PDA

View Full Version : Liberals and Gun Control



SecaucusFats
01-12-2005, 12:02 PM
Why Liberals Love Gun Control
By Justin Darr
MichNews.com
Jan 11, 2005

If there is one thing liberals love more than banning Christianity from public schools it is creating ineffective gun control laws. Despite centuries of evidence that gun control laws do not lower crime, stop violence, or make society safer in any way, liberals keep plugging away at our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

I am not going to weary you with a regurgitation of all the well known statistics showing how strict gun control laws are followed by sharp spikes in violent crime rates or with arguments asking the left to explain its intellectual consistency behind their view that the only remedy to a failed gun control law is the creation of another gun control law just like it. The real question in the gun control debate is not the statistics or the nuances of the law but why in the first place liberals are so preoccupied with making it harder for law abiding citizens to carry a gun.

Gun control laws are as old as America, stretching far back into the early Colonial period. As far as the United States as a political entity is concerned, the first gun control law came less than one year after the ratification of the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights with the "Uniform Militia Act of 1792." In the Act, every "able bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 was to be enrolled in the state militia and was required to "provide himself with a musket or firelock, a bayonet, and ammunition." In early America, it was not a question of "if" you had the right to bear arms, but whether or not you would be "required" to own a gun. This Act is significant for two reasons. First it shows the intent of the Framers was that every citizen was considered part of the militia, therefore, no citizen could have their right to bear arms curtailed by the government. Second, with the Act designating "white males" as citizens and part of the militia, it effectively deigned slaves and even free African-Americans their newly declared Constitutional rights.

It is quite obvious that there were many in early America who did not want slaves, or those sympathizing with their suffering, from having access to guns. Why? Well, it is pretty simple. If slaves had guns, then they would not have been slaves for much longer. Firearms would be used by slaves as a tool to overthrow their oppressors just as the American Colonists had done against the British and demand their full rights and dignity as citizens. The "Uniform Militia Act of 1792" opened a door that was used by many states to pass follow up legislation that made it illegal not just for African-Americans to carry or own a gun, but to even use one unless under orders from their "master." From its inception, gun control was a vehicle to deny basic rights, prevent self defense, and oppress citizens.

Gun control laws still disproportionately regulate the African-American community, but now our benign liberal leaders want to spread the oppression about a bit more fairly. But the goal is the same. Gun control does nothing but oppress a population, deny them basic rights, make them subservient to the government, and prevent them from changing their collective conditions at the time of their choosing, rather than at the sanction of the State. Liberals do not want you making your own decisions anymore than they did the slaves. That is their job. How can they possibly restructure society so a Republican is never elected President again if people are running around not doing what they are told? Liberals love gun control for the simple fact that it directly impacts the most independent, self reliant, and free thinking of us as demonstrated by our refusal to proxy our personal protection out to an unaccountable government.

The goal of gun control is not to actually control guns and make the world a safer place, but to control people. It is not as important for you can pass a criminal background check so much as it is that you feel obligated to ask the state for permission to buy a gun. Liberals know gun control laws will not stop criminals, but it will erode the sense of independence and self reliance of regular people until they feel that they can do nothing that does not meet government approval.

Gun owners choose to protect themselves, thank you very much. They do not need government protection anymore than any of the other ill conceived plans of the left. And that is why the liberals want to control their guns. It is the only means they have to directly control the lives of those who would otherwise go on ignoring them.

END

SF

cheesemouse
01-12-2005, 12:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If there is one thing liberals love more than banning Christianity from public schools it is creating ineffective gun control laws. <hr /></blockquote>

LOL....for some reason this first sentence of your post conjured up the image of a classroom full of Bible thumping pistal packing first graders staring at their Muslim teacher whos eye where bugged out...sorry, I didn't read any farther...... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SnakebyteXX
01-12-2005, 01:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Liberals know gun control laws will not stop criminals, but it will erode the sense of independence and self reliance of regular people until they feel that they can do nothing that does not meet government approval.
<hr /></blockquote>

SF,

Do you feel that we are 'more free' from government control or 'less free' since 9/11? In your opinion, are we closer to "...do(ing) nothing that does not meet government approval." now, or are we further away?

H.L. Mencken once said:

" I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty..."

Would you agree or disagree with his apparently non-partisan comment?

Snake

SecaucusFats
01-12-2005, 02:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SnakebyteXX:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;

SF,

Do you feel that we are 'more free' from government control or 'less free' since 9/11? In your opinion, are we closer to "...do(ing) nothing that does not meet government approval." now, or are we further away?
<font color="red">I feel we are less free since 9/11 and that we have moved closer to "doing nothing that does not meet government approval". </font color>

H.L. Mencken once said:

" I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty..."

Would you agree or disagree with his apparently non-partisan comment?

<font color="red">No, I do not agree with Mencken. Although Mencken is often portrayed as a Libertarian, he was also a Social Darwinist, a mysoginist, a racist, and an elitist.

It is also worth pointing out that the modern definition/usage of the term 'Libertarian' is significantly different from that which existed prior to the 1950's (when it was used primarily by anarchist in an effort to avoid the unsavory connotations of the words anarchy and anarchist). By contrast, modern US Libertarians are not anarchists, but rather 'mini-anarchists' who favor a minimalist government.

Due to our nature as a social species, and the need for cooperation as it relates to our survival, some form of governance has always been necessary.

I suppose that if one is a strong adherent to an unfettered concept of 'free will' then any form of government may be seen as evil due to the subjugating nature of all forms of government. IMO,while some forms of government are indeed evil, other forms of government can be quite benign. </font color>

Snake
<hr /></blockquote>

SF

Chopstick
01-13-2005, 08:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SecaucusFats:</font><hr>

Due to our nature as a social species, and the need for cooperation as it relates to our survival, some form of governance has always been necessary.

<hr /></blockquote>

I saw something about that on one of the educational channels. They were saying that the limit is about 30 individuals. If a group gets any larger than that some form government is neccessary for survival. The Ice Age caused to loose bands of hunters to group together and that's when government began.


Gun control means hitting what you are aiming at.

Ross
01-14-2005, 01:09 AM
SF, there is at least one factually incorrect statement in every paragraph of that article. Why did you post it? Do you think it is accurate?

SecaucusFats
01-14-2005, 11:59 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> SF, there is at least one factually incorrect statement in every paragraph of that article. Why did you post it? Do you think it is accurate? <hr /></blockquote>

Hi Ross,

I don't know if I would go so far as to say that there is "at least on factual error per paragraph".

The writer did twist logic when he wrote: "Second, with the Act designating "white males" as citizens and part of the militia, it effectively deigned slaves and even free African-Americans their newly declared Constitutional rights" (nonsensical and false).

Other than the above I pretty much agree with the rest. BTW, the roots of gun control in the US can be traced to racism, specifically to the desire to keep guns out of the hands of black slaves and black freemen. Racist Roots of Gun Control (http://www.lizmichael.com/racistgc.htm)

SF

highsea
01-14-2005, 12:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SecaucusFats:</font><hr> The writer did twist logic when he wrote: "Second, with the Act designating "white males" as citizens and part of the militia, it effectively deigned slaves and even free African-Americans their newly declared Constitutional rights" (nonsensical and false).

SF<hr /></blockquote>I read that as a typo SF. The author meant that the act effectively denied the 2nd Amendment rights to slaves and non-whites. (transpose the "n" and "i" and run it past your spellchecker)
______________________________________

wolfdancer
01-14-2005, 02:42 PM
Without taking sides in the gun control debate...here's a related article from "New Scientist" mag.

"We know next to nothing about the links between gun control and violence.So how do we stop the killing? In 2002 almost 30,000 Americans died from firearm injuries, almost double the number that died from Aids. Guns are the 12th most cause of death overall, and second only to road vehicles in deaths caused by injury.
Drawing a comparision:
1950 firearms per 1000 persons 381.3
57,902,000 total firearms
1999 firearms per 1000 persons 985.8
258,742,000 total firearms
The article is not biased...it points out that we know little about America's gun culture, and states that before we decide on a course of action, we better have the best possible evidence to back that up.
The good news is that the interest in better quality evidence is there at a national level...people are realising that without strong science, you are left with rhetoric, romance, and assumption.
The National Institute of Justice, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and three private foundations, have asked Naz...wait NAS (The National Academy of Sciences) to study the issue....

SpiderMan
01-14-2005, 04:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Without taking sides in the gun control debate...here's a related article from "New Scientist" mag.

"We know next to nothing about the links between gun control and violence.So how do we stop the killing? In 2002 almost 30,000 Americans died from firearm injuries, almost double the number that died from Aids. Guns are the 12th most cause of death overall, and second only to road vehicles in deaths caused by injury.<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">One thing that most such articles fail to mention is that by far the largest sub-group of "firearms deaths" is suicides.

If you can resist the urge to intentionally kill yourself, then you're far less likely to be shot to death (accidentally or by a criminal) than to fall down and kill yourself.

And if you restrict yourself to firearms ACCIDENTS, then you're about four times more likely to be killed by medical misadventure (your doctor or surgeon screwing up) than by a gun.

I just did a quick "Yahoo" search, and found this info on the National Safety Council web site. They're not commonly accused of bias. The year is 2001:<font color="off">

Total deaths due to "all external (non-natural) causes of mortaility" - 160,099

Deaths due to "transport accidents" (including pedestrians hit and killed) - 47,288

Non-transport accidental injuries - 54,249 (Firearms accidents make up 802 of these deaths. By contrast, falls account for 15,019)

Suicides - 30,622 (Firearms were used in 16,869 successful suicides. Ban guns, and these folks would have to use poison or face post-mortem weapons charges!)

Assault - 20,308 (11,348 assault-related firearm deaths, no distinction between criminal death or victim death, so presumably self-defense killings are lumped here.)

Event of Undetermined Intent (unknown suicide/accident/homicide) - 4,198 (231 by gun)

Legal Intervention (war deaths, cops shooting robbers, state executions) - 396 (323 by gun)

Complications of Medical Care - 3,021
<font color="blue">
So, that's 160,099 unnatural deaths, 18.5% by gun. But if you take out the suicides and look at assaults only, the number is 7%, with no distinction between bad guy dies or good guy dies. Accidental gunshots accounted for only one-half of one percent of all deaths from non-natural causes. You are four times more likely to be accidentally killed by your doctor. <font color="off">

http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

SpiderMan

wolfdancer
01-14-2005, 06:36 PM
Actually, the article did mention suicide..."where gun ownership is common, the rate of gun-related suicide is high..
but the poor design of studies examining the issues has prevented them showing whether guns increase the overall risk of suicide, or whether their absence would simply drive anyone intent on suicide to another method."

[ Non-transport accidental injuries - 54,249 (Firearms accidents make up 802 of these deaths. By contrast, falls account for 15,019) ]
I'd expect more folks are falling down, then accidently being shot.
You really believe that more people are committing suicide, then are being murdered?...and that the number is very small?

The issue really isn't about accidental deaths....and any big city that I've lived in...there seemed to be a lot more
deaths caused by being shot, then by shooting oneself.
Comparing auto deaths, or medical related deaths, to gun deaths, is like comparing apples to oranges. It's not the percentage of gun related deaths...it's the total number of gun related deaths, that the study is about.
I'm not against guns...I belong to a Rod &amp; Gun club. At present though, I don't own any.
Guns in the hands of gangs, hot-headed teens, criminals, folks with mental, or temper problems, despondent people, etc...that is a problem.
I am against the ease with which assault weapons can be purchased.
Maybe Yahoo could forward their stats and save these agencies a lot of time and $$, in their study of gun violence.

SnakebyteXX
01-14-2005, 07:18 PM
What are the odds of dying? (2001)

The table below (shown partially here) was prepared in response to frequent inquiries, especially from the media, asking questions such as, "What are the odds of being killed by lightning?" or "What are the chances of dying in a plane crash?"

The table has four columns. The first column gives the manner of injury such as motor-vehicle crash, fall, fire, etc. The second column gives the total number of deaths nationwide due to the manner of injury in 2001 (the latest year for which data are available). The third column gives the odds of dying in one year due to the manner of injury. The fourth column gives the lifetime odds of dying from the manner of injury. Statements about the odds or chances of dying from a given cause of death may be made as follows:

The odds of dying from (manner of injury) in 2001 were 1 in (value given in the one-year odds column).
The life-time odds of dying from (manner of injury) for a person born in 2001 were 1 in (value given in the lifetime odds column).
For example, referring to the first line of the table below:

The odds of dying from an injury in 2001 were 1 in 1,781.
The lifetime odds of dying from an injury for a person born in 2001 were 1 in 23.

The odds given below are statistical averages over the whole U.S. population and do not necessarily reflect the chances of death for a particular person from a particular external cause. Any individual's odds of dying from various external causes are affected by the activities in which they participate, where they live and drive, what kind of work they do, and other factors.

Source: National Safety Council estimates based on data from National Center for Health Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau. Deaths are classified on the basis of the Tenth Revision of the World Health Organization's "The International Classification of Diseases" (ICD). Numbers following titles refer to External Cause of Morbidity and Mortality classifications in ICD-10. One year odds are approximated by dividing the 2001 population (285,093,813) by the number of deaths. Lifetime odds are approximated by dividing the one-year odds by the life expectancy of a person born in 2001 (77.2 years).



http://img13.paintedover.com/uploads/13/title_1.jpg
http://img13.paintedover.com/uploads/13/odds_of_dying_2001.jpg

WaltVA
01-14-2005, 09:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> ...Guns in the hands of gangs, hot-headed teens, criminals, folks with mental, or temper problems, despondent people, etc...that is a problem.
I am against the ease with which assault weapons can be purchased. <hr /></blockquote>
Existing laws prohibit purchase or possession of handguns by teens, hot-headed or otherwise, criminals (felons), those with severe mental problems, and those with substance-abuse problems. Most gang members will probably fall into one of those classifications. If "that is the problem," why not enforce the current laws fully, rather than suggesting the enactment of more laws?

Project Exile, a program to vigorously prosecute criminals using firearms, in Federal rather than local/State courts, has been extremely effective in decreasing firearm violence and the criminal use of guns in many localities, including Richmond, Va. The word quickly got out that being caught with an illegal gun meant Federal prosecution and a sure trip to a Federal prison on conviction.

As far as the "ease with which assault weapons can be purchased," true assault weapons are selective-fire firearms capable of full-auto fire. Since the 1930's, their possession and transfer has been tightly restricted by law to carefully screened permit holders, and almost none of these weapons have ever been used in any criminal activity.

IMO, there are plenty of laws on the books prohibiting the criminal misuse of firearms; they need to be enforced fully before any more "feel-good" control legislation is enacted.
Walt in VA

nAz
01-14-2005, 11:44 PM
Hey check out this great new gun, i'd like get one and use it to protect myself from bullet proof wearing tring to steal my hub caps! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif seriously though is a pretty fu@ked up weapon to make much less sell to the public. I just hope no innocent bystanders or PO gets killed by one of these.

sorry long post but i thought you like to see the guns specs.

Police Worried About New Vest-Penetrating Gun

NEW YORK -- There is a nationwide alert to members of law enforcement regarding a new kind of handgun which can render a bulletproof vest useless, as first reported by NewsChannel 4's Scott Weinberger.
New Gun Frightens Police

The most shocking fact may be that the gun -- known as the "five-seven" -- is being marketed to the public, and it's completely legal

It was a very difficult decision for members of law enforcement to go public about the new weapon, but officers fear that once word of the weapon begins to circulate in the wrong circles, they will be in great danger. They agreed to speak to NewsChannel 4, hoping the public will understand what they call the most devastating weapon they face.

The weapon is light, easily concealable and can fire 20 rounds in seconds without reloading.

"This would be devastating," said Chief Robert Troy, of the Jersey City Police Department.

Troy said he learned about the high-powered pistol from a bulletin issued by Florida Department of Law Enforcement to all of its agents. Troy believes faced with this new weapon, his officers would be at a total disadvantage.

"Dealing with a gun like this -- it's a whole new ballgame," Troy said.

Troy is not the only member of law enforcement to voice concern. As NewsChannel 4 began to contact several more departments in the Tri-State Area, it turned out that officers in Trumball, Conn., had seized one of these handguns during a recent arrest.

"Certainly, handguns are a danger to any police officer on any day, but one that specifically advertised by the company to be capable of defeating a ballistic vest is certainly the utmost concern to us," said Glenn Byrnes, of the Trumball Police Department.

The five-seven is made by FN Herstal, a Belgian company. On its Web site, the company boasts the five-seven's ability to penetrate more than 48 layers of Kevlar -- the material bulletproof vests are made of -- if you use a five-seven, 28-mm armor-piercing bullet.

However, the company said that bullet is not sold to the public. Instead, gun buyers can purchase what the company calls a training or civilian bullet -- the type loaded into the gun confiscated by Trumball police.

At a distance of 21 feet, Trumball police Sgt. Lenny Scinto fired the five-seven with the ammo sold legally to the public into a standard police vest. All three penetrated the vest.

The bullets even went through the back panel of the vest, penetrating both layers.

In a similar test, an officer fired a .45-caliber round into the same vest. While the shot clearly knocked it down, it didn't penetrate the vest, and an officer would likely have survived the assault.

"The velocity of this round makes it a more penetrating round -- that's what had me concerned," Scinto said.

FN Herstal told NewsChannel 4 that they dispute the test, stating, "Most law enforcement agencies don't have the ability to properly test a ballistic vest."

When NewsChannel 4 asked how this could have happened, the spokesperson said: "We [the company] are not experts in ballistic armor."

Back in Trumball, Scinto said his officers would have to rethink how to protect the public and protect themselves.

"This is going to add a whole new dimension to training and tactics. With the penetration of these rounds, you're going to have to find something considerably heavier than we normally use for cover and concealment to stop this round," Scinto said.

In Jersey City, Troy said he will appeal to lawmakers, hoping they will step in before any of his officers are confronted with the five-seven.

"This does not belong in the civilian population. The only thing that comes out of this is profits for the company and dead police officers," Troy said. "I would like the federal government to ban these rounds to the civilian public."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Type: Double Action Only or Single Action (in Tactical model)
Chambering: 5.7x28mm SS190
Length: 208 mm
Barrel length : 122.5 mm
Weight: ca. 620 g with empty magazine; ca. 760 g loaded
Magazine: 20 rounds

The Five-seveN pistol was designed by FN company (Belgium) as a complimentary sidearm for the P90 submachine-gun. The P90 and Five-seveN share the same ammunition, the 5.7x28mm SS190 cartridge. The SS190 ammunition looks like scaled down 5.56mm NATO round and boosts the 2.02 gramm (31 grains) pointed steel and alluminium core bullet to the muzzle velocity of 650 meters per second (ca. 2130 fps) from the pistol barrel. The key idea behind that ammunition and weapons is to provide good penetration against personnel, protected by modern body armour, while keeping weapons' weight, dimensions and recoil at the reasonable levels.

The Five-seveN is a delayed blowback operated, semi-automatic firearm. It featured polymer frame with underbarrel acessory rail. The gun is available in two versions: Five-seveN standard, intended mostly for military users, and Five-seveN Tactical, intended mostly for Law Enforcement users who carry handguns as a primary weapons. The only difference between Standart and Tactical models is in the trigger type: the Five-seveN standard features Double Action Only trigger with long trigger pull and no external safeties; The Five-seveN Tactical featured Single Action trigger with short and light trigger pull and ambidextrous safety switch, located on the frame above the trigger. Both variants are striker fired, with internal firing pin safety. The sights are fixed, with optional night sights (with luminous dots inserts) available.

The Five-seveN is advertised as being capable to penetrate standart PAGST vest at 300 meters and standart CRISAT (kevlar + titanium) vest at 100 meters.

The Five-seveN is available from FN for government or law enforcement sales only.

wolfdancer
01-15-2005, 02:29 AM
Tell that crap to the parents of the students at Columbine, or the families of the people murdered at 101 California St. in San Francisco. That's got to be the stupidest thing I've read on the subject..."existing laws...."
I'm not advocating gun control...it's a debatable topic...and your "laws bs, hasn't worked yet"

WaltVA
01-15-2005, 08:12 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr>
I'm not advocating gun control...it's a debatable topic... <hr /></blockquote>
OK, you're not advocating gun control, and I'm not trying to debate it with anyone. The horror of Columbine was the product of two sick, depressed,alienated kids who wanted to kill everyone and then die themselves. Bad things can happen when sick minds are at work - what's your solution?

Guns aren't to blame for the acts of sickos like Harris &amp; Klebold, who said their actions were "a two-man war against everyone else."

Walt in VA

SnakebyteXX
01-15-2005, 08:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The horror of Columbine was the product of two sick, depressed,alienated kids who wanted to kill everyone and then die themselves. <hr /></blockquote>

The 'horror of Columbine' wasn't only about "...kids who wanted to kill everyone and then die themselves..." it was about a failure of the system.

A major portion of the killings at Columbine occurred in the school library during the last few minutes of the rampage while the police had the place entirely surrounded but chose not to enter the school. There are some who feel that those deaths could have and should have been prevented had the police behaved differently.

Snake

Wally_in_Cincy
01-15-2005, 08:34 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> . That's got to be the stupidest thing I've read on the subject..."existing laws...."
<hr /></blockquote>

Walt was right. It worked in Richmond. It's well documented. Look it up.

WaltVA
01-15-2005, 10:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SnakebyteXX:</font><hr>
The 'horror of Columbine' wasn't only about "...kids who wanted to kill everyone and then die themselves..." it was about a failure of the system.

A major portion of the killings at Columbine occurred in the school library during the last few minutes of the rampage while the police had the place entirely surrounded but chose not to enter the school. There are some who feel that those deaths could have and should have been prevented had the police behaved differently.

Snake <hr /></blockquote>
Columbine changed the training and tactical planning of many law-enforcement departments. An excellent timeline and report on the incident is available here (http://www.knowgangs.com/school_resources/menu_002.htm)

Walt in VA

wolfdancer
01-15-2005, 11:00 AM
Wally, give me a break....I mentioned the people that I
thought, were potentially dangerous with guns....and he replied:

Existing laws prohibit purchase or possession of handguns by teens, hot-headed or otherwise, criminals (felons), those with severe mental problems, and those with substance-abuse problems. Most gang members will probably fall into one of those classifications. If "that is the problem," why not enforce the current laws fully, rather than suggesting the enactment of more laws?


- - - - - - - - - - - -
As long as guns are available, laws aren't going to work,to prevent their use...and more laws aren't going to work either.
I NEVER suggested enacting more laws...maybe the guy can't read, but wants to jump on the bandwagon, and seem like one of the good ole boys


I've known three people that were killed by guns...one a cop, responding to a routine disturbance call, another, who sucker-punched an off-duty cop, was shot in the back as he was running away. the third was fleeing from his parole officer...he had a small violation, and was afraid to go back to prison...he was shot in the back, and the P.O. was not even authorized to carry a gun.
I've had two friends commit suicide...one had Cancer, another had macular degeneration
Recently,at a pool hall in SF, two rival gangs got into it, and once outside, one guy opened fire, wounding three, killing one...appearantly he didn't know it was against the law, for him to own a gun.
Two blocks away from my old SF house, a young man was killed in front of his girlfriend for not giving up his wallet, fast enough.
I was originally just quoting from an article that I had read...they are trying to lessen gun related violence...and it did not call for gun control.
I still think that was the stupidest ***'ng post, I've read here....and I think I'll just quit this board, rather then reading any more of this
Think about it...I never advocated gun-control....but mention anything about gun related deaths...
I'm done...I'm out of here....

Wally_in_Cincy
01-15-2005, 11:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Wally, give me a break....


As long as guns are available, laws aren't going to work,to prevent their use...and more laws aren't going to work either.



I still think that was the stupidest ***'ng post, I've read here....and I think I'll just quit this board, rather then reading any more of this

<hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr>Walt was right. It worked in Richmond. It's well documented. Look it up.
<hr /></blockquote>

If you don't believe me, so be it.

WaltVA
01-15-2005, 11:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> ...As long as guns are available, laws aren't going to work,to prevent their use...and more laws aren't going to work either.
I NEVER suggested enacting more laws...maybe the guy can't read, but wants to jump on the bandwagon, and seem like one of the good ole boys...

I still think that was the stupidest ***'ng post, I've read here....and I think I'll just quit this board, rather then reading any more of this
Think about it...I never advocated gun-control....but mention anything about gun related deaths...
I'm done...I'm out of here.... <hr /></blockquote>
I read well: "as long as guns are available"??? What ARE you advocating? We can't UNINVENT something - we have to try to stop its misuse.

Walt in VA

wolfdancer
01-15-2005, 02:53 PM
I'm not sure why I'm responding to this , except for the fact that your replies are so off the mark, that they are irritating beyond belief.....I've asked the webmaster to remove me from this board,because it's unhealthy to be this mad
First off..you insist, I'm advocating gun control, by quoting that article...if that was their stance, they wouldn't be studying other means to end the problem
Then you claim that existing laws will keep guns from the groups I mentioned...and brush off the Columbine incident
Then I'm supposed to be for more laws, and when I stated that more laws won't solve the problem...I'm trying to "uninvent" guns...
Obviously you can read...it's your reading comprehension, that might be a problem....but you got Wally as your "spear carrior" to back you up...so you must feel you're dealing with a full deck...
Since this is my last post....I wonder if they'll let me say what I really would like to....? Jesus, wouldn't that be nice?????

wolfdancer
01-15-2005, 03:11 PM
Wally, stick with your $7 bj's and your pinup pictures, or join Walt in an ESL class. He can't stick to the facts...you both are accusing me of something that I never said....
Fact #1....gun related deaths occur
Fact #2....gov't agencies are studying ways to reduce the deaths, and injuries
Fact #3....there are laws against illegal use of firearms
Fact #4....murder by gunfire still occurs...unless you believe it's a mass suicide
AND...that's all I ever said.......and that's a FACT

nAz
01-15-2005, 04:20 PM
WD! your either with us or against us, your opinion matters not! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

seriously dude please don't go i really do enjoy reading your post.