you know what someone is saying.
And don't worry the, Gov is NEVER going to amend the constitution regarding guns. But the industry is ALWAYS going to feed on your fear that they will so you will spend lots and lots of money on way more than you will ever need.
So, in your view, assault weapons, high capacity (in this instance 30 rounds) for handguns or owning dozens of either assault rifles, magazines or handguns is not common sense? What does "common sense" have to do with this?
Well, we might as well hang up communications then.
Never say never. I think the Heller and McDonald Decisions will cramp their style but ever since Heller was decided by The SCOTUS, you can bet your bank account that anti-gun people have been trying to figure out ways around it do deny the largest number of people they can their second amendment rights. That's their nature, frog and the scorpion.
I do agree with you on the industry, not on Mr. Glock, per se, but the industry as a whole as I stated up above earlier today.
Maybe common sense was the wrong thing to say. But in my view there is no place in a modern society for such weapons or clips. As far as hand guns and non assault rifles I have no problem with owning as many as you want. personally I won't own that many but thats just me.
With what it takes to actually amend the constitution it just won't happen. the second amendment is safe. Unless of course 3/4 of the states become blue then yeah.. it could happen but what are the chance of that. There is always going to be a group of anti something that want to deny someones rights to something which I think is why they make it so difficult to do.
I'm sorry, but that's probably the funniest thing I've read in a forum in a year. hahahahaha
Yeah, because they never amend the Constitution. (Please capitalize that title? Thanks.) And of course, the fact that something has never happened is proof positive it never will.
In your post to DBR, you say "the second amendment is safe." (Second Amendment should be capitalized as well. It's a title.)
"Safe" of course, is a relative term and not an absolute but considering the words "shall not be infringed" I would say the Second Amendment has not been "safe" for a long time. After all, any law which states something "shall not be infringed" and is then infringed upon with stunning regularity is hardly what a reasonable man would call "safe." But that's just me and you don't know what I'm saying anyway, right? ;D
I realize I don't know what you're saying, but from the words you typed into your post, apparently you don't think the mainstream media or anti-gun legislators should own any of the blame for the panic buying we see from time to time?
By "clips" you mean magazines, yeah?
Why is there "no place in a modern society for such weapons or clips?"
This line of thought is a tragic road to take, I have to tell you right from the start. There are so many things that fit in this category, even more than the types of firearms and accessories you cite. There is also no real place in a modern society for anything more than a "Smart Car." More powerful cars not only waste natural resources but they are, at times, regardless of good intent and safe and sane driving on the part of the vast majority of vehicle owners, a menace to society. The story is familiar, isn't it?
The following statement might not be pointed at you, I have to say that because people get indignant over statements like this, but I just don't fear these things. When I see some anti-gun control or pro-gun or NRA sticker on a vehicle, I just don't get upset.
What I am scared of are people in minivans, pickups and SUVs who are talking on the phone and piloting a vehicle that could total mine and kill me, my wife and son in the blink of an eye and basically not even total their vehicle... Why is there a place in modern society for such a vehicle? Why is that behavior tolerated? If someone is in a pain management program, why is their license not immediately revoked? There are so many ways to be severely injured, crippled or killed. "Assault" weapons are not even on my radar screen.
It's a NOTHING issue.
I could go on...
rock.....no way paper beats that!!
An assault rifle is a select fire weapon by definition. Meaning very few people actually own one. And why dont you think we should have high cap mags? What would that do for us? Limit how many people someone can kill without reloading? If someone wants to buy a gun with intention of robbing a bank, do you think they care if high capacity mags or automatic weapons are illegal? There going to buy the gun illegally and then use it to break the law anyway, what difference does it make to them if there mag holds 10 more rounds than what is legal.
That's true. That's one of a few instances where the gun community shot itself in the foot with their own "cool" terminology. We can't hang this one on the media, gun magazines for years were calling semi-auto versions of select-fire rifles "assault weapons" way before the first nut used one to murder a bunch of people.
To me, it's just a stupid term anyway. Firearms technology is ever-changing although I think we have went about as far as we're going to go without some greater leap in technology. A non-rifled, smoothbore musket was an assault rifle in its time. Then a more advanced "musket" came along with rifling, more properly called a "rifle." Then, multishot versions like lever actions and then bolt actions then the semi-autos. They were ALL "assault" weapons at one time or another. What anti-gun people don't understand is, when the rifling made a single shot rifle more deadly, due to greatly increased accuracy, than the regular smoothbore musket, Citizens were allowed to purchase the more deadly "rifle." Likewise, if you look at the Civil War, some units purchased their own lever action rifles which had an increased rate of fire, definitely an "assault" weapon and Citizens, again, were allowed to own something more lethal than the military was issued. That's the American Tradition of firearms and the Second Amendment.
This is precisely why select-fire/fully-automatic/machineguns should be protected today under the Second Amendment and not as highly regulated as they are. That's the living, breathing portion of the Second Amendment, the Amendment coming to life. We should be able to own the small arms the military has.
Same thing with handguns, Citizens could own 6-shot revolvers back when the military still had single-shot pistols for issue. Then when the semi-automatic shadowed the revolver, Citizens were allowed to own that as well.
"The sword and every other terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of an American." - Tench Coxe
Some will inevitably start talking about bombs and hand grenades and some incredibly goofy people even start frothing at the mouth with nonsense like, "You want people to have nuclear weapons?!?!?!"
We're talking about "small arms," specifically, firearms.
Because it's just feel good, emotional nonsense. It's just like during the first go-around with the "assault weapon ban." AR-15 was "bad" because it looked "mean" and "assaultive." It was black, after all. It was the semi-auto version of the select-fire M16. But the Ruger Mini-14 was OK because it looked more innocent and was supplied by Sturm-Ruger with a wooden stock and you had to add an aftermarket stock to make it look more sinister, you know what I mean? Nevermind the fact that Ruger's Mini-14 is the semi-automatic version of the Ruger AC-556 (Automatic Carbine 5.56mm) that Ruger would sell to any tinpot Central and South American dictator who's check wouldn't bounce! Same dynamic, one looks "mean" and it get's the attention and the other looks more "traditional" and therefore "innocent" and it receives a pass. Nevermind they will both kill you dead as disco.
I think this is why some of us who are pro-gun really get ticked off when emotional people start bloviating about firearms. They don't know the history of them and I really hate writing all that I just wrote so they can formulate better arguments in/on other venues in the future with their nonsense. They're wrong and that's that.
You must be joking.
No, actually it just proves my point. Some posters here (on both sides of the matter) like to pretend that they are looking at things from a purely logical stand-point. I was pointing out that really it is an emotionally-charged issue.
That's true to a degree. Where does a passion for a civil right end and pure emotionalism begin? Is there a real, demonstrable, difference between passion and emotion? I can make a purely emotional argument for keeping firearms just as the parent of a dead child, murdered by someone with a firearm, can. It's very simple, I cannot afford to live in a mansion with high security, etc., and no one can guarantee the police will arrive in time to "save" my family and I. Now, is that pure emotion? If so, is it pure emotion to argue that you should have smoke detectors and a fire extinguisher in the home in light of the fact that we have the 9-1-1 system and nice things like fire trucks and fire fighters?
Make no mistake, I really like guns. I see no problem with them, I think it is entirely a people problem. However, at the end of the day, firearms are, more than anything, tools to me. Tools of survival. I might appreciate them on different levels, but they're tools.
Wow. Not true. Simply and unarguably not true.
I agree. Whats false about it?
It seems to me your point is not only unproven, but pretty pointless.
Basically whether this is what you intend or not, your statements all boil down to the idea that emotion equals logical fallacy. A binary and absolute condition. You seem to believe logic is either devoid of all emotion, or it is not logic.
What is this "pure logic" I keep hearing people nattering about in Internet forums? Pure logic expressed in English or any other spoken language is an impossibility. Pure logic can only be expressed mathematically. Everything else is Philosophy.
Some philosophies are "good/right" (good/right = condusive to long and happy life) some are "bad/wrong." (bad/wrong = not condusive to long and happy life.)
But no philosophy yours included, approaches anything resembling "pure logic."
It is arguable, and if you think you can get away with a simple assertion, you are wrong. Here is why you are wrong. Please note that this does not apply to military and police uses.
Firearms will not protect an unprepared user against a sudden attack from an unexpected quarter. Anyone, armed or otherwise, can be killed from ambush. Yet people believe themselves protected by their weapons, when they may not have the opportunity to deploy them. In this case the weapon makes no difference.
Firearms are dangersous to bystanders, especially in crowded situations. Someone who has the opportunity to deploy his (almost always male) firearm and has the opportunity to return fire is likely to hit an innocent bystander as the original attacker.
Firearms are often used inappropriately, when they should not be used at all. There are cases.
Firearms are often counterproductive. Many situations can be defused without weaponry, but use, or even display, of a weapon can cause the situation to escalate irretrievably to violence.
This is not to say that firearms do not have their places. Appropriately deployed, they can defuse a situation - I have seen this happen. And if I felt the need for this type of protection in my home, I wouldn't mess around. I would keep a loaded shotgun by the door. Fast, efficient, short range, and devastating. And I would keep it loaded (safety on) so that it would be ready for use, and hope that the children would have enough sense not to climb up to get it.
I do not think that firearms should be prohibited, but I do not see the point of allowing military type weapons - semiautomatics, and large magazines especially. The purpose of those is killing large numbers of people, something hopefully unnecessary among civilians in a civilized society.
Firearms will not protect decent people against a thuggish government - that is a pernicious delusion. A government has huge coercive power and will outgun any individual, and any group, unless there is civil war. Decent people, armed or otherwise, are no match for thugs with guns, because they will hesitate to kill when a thug will not. Far better to stop tyranny at the ballot box while we can.
Look at what happened to the Branch Davidians - the FBI got impatient and used force inappropriately. Lots of innocents died unnecessarily. If the weapons had not been part of the strategy, they would not have been used, and perhaps fewer would have died.
So yes, I think that there are strong arguments that firearms are useless in many situations. Your turn - do you have any valid arguments?