In Wisconsin the past week (and this weekend), as many as 600,000 people will be running around with shot guns. They will also get very drunk.
Why are they not going around shooting eachother?
Liberals like to tell us that if we didn't have so many guns, no one would get shot....its all those damn guns that are the problem.
Well, it seems like 600,000 guns is okay....maybe there is another reason so many people get shot in Milwaukee.
Maybe, its the people that are doing the shooting, you think?
Liberals complain that we can not have concealed carry laws, because then too many people would have guns.
Well, deer hunting season proves once again liberals don't have a clue.
Its not the guns, it the people. Bad people do bad things, but since a vast majority of the people who do shoot other people are minority, no one can blame them...it would be insensitive.
So, based on liberal logic...that it is the gun that is the problem, there should be about 100,000 murders this weekend in Northern Wisconsin.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Deep thoughts....by The Game
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
Sorry Game, but your thought have little logic. I know of nobody who objects to hunters owning hunting weapons or to hunters hunting in a responsible manner. (The exception would be the PETAs who are not liberals, just radicals).
There is a big difference between hunting weapons and other weapons. Do you think in these days of road rage, air rage, pop warner football rage, that it's a good idea for a bunch of people to go around with concealed weapons? I don't.
I don't know of any liberal concerns with the number of guns rather than the ability, responsibility, sanity, legality of those who have them, what types of guns are available and what they are for.
And BTW, one of the most liberal people I know is an avid waterfowl hunter.
Your liberal bashing is the usual gratuitous hot air.
I constantly hear how guns are the problem, not people...if we had more gun laws, if there were less guns...jim is in denial again
I'm not in denial. I've never heard anyone say that "guns are the problem, not people." Never heard that. Who says that? Can I get a quote? That's an NRA strawman.
Most of the gun laws I've heard of have been about background checks, waiting periods, etc. That's, ummm, people, isn't it? If it's people, what's wrong with background checks and waiting periods?
nothing...work on quotes
Jim,
It's a common expression amongst the libs who support such things that it's necessary to "get guns off our streets". This phrase is so common as to be nauseating. And Game's point was that if getting guns off the street would lessen the amount of murders, then it would only be reasonable to expect a portion of those hunters to be murdering people, as there are so many out there during hunting season who are armed. So there are 600,000 armed people who are NOT murdering others. Law abiding people who are responsible gun owners. It's not a question of the type of firearm that these people own, it's that they are responsible and law abiding gun owners. Thus, why deprive other law abiding people of the God-given, Constitutional right to carry a weapon for protection?
On a particular "Politically Incorrect" with Bill Maher (who is terribly unfunny), he had as guests for a discussion of gun laws, G. Gordon Liddy, Charleton Heston, and Ted Nugent (what a panel!) in favor of the 2nd Amendment granting the right to self-protection, versus a hapless Elaine Boozler. According to Liddy at the time, there were (and probably still are) about 20,000 gun laws on the books across America. But as you might expect, bad guys don't care about laws and they still get their hands on guns. It will always be so. They'll freakin' make them themselves if they have to, or they will simply get whatever firearms are available. In the meantime, the average citizen is helplessly restricted from owning the proper and most practicle self-defense weaponry. Which party would you say is most responsible for this circumstance? I'll give you 3 guesses and the first two won't count.
I have no problem with the 2nd amendment and people having guns. I know many who hunt..friends and relatives. The one thing that does bother me about the far rights view is that they often try to make a gun a matter of manlyness or patriotism. The fact is a gun is a gun and its only purpose is to kill or maim. That is reality for the right and left. That can be good or bad. Just as the left applies qualities to an inanimate object so doth the right. Neither is right to do so. It's a weapon, nothing more nothing less.
I know someone will bring up target shooting. A miniscule number of guns are bought or owned for that purpose but go ahead and argue if you must.
"if getting guns off the street would lessen the amount of murders, then it would only be reasonable to expect a portion of those hunters to be murdering people, as there are so many out there during hunting season who are armed. So there are 600,000 armed people who are NOT murdering others."
??
I carry a gun at all times (concealed or unconcealed), and don't care who likes it......Which is why I live in a state like Arizona.
I have no problem with background checks or waiting periods.....But you can't deny there are people out there who want much more than to restrict guns from just "bad guys." There are many city's that more or less make it impossible to carry a gun legally.
I don't visit these places, and would surely never live in one.
That said, all the laws in the world won't keep bad people from getting and using guns.....They don't get them from legitimate sources in the first place, and they are outside the law for many reasons other than just having guns.
I can only speak of my state, but I know for fact that most gun violence done here isn't due to Normal Joes going nuts or their kids accidently firing a weapon....Almost all the violence is from thugs shooting at each other, and they didn't get their guns from a gun shop but from a dealer/crime boss. And they also didn't have to go through background checks to get them or wait.
There's no law which will stop this other than laws which put these punks away or execute them....So why restrict people like me who are willing to operate within the law, and simply want to have a little something extra if needed?
As far as Libs/Cons go, I would think gun ownership should be a liberal favorite......But that's liberal with a "small-l" not Liberal with a "big-L" I guess.
Marshall makes a perfect and wonderful point...adding to my correct point...and Jim can't understand it...All I can do is laugh...
Again Jim, liberals DO say that we need to get the guns off the streets....that comment is placing the blame on the gun..and I guess saying that because there are guns, people have no choice but to kill eachother....my point was that if too many guns are the problem, and we must get rid of them, why does no one murder anywone when people deer hunt???
And the answer is that bad people don't care about rules...they don't care about back ground check or concealed carry laws...so if you got your way ONLY bad guys would have guns
Why don't deer hunters murder people? I'm sure they do, but no more or less than anybody else. The fact that deer hunters have rifles has nothing to do with the murder rate. It's a rediculous argument, Game. Nobody I know objects to hunters having guns (except Dick Cheney, maybe). This "it's the guns, not the people" is a straw man. "that comment is placing the blame on the gun..and I guess saying that because there are guns, people have no choice but to kill eachother". Nobody says that. It's stupid.
Most gun laws I know of are for certain types of weapons and for background checks and waiting periods. You've already said you have no problem with that, so what's the issue here? You want full automatic weapons with high volume clips?
What for?
Poison, why do you carry a gun? Have you ever used it? When? Why? Rattlesnakes?
Jim,
The types of guns that are targeted in my state are not just automatic weapons, but handguns. In Chicago, you can't sell, buy or own one. You certainly can't carry one, nor anywhere in the state. The reason for such is due to the liberal mindset of how crime should be fought. In their ACLU-like way, they've enacted laws that seemingly protect the wrongly accused, but instead have made arrests more difficult and made prisoners of the innocent victims. So as criminals are freed due to technicalities, libs have enacted strict gun laws to appear tough on crime, inficting further helplessness on the general public.
In those states where the God-given right to defend one's self is not diminished, citizens who wish to, carry weapons as insurance. It's as simple as that. At the same time, the bad guys are a little less cavalier about their targets, knowing that anyone they choose might be carrying and willing to use it.
I often hear the statement by anti-carry proponents, "Handguns have only ONE purpose: to kill." to which I respond, "Wow! Did you figure that out all by yourself?" But aside from the fact that a responsible gun owner may have a more refined aim, I have no problem with the notion that should one decide to infringe on a citizen's right to his person and property, a real risk of getting shot dead should follow.
A final question for Jim:
Why SHOULDN'T a responsible law-abiding citizen possess a fully automatic weapon with high volume clips? Please refrain from assuming you can judge the needs of another in your answer.
PS---I own NO firearms.
Good post, Marshall. Your state must have a completely different mindset than mine. Whether that's good or bad is up for debate.
To your question I would ask, what ARE "the needs of another" to possess a fully automatic weapon with high volume clips?
My point is that the needs are irrelevant, providing we're talking about responsible, law-abiding citizens. The likelihood of any need coming to fruition is low, but that doesn't eliminate the desire to account for that need. It may simply be a desire to own and occasionally operate a totally bitchin' weapon. It may be a desire to keep up one's training from one's military days as a just in case type of thing. Who cares as long as the subject is responsible with his weapons and abides by the law? Why shouldn't he have one?
Post a Comment