Why can some have guns and not others?

[Jerry]

Nothing in your entire post is related to anything in this thread. Please pick another target to troll.

Thanks, and have a wonderful day.

In fact the phrase "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" refers to the imagined feat of a lifting oneself off the ground by pulling on one's bootstraps. This impossible task is supposed to exemplify the achievement in getting out of a difficult situation by one's own efforts. Some early computers used a process called bootstrapping. This involved loading a small amount of code which was then used to progressively load more complex code until the machine was ready for use. This has led to use of the term 'booting' to mean starting up a computer, something everyone had to do before participating in this thread.

#connections

 

[Goshin]

Nonetheless I see you never answered specklebang's question. :shrug:

What are the odds you'll ever need these guards?

I can easily name several times in my life (not counting LE duty) when it would have been really nice to have my own armed guards... and at least a couple where the lack of armed guards caused me to be mighty glad to be personally armed, else I might not be here.

The real problem is that we're talking about hypocrites who want to disarm ordinary people but keep their own armed guards... hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[specklebang]

I can easily name several times in my life (not counting LE duty) when it would have been really nice to have my own armed guards... and at least a couple where the lack of armed guards caused me to be mighty glad to be personally armed, else I might not be here.

The real problem is that we're talking about hypocrites who want to disarm ordinary people but keep their own armed guards... hypocrisy at its finest.

Yes, yes, we are overloaded on hypocrisy.

We have people who make fortunes on passive investments demanding tax cuts for those investments that most of us don't have.

We have LEOs arresting a pot smoker and bragging about it while swilling a beer.

We have rulers calling for war who aren't in the military or have any family that is.

We have people calling for disarmament who have bodyguards.

If hypocrisy was a crime, you couldn't build enough prisons on our whole land mass. If opinions were laws....but they aren't. They're just opinion© and we might as well have some while we're still allowed to.

 

[Goshin]

Yes, yes, we are overloaded on hypocrisy.

We have people who make fortunes on passive investments demanding tax cuts for those investments that most of us don't have.

We have LEOs arresting a pot smoker and bragging about it while swilling a beer.

We have rulers calling for war who aren't in the military or have any family that is.

We have people calling for disarmament who have bodyguards.

If hypocrisy was a crime, you couldn't build enough prisons on our whole land mass. If opinions were laws....but they aren't. They're just opinion© and we might as well have some while we're still allowed to.

These are people who, right or wrong, have "celebrity weight" to their opinions... and I don't think anyone is calling for the use of legislative coercion to prevent them having opinions or speaking them, just pointing out the hypocrisy of it and how self-serving their opinions are. Certainly if they have the right to spew their nonsense, we have the right to call them on it.

 

[Bob N]

I can easily name several times in my life (not counting LE duty) when it would have been really nice to have my own armed guards... and at least a couple where the lack of armed guards caused me to be mighty glad to be personally armed, else I might not be here.

Goshin: After reading some of your past posts, you seem to be the kind of person that enjoys living on the edge; however, I still believe that the vast majority of people in this forum (And I might as well add in my neighborhood, too.) do not desire or feel the need to hire armed security. Do a lot of people own guns for home protection or CCW? Yes, and I believe with most of us that is good enough to feel safe

The real problem is that we're talking about hypocrites who want to disarm ordinary people but keep their own armed guards... hypocrisy at its finest.

So far all I have seen in the news is the following debates:

• A database for collecting names of gun owners
• Background checks for places like gun shows before consummating a sale.
• Getting rid of certain kinds of guns
• Smaller rounds of ammo for guns

So far I haven't seen anything about eliminating the right of a person to have armed security while others get to keep it being seriously discussed on any floor of either house of Congress. :shrug:

 

[Jerry]

[*]Background checks for places like gun shows before consummating a sale.

I understand getting laid after buying a gun, but what do backround checks have to do with it?

 

[specklebang]

These are people who, right or wrong, have "celebrity weight" to their opinions... and I don't think anyone is calling for the use of legislative coercion to prevent them having opinions or speaking them, just pointing out the hypocrisy of it and how self-serving their opinions are. Certainly if they have the right to spew their nonsense, we have the right to call them on it.

Of course. I support their right to have an opinion and your right to have an opinion of their opinion.

 

[Bob N]

I understand getting laid after buying a gun, but what do backround checks have to do with it?

A definition of consummate. :coffeepap

 

[specklebang]

I understand getting laid after buying a gun, but what do backround checks have to do with it?

Not a damn thing. Just point your gun at the bitch and tell her to get her clothes off right now.

 

[blackjack50]

Because the citizens aren't saying the same message as the hypocrites or are on "the wrong side" is my guess.

Divide and conquer my friend. Force them to leave behind their celebrities. The people with "money and mic" on the left being discredited and pushed to the fringe would pretty much solidify our stance's status. I mean. I am all for "reasonable" discussion, but when people like the above call it "common sense" and "reasonable" it is better that the public understand that they are hypocrite not interested in "reasonable" anything.

 

[Jerry]

A definition of consummate. :coffeepap

Yes, "to fulfill especialy by intercourse", I know.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Divide and conquer my friend. Force them to leave behind their celebrities. The people with "money and mic" on the left being discredited and pushed to the fringe would pretty much solidify our stance's status. I mean. I am all for "reasonable" discussion, but when people like the above call it "common sense" and "reasonable" it is better that the public understand that they are hypocrite not interested in "reasonable" anything.

If half of Moore's followers actually knew his story he would go bankrupt. His "documentaries" are scripted carefully, and edited to make the pre determined case he want's them to, Rosie O'Donnell has issued on public airwaves some of the stupidest statements ever uttered, ditto Piers Morgan, and all of a sudden Oprah is a race warrior. If people knew that Moore is a major stockholder in Haliburton, while attacking it to stick it to the Bush administration they would either have to finally admit that he's a phony or they would have to dismiss it by using their usual head in the sand tactics.

 

[Bob N]

Yes, "to fulfill especialy by intercourse", I know.

I'm using 1a. as my usage; I don't know what you're using. Unless this is a poor attempt at trolling.

a. To bring to completion or fruition; conclude: consummate a business transaction.

 

[Jerry]

I'm using 1a. as my usage; I don't know what you're using.

Just your basic condom.

 

[Goshin]

Goshin: After reading some of your past posts, you seem to be the kind of person that enjoys living on the edge; however, I still believe that the vast majority of people in this forum (And I might as well add in my neighborhood, too.) do not desire or feel the need to hire armed security. Do a lot of people own guns for home protection or CCW? Yes, and I believe with most of us that is good enough to feel safe

So far all I have seen in the news is the following debates:

• A database for collecting names of gun owners
• Background checks for places like gun shows before consummating a sale.
• Getting rid of certain kinds of guns
• Smaller rounds of ammo for guns

So far I haven't seen anything about eliminating the right of a person to have armed security while others get to keep it being seriously discussed on any floor of either house of Congress. :shrug:

I'm thinking you kind of missed the point, perhaps.

The point is that it is hypocritical for those who provide themselves with armed private security to then express opinions desiring to disarm ordinary citizens, or otherwise make it difficult for them to protect themselves.

As for the list, I have a problem with several items on it as ways that reduce the armed might of the citizenry, yes.

 

[Bob N]

I'm thinking you kind of missed the point, perhaps.

The point is that it is hypocritical for those who provide themselves with armed private security to then express opinions desiring to disarm ordinary citizens, or otherwise make it difficult for them to protect themselves.

If there is people who do provide themselves with armed security and they do not wish to see ordinary citizens without any kind of protection, then yes, I too, agree with you.

 

[Goshin]

If there is people who do provide themselves with armed security and they do not wish to see ordinary citizens without any kind of protection, then yes, I too, agree with you.

Yes, that is the point. Rosie O'Donnel, for instance, has publically advocated the total disarmament of the American citizenry with life in prison as the punishment for non compliance.


For me, however, advocating or attempting to remove the most effective firearms from citizen reach, or otherwise imposing needless and useless restrictions on same, is nearly as bad.

 

[TurtleDude]

If there is people who do provide themselves with armed security and they do not wish to see ordinary citizens without any kind of protection, then yes, I too, agree with you.

the guards for celebrities and politicians should be limited to the same defensive weapons other citizens have access to

 

[blackjack50]

If they are personally advocating that all guns should be outlawed then I would assume they know that this would force them to give up their armed security. I have never heard anyone advocate a loophole for those with money on any gun legislation, so I think it's silly to consider a scenario when we have no evidence of such.

1) Why would they advocate a loophole openly? Would that just invite people like me to highlight them as hypocritical?

2) Do you actually believe that armed security would not be given still to these people? Remember they can afford to hire "qualified" people who would likely get "security" licenses. Do you think armed security is non existent in a place like the UK? Where the individual like me or you would not get private "preventative" security, the rich are likely to get armed units if they "have the money." To think that the rich can't get loopholes is silly.

If you have any proof or evidence that any of these people have ever argued that we should get rid of all guns and they should also be able to keep their armed security then please provide it. Otherwise you would be making an assertion with absolutely no evidence.

It is called google. Each and every one has an extensive anti gun history that you could find after a 3 second google search. If you have been involved in the gun control debate or been interested, you might have heard these half wits speak their opinion too.

 

[TurtleDude]

1) Why would they advocate a loophole openly? Would that just invite people like me to highlight them as hypocritical?

2) Do you actually believe that armed security would not be given still to these people? Remember they can afford to hire "qualified" people who would likely get "security" licenses. Do you think armed security is non existent in a place like the UK? Where the individual like me or you would not get private "preventative" security, the rich are likely to get armed units if they "have the money." To think that the rich can't get loopholes is silly.



It is called google. Each and every one has an extensive anti gun history that you could find after a 3 second google search. If you have been involved in the gun control debate or been interested, you might have heard these half wits speak their opinion too.

One of the things that the anti gun left refuses to understand is what is called an acceptance or a choice that someone has made in order to advance an argument. Anti gunners either dishonestly or ignorantly, often refuse to extend the logical basis of someone's actions to subsequent actions

Lets take Obama's ban on bringing back into this country thousands of 70 year old MI Garands. obama's "reasoning" is that those guns can=even though they can only be sold to those who pass a background check-end up ultimately in the hands of criminals

Obama supporters who pretend he's really not a gun banning asshole will claim that this position of Obama's cannot be extrapolated to other firearms

But of course it can

if his reasoning is truly what he says (I don't believe it-rather he's trying to appease the scum bags like Brady after his assault weapon idiocy was stuffed in the senate) then you have to believe he is against other gun sales because there is a far greater chance that pistols and semi auto rifles sold domestically will have a far greater chance of falling into criminal's hands

And if you are a turd like Bloomberg who believes that other citizens should not be able to buy the same weapons that protect his scumbag ass, then Bloomturd has already made the decision that complete disarmament of other civilians is ok

 

[Steelplate]

I've been working on my CDL. I've come across an add looking for school bus drivers in my district. I just may start driving bus so that i can join South Dakota's Sentinel Program and carry a gun in schools against the irrational fears of all the pro gun-control freaks.

Well....I for one am not pro gun control. I do support Toomey Manchin though. I think many weapons get into the hands of criminals and mentally ill people via private sales. As a gun owner, I only consider it a minor inconvenience to run 10 miles to my local FFL to complete the transaction.....however, I live in Pennsylvania where everything is relatively close.

If I lived in Alaska, Wyoming, Montana or one of the other largely rural States, I would want a more practical solution....perhaps have it tied to your driver's license similar to being an organ donor.

No solution is perfect and it won't stop illegal weapons completely...but it will maybe make some unscrupulous sellers more leery of selling and honest ones choosing not to sell without the check.

But no, I don't believe in bans or anything like that.

 

[TurtleDude]

Well....I for one am not pro gun control. I do support Toomey Manchin though. I think many weapons get into the hands of criminals and mentally ill people via private sales. As a gun owner, I only consider it a minor inconvenience to run 10 miles to my local FFL to complete the transaction.....however, I live in Pennsylvania where everything is relatively close.

If I lived in Alaska, Wyoming, Montana or one of the other largely rural States, I would want a more practical solution....perhaps have it tied to your driver's license similar to being an organ donor.

No solution is perfect and it won't stop illegal weapons completely...but it will maybe make some unscrupulous sellers more leery of selling and honest ones choosing not to sell without the check.

But no, I don't believe in bans or anything like that.

the drivers' license solution is far more practical and far easier to enforce without additional laws.

the reason why gun banners don't like it is that it DOES NOT INCONVENIENCE gun buyers and sellers and does not set the stage for registration

 

[Jerry]

Well....I for one am not pro gun control. I do support Toomey Manchin though. I think many weapons get into the hands of criminals and mentally ill people via private sales. As a gun owner, I only consider it a minor inconvenience to run 10 miles to my local FFL to complete the transaction.....however, I live in Pennsylvania where everything is relatively close.

If I lived in Alaska, Wyoming, Montana or one of the other largely rural States, I would want a more practical solution....perhaps have it tied to your driver's license similar to being an organ donor.

No solution is perfect and it won't stop illegal weapons completely...but it will maybe make some unscrupulous sellers more leery of selling and honest ones choosing not to sell without the check.

But no, I don't believe in bans or anything like that.

I promis not to sell guns while driving a school bus. Happy?

 

[cpgrad08]

I promis not to sell guns while driving a school bus. Happy?

But that is the best time to Sell guns.:lol:

 

[Steelplate]

the drivers' license solution is far more practical and far easier to enforce without additional laws.

the reason why gun banners don't like it is that it DOES NOT INCONVENIENCE gun buyers and sellers and does not set the stage for registration

What you have to realize is that not all liberals are "gun banners". I know the NRA and such don't tell you that. Most mainstream liberals like myself are reasonable, rational human beings. Yes, there are some crazies....just like there are on the far right. But for the most part, that's not the case.