The Gun Issue thread

[Morden]

People in the US (and in most westernized countries) have no respect for "Rule of Law". Everyone from the POTUS on down, willingly commits crimes and thumbs their noses at society.

The police have already adjusted to today's society by having a "shoot 'em up mentality" and honest citizens need to be just as prepared IMO.

Seems your rhetorical overkill about "....everyone form the POTUS on down..." has contradicted itself in the same rant. Pretty much cancels your argument out. Well done.

Not seeing your point. My point was that a) due to a lack of respect for "Rule of Law", honest citizens are living in dangerous times, and b) the Police who interface the most with criminals and their crimes, have already adopted a "shoot first and repeatedly" mentality in order to deal with criminals, and that honest citizens need to do the same.

Many states now have "stand your ground " laws and "make my day" laws which make it legal for an honest citizen to use deadly force to protect themselves and their families.

What part of my "rant" did you not understand? If necessary, I will spell it out in even simpler phrases.

RickThai

So, perhaps you would argue that when the Boston police shot up a whole neighbourhood, the local people should have fired back.

[Morden]

[QUOTE=RickThai;2452100][QUOTE=Morden;2446360]

.
Tell us about the illegal sale of guns to criminals in Mexico.

You would have to ask Obama's Attorney General about that one. Oops! That's right, he's not talking.

RickThai

Is he a member here too?

[Mr Earl]

You would have to ask Obama's Attorney General about that one. Oops! That's right, he's not talking.

RickThai

Is he a member here too?

He's either using Ray Carrey or Humbert for a nick!

[sabang]

American 'Conservatives' are a funny bunch.
They are great proponents of a foetuses right to life.
Until you are born that is, then you are on your own.

[Boon Mee]

^
Everyone needs a mother. But in the case of liberals, you need a whole community!

Find fault with this logic?

[Morden]

American 'Conservatives' are a funny bunch.
They are great proponents of a foetuses right to life.
Until you are born that is, then you are on your own.

[Morden]

^
Everyone needs a mother. But in the case of liberals, you need a whole community!

Find fault with this logic?

You don't create logic by ignoring facts that don't suit you. Screw the kids at Sandy Hook, let's have a juvenile prod at those who want kids to be safer in future.

[Mr Earl]

^
Everyone needs a mother. But in the case of liberals, you need a whole community!

Find fault with this logic?

Seems pretty clear to me we need to ban spoons also.

[Boon Mee]

^
Everyone needs a mother. But in the case of liberals, you need a whole community!

Find fault with this logic?

Seems pretty clear to me we need to ban spoons also.

And automobiles too. They kill a lot of people every day. Just look at what happened here over Songkran!

[Norton]

Lunch time. Take a break. All that needs to be said has been said. Endless repetition pro or con is just that, endless repetition.

Wake me up when something "new" added to the debate.

[Mr Earl]

^be careful with that spoon!

[TonyBKK]

Criminal background checks are NOT gun control!

The Second Amendment was written at a time when the "arms" that were being protected consisted of muskets, not machine guns...

[RickThai]

People in the US (and in most westernized countries) have no respect for "Rule of Law". Everyone from the POTUS on down, willingly commits crimes and thumbs their noses at society.

The police have already adjusted to today's society by having a "shoot 'em up mentality" and honest citizens need to be just as prepared IMO.

Seems your rhetorical overkill about "....everyone form the POTUS on down..." has contradicted itself in the same rant. Pretty much cancels your argument out. Well done.

Not seeing your point. My point was that a) due to a lack of respect for "Rule of Law", honest citizens are living in dangerous times, and b) the Police who interface the most with criminals and their crimes, have already adopted a "shoot first and repeatedly" mentality in order to deal with criminals, and that honest citizens need to do the same.

Many states now have "stand your ground " laws and "make my day" laws which make it legal for an honest citizen to use deadly force to protect themselves and their families.

What part of my "rant" did you not understand? If necessary, I will spell it out in even simpler phrases.

RickThai

So, perhaps you would argue that when the Boston police shot up a whole neighbourhood, the local people should have fired back.

The incident that comes to my mind, was in NYC, but to answer your question. If one or more police officers opened fire (either trying to shoot a suspected criminal or not) on a crowd of innocent people, then YES, any armed citizen should have the right to legally shoot the out-of-control officer(s).

In Vietnam, occasionally different military units would accidentally get into a firefight with each other. Bottom line, when someone is shooting at you or other innocent people, you should shoot back. It's called self-defense.

Just my opinion of course.

RickThai

[RickThai]

[QUOTE=Morden;2452384][QUOTE=RickThai;2452100]

.
Tell us about the illegal sale of guns to criminals in Mexico.

You would have to ask Obama's Attorney General about that one. Oops! That's right, he's not talking.

RickThai

Is he a member here too?

Actually he might be. He sure doesn't seem to spend too much time at his day job, based upon his accomplishments.

(I can think of several members who might fit his description.)

RickThai

[Rainfall]

^
Everyone needs a mother. But in the case of liberals, you need a whole community!

Find fault with this logic?

Seems pretty clear to me we need to ban spoons also.

And automobiles too. They kill a lot of people every day. Just look at what happened here over Songkran!

Yawn... Why don't you build some tarmac roads in the backward country of yours, and lift the speed limit? To go at 300kph is so much more fun than to fire a gun, one can't even begin to describe it. Speed, that's what freedom is all about.

[Morden]

People in the US (and in most westernized countries) have no respect for "Rule of Law". Everyone from the POTUS on down, willingly commits crimes and thumbs their noses at society.

The police have already adjusted to today's society by having a "shoot 'em up mentality" and honest citizens need to be just as prepared IMO.

Seems your rhetorical overkill about "....everyone form the POTUS on down..." has contradicted itself in the same rant. Pretty much cancels your argument out. Well done.

Not seeing your point. My point was that a) due to a lack of respect for "Rule of Law", honest citizens are living in dangerous times, and b) the Police who interface the most with criminals and their crimes, have already adopted a "shoot first and repeatedly" mentality in order to deal with criminals, and that honest citizens need to do the same.

Many states now have "stand your ground " laws and "make my day" laws which make it legal for an honest citizen to use deadly force to protect themselves and their families.

What part of my "rant" did you not understand? If necessary, I will spell it out in even simpler phrases.

RickThai

So, perhaps you would argue that when the Boston police shot up a whole neighbourhood, the local people should have fired back.

The incident that comes to my mind, was in NYC, but to answer your question. If one or more police officers opened fire (either trying to shoot a suspected criminal or not) on a crowd of innocent people, then YES, any armed citizen should have the right to legally shoot the out-of-control officer(s).

In Vietnam, occasionally different military units would accidentally get into a firefight with each other. Bottom line, when someone is shooting at you or other innocent people, you should shoot back. It's called self-defense.

Just my opinion of course.

RickThai

The police shot up a neighbourhood when the target is two youths in the street. The neighbours who were under fire, you say, could have fired back at the police? Who the hell survives something like that, other than the original targets perhaps? That is just crazy. The cops would kill the whole darned street.

The military example to which you refer suggests that someone doesn't know how to run an army.

There was also the matter of 'friendly fire', another euphemism, in Bosnia. US troops kept shooting British soldiers in the back. You don't get much time to respond, other than to fall down dead.

I know what 'self-defence' is. In the case of the Boston incident, getting to a safe place in, under or behind your house would be self-defence. Shooting at a SWAT team would be suicide. Those guys were on a shooting rampage because one of their own was taken down. They lost control. If that happens within the law enforcement agencies, then poorly legislated and enforced gun laws for civilians who seem not to have much training looks even more stupid.

[MrG]

^
Exactly right.
The gun nuts who want no restrictions on their weapons can't hide behind popularity anymore; something close to 85% of the public wants more laws regulating guns. Congress, unfortunately, is owned lock, stock and barrel by the NRA.

[Morden]

^
Exactly right.
The gun nuts who want no restrictions on their weapons can't hide behind popularity anymore; something close to 85% of the public wants more laws regulating guns. Congress, unfortunately, is owned lock, stock and barrel by the NRA.

I'm sure that last will change as time goes by. A nation cannot be so callous and insensitive to its own suffering for ever.

[MrG]

I dread to think what incident will provoke a change.

I really can't help but think Congress would have done something by now except they want to get Obama. He can't have any wins, big or small, no matter what. To hell with everything, from public safety to the general well being of the Nation.

And that's how sick this country is.

[TonyBKK]

Why is it that the bombs in Boston that killed 3 are considered weapons of mass destruction, while the AR-15 that was used to kill 26 in our most recent school shooting is not?

[Morden]

I dread to think what incident will provoke a change.

I really can't help but think Congress would have done something by now except they want to get Obama. He can't have any wins, big or small, no matter what. To hell with everything, from public safety to the general well being of the Nation.

And that's how sick this country is.

I cannot but agree with you. Obama is blocked for political reasons and it's a scandal that it was done after Sandy Hook.

As you say, what must happen to effect change?it was suggested that pictures of the Sandy Hook dead might be published to show others just how bad it was. It was, rightly I think, not take up out of respect for the victims and their families.

[Morden]

Why is it that the bombs in Boston that killed 3 are considered weapons of mass destruction, while the AR-15 that was used to kill 26 in our most recent school shooting is not?

Perhaps because there is no National Bomb Association just yet. Some people seem to interpret the 2A, ignoring later related laws, as including all weapons, so bombs may be legal. Then again, after fiasco in Iraq, a pile of pebbles might me regarded as a weapon of mass destruction.

[TonyBKK]

^
Everyone needs a mother. But in the case of liberals, you need a whole community!

Find fault with this logic?

Nice try Booners

[TonyBKK]

We need to update our antiquated gun laws. Agree or disagree?

[Mr Earl]

^We need to enforce current law.