DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Growing number of police chiefs, sheriffs join call to arms

I have owned guns, I've been an NRA member. I have nothing against guns (well, except the ones people use to kill innocent people)... it's just funny how quickly you go to your stock set of insults any time I make an attempt to explain or understand both sides...

I just have to wonder if you found anything surprising by that?

You don't ever explain or understand, your posts are for limiting guns to the law abiding as a common sense thing to do.
You are the one who insults.
You insult our intelligence with your back handed approach to gun control.

Start telling us how to get guns out of the hands of criminals instead of appealing to us to be reasonably disarmed!

My advice if you want to consider both sides of any issue is to climb up with Pit on a windy day.

Tell me when you guys are ready to consider sides on the First Amendment once you are done with the Second!

both sides of any issue?

so there can never be multiple sides? you are never suppose to understand both sides?

since when did it become a bad thing to compromise and consider both sides of an issue in this country?

i thought that was one of the things that made us great?

Even republican Jesus compromised.

I guess being opened minded has become a sin. Can't wait until someone posts a quote from the Old Testament trying to back up that claim.

No Swish, you're always supposed to be single minded, never listening or considering the opinion of anyone else on anything. Being closed minded has become an endearing quality in the yes of some.

You fail to understand, Americans do not negotiate or compromise away their Constitutional Rights! Real Americans don't even consider such a thing!

There's a difference in compromising your rights and understanding the reason the other side disagrees with you.

I'm not ready to compromise my second amendment rights either. It doesn't mean I don't understand the points made by the other side. You don't seem to understand the difference.

Then understand this...

I am against your Right to say that! Now Compromise that!
Start a thread considering your Right to free speech, consider how you would compromise on what people are allowed to say and what News Stations should be allowed to be on the air. Consider the terrible things said against our beloved Government or the evil protests against our Military campaigns!


SILENCE I SAY!
Let our President make Executive Orders to limit your mouth, register your words, and make laws on what you can say.
Negotiate That!

So, what ARE you saying?

You won't give up your right to own a gun. But, you understand points made by the "other" side. So, what point are you making?

What "compromise" is there? I'm not trying to be confrontational - I'm simply trying to understand the "I won't give up my gun/s, but I understand the points gun grabbers are making."


Here's the REAL issue: Over 60% of gun deaths are the result of suicide. I don't remember exactly, but I think 31% of gun deaths are homicide. (this discussion has been had on here before, with links).

I don't have a problem with background checks. What I DO have a problem with is making more laws that only the law abiding citizens have to follow. It won't solve gun violence - it won't make a dent in gun deaths. What it very possibly COULD do is make felons out of people like you. The bad guys don't care about laws, AND, they're going to continue to have guns regardless.

Lol, what dude........

You're basically saying don't do anything, since criminals are doing whatever.

So I'm going to ask the board the same point, why have any drug laws if people like me aren't gonna follow them anyway?

No, that's not at all what I was saying.

Pit said he "understands" the point anti gunners are making, but at the same time, he won't give up his guns. I was simply asking "what point is he making"?

Your point about drug laws is moot. The drugs you are talking about are already illegal (like it or not - that's a different discussion). Bad guys do drugs. They get caught? They go to jail.

My owning guns is NOT illegal. My purchases have been legal. NONE of my guns have been used in an illegal way. Why should I have to possibly forfeit them, or suddenly undergo a mental background check when the people using guns in illegal manners don't/won't?

Since that simply doesn't happen there's really nothing to negotiate.

I guess I should have spelled it out better.

Many people have never owned guns. Many people don't realize the difference between a shotgun verses a rifle.

People have a natural fear of the unknown. Much of the media is spoon feeding them misinformation. I can understand why such people would have the views they have.

I don't have to agree with opposing views to understand how they arrived at their views. That's really all I'm saying.

Well, perhaps you would be better served to say something along the lines of "I won't give up my 2nd amendment rights due to the ignorance of the talking heads that know nothing of what they speak other than what is spoonfed to them by the ignorant media and the fear of guns they perpetuate"?

But your stance on "I won't give up my right to own a gun", BUT "I understand the other view points" smacks of........get this.........fence sitting.

Are you legally, under the current laws of this country, allowed to own any and all guns you own? If so, I don't see where "compromise" fits in at all.

YOU are not a law breaker. Why should YOU have to cede some of your rights in order to make the ignorant feel secure when all along it's criminals breaking the law?

So it's not my thought process you have a problem with, it's the way I express it?

Maybe you should start with those who don't know the difference between your and you're. Or to, too and two.

You're fighting a straw man here.

Just because I express myself in a way that isn't totally confrontational doesn't mean you have a better way of expressing it. I would appreciate if in the future you would stop trying to correct my grammar and writing style. I thought politely responding to you in order to define my opinion to you would be enough.

I should have known better. I don't feel the need to use words like ignorance and ignorant to describe my opinion on a subject.

Wait.......I'm totally confused. Where did I try to correct your grammar? What am I missing?

My whole point was you originally said "I won't give up my second amendment rights, but I can see the point the other side has."..........So, how is that not seen as anything but "I sit on the fence"?

I don't normally do this but... show me one.


It must be really backhanded then because even I'm not aware of it.

And 40, I've been on here long enough to know... you are one of those who considers disagreement an insult.. so I won't even continue to debate that point.


If I had the final answer on how to disarm criminals without infringing on your rights to own whatever guns you wanted... well I'd probably be in Congress waiting to live on my $250K/year pension for the rest of my life... or sitting on the board of the NRA or something..... Reasonable people can admit they don't have all of the answers but seek to find areas of improvement... unreasonable people think the only answer is for all 200 people at the movies to be packing firearms... Just sayin'

If they were armed, it would be the orange haired freak who got shot to crap and maybe, just maybe, 200 people would have walked out of that theater with a story to tell.

Now that is reasonable.

I do see their points.
I see what they say and how they arrived at that conclusion.

I see crime on the news but that doesn't mean I agree with it. You simply took some leap of faith that seeing something, I agree with it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Of course I explained that to you yet you still continued to ramble on about and try to critique my opinion. Or should I say you didn't approve of the way I presented it.

Carry on......

I wasn't replying to, but 40 because I used the quick reply

But since you responded instead of him, I'll hit you up first:

One is illegal, one is not, yet we can make the argument that the legal one causes more pain and suffering, and deaths worldwide than the other.

Drugs mostly causes personal destruction, sometimes violating the rights of others.

The other ALWAYS violates the rights of others to live. Yet we seem to think that guns should be untouchable while the other is demonized?

I have a problem with that.

The argument 40 presents is since criminals are gonna do whatever, there's no point of gun laws. Murdering somebody is illegal, yet people still do it.

Well, weed is illegal, yet I still do it, so why bother having drug laws?

That's the point.

Why is it that you can legally have the right to potentially take somebody's life, yet I canthave the right to do what I want to my own body?

And for the record, I'm not trying to make this about weed, but what I'm trying to bring to light is the double standards we seem to have when it comes to personal responsibility.

Guns is an untouchable subject for you guys, yet when it comes to to something you don't partake in, your have no problem with it being illegal.

One fact can't be denied. One is a Constitutional right and the other isn't. Now that may not be an important part of the equation to you, but it means a lot to most of us.

I'm with you about weed being legal. I think it should be.

But the Constitution is the fabric this nation was founded upon.

It seems on the rights of weed you wish to expand freedoms while with gun rights you wish to restrict existing freedoms.

I want to leave the freedoms of gun owners alone while expanding freedom to those who smoke weed.

Yep, that's what I want.. 200 John Wayne wanna-bes shooting at one guy in the middle of a circle of people... can't imagine a single bad thing that could happen there.

From what I can find, there are about 38,000 movie screens in the US.. each one probably shows 3 to 4 movies a day... using 3.5 as an average that's 133,000 movie showings a day or 48 million a year... there were how many shootings in theaters last year? One or two? Out of 48 million opportunities? I'm guessing, and this is just a guess, that if the whole audience was armed, the chance of accidental shootings or even some guy losing his cool and opening fire on the kid who won't put his cell phone away, even if he had not intended to do that... is probably much greater if the whole audience is armed in the other 47,999,998...

We restrict rights all the time in this country.

The problem is today we only talk about restricting laws on businesses and that they need to go.

Yet when it comes to the indivisdual citizen, eh, to hell us.

It's funny how we talk about "protecting ourselves" against our own citizens, and freedom, but all the government has to do is shout "terrorist" and we're more than happy for the government to pass the patriot act and have the NSA all up in our business in the name of "protecting ourselves".

It seems like only circumstances matter when it comes to deciding when to restrict rights.

Me restricting your right? That only happens if I want to make it illegal. I'm not, I just want more accountability, however way possible

It's funny how we don't want refugees here because we can't properly vet them, but were against properly vetting our own people, even though it's our own people killing us on a daily basis.

Well now you're just trying to bring common sense into the discussion. We can't have that!

You are missing the point Pit... I'm a left wing liberal who wants to disarm law abiding citizens and round up the criminals so we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya...

I don't have a right to potentially take someone's life. I have a right to protect MY life, or my family's should someone threaten us/me with great bodily harm or even death.

You can minimize drug violence all you want - but it happens. Daily, and often. Perhaps not in your neighborhood.

You did, however, hit the nail on the head when you said "one is legal, one is not".

No one said "gun's are untouchable".......what HAS been said is, basically, take the guns from the bad guys. That's not working out so well though, is it?

Me too!

I have a 19 year old son.. if I had 26 bottles of liquor in the house and left him alone for the weekend, there is a really good chance he could sneak some and I'd never know... if I had one bottle, there is a good chance I'd know.

We have hundreds of millions of guns in this country (many legal, many not), by the same logic, it's not that hard for criminals to get their hands on them without the law knowing... if we had fewer guns, it would be harder to obtain one.

The other problem is, especially as it relates to spree shooters or mass murderers... how many of them were "bad guys" before that one act?

We have layers of problems here.. we have the guns in the bad neighborhoods that get passed around, bought and sold and traded, they are used for gang violence, drug violence, etc.... then we have the first time offenders, who do a lot more of the mass shootings, those people are much harder to identify because they only become "bad guys" once...

Oh I understand your point. I'm simply stating the obvious. Most of our rights do not have constitutional guarantees though.

And no, according to the constitution you would not have to make them illegal according to what it says. It plainly states you "can not infringe on the right to bear arms." Those are two totally different things my friend. To infringe or impede are not the same as making something illegal.

On most everything else I agree with you. The rights of business is upheld and the rights of individuals are infringed upon regularly. The Patriot Act is one of the worse pieces of legislation ever written to undermine our rights.

I simply don't see how infringing on something that the constitution guaruntees us helps change the pattern you seem so against.

I agree.

the pattern is mass murder.

as i've said before, while im for the 2nd amendment, some of the arguments the pro-gun guys are saying can easily be countered, and ultimately used in the war on taking your gun rights away.

basically like this. we all start off being pro 2nd amendment, but once i started hearing some of you guys speak, i'm going "wait.....this doesn't really make sense or sound right anymore".

when 40 speaks, almost want this very issued banned until the end of time.

when you or DC make a case, then i'm going, yea, the 2nd amendment even today makes sense.

the problem becomes that there are way too many 40's out there who talk in literal extremes.

we'll be doing this dance pretty much until this country goes the way of the roman empire, which hopefully won't be anytime soon in the next thousands of years.

but you guys talk about being anti-abortion and how many millions of lives have been taken?

what about all the millions of lives guns has taken from the very same children you swear and up and down you're trying to protect?

it's like you guys are all for the unborn child, but once that child is born: "screw em, they on they own, welcome to life".

what a way to grow up.

Some, like I, disagree that guns have taken lives. They have been used to take lives. Guns haven't taken squat.

please, as a tool, people get power hungry holding it. guns is a tool, which its sole purpose is to do exactly that, take lives.

you can make a very solid argument that the psych changes when a person***disclaimer** SOME people**** holds a gun to when they don't. the very person they are changes. their personality. that's more than simply a tool.

somebody said it before: people are gonna murder anyway. and they are right, but there's a better chance of survival from a melee attack. kids can't dodge bullets. nobody can.

When I go to the movie theater I am armed...concealed..and I imagine I'm not the only one and not even close...I would guess.

Maybe I shouldnt say that in an open forum but at this point in my life I dont care...and will deal with whatever happens if I ever get caught....maybe Ive been lucky but Ive carried to the movies for years and have had no issues.

Ive posted my picture on here so I guess if you see me at the theater well...

I'm not getting caught unprepared for the next weirdo that wants to shoot up the place...but in the same breath...I would probably just try to protect myself and wife...and God willing anyone else if its feasible to do so...me and the wife are the first priority to get to safety...no guns a blazing for me.

Few years ago I might not have answered that the same way. I'm not trying to be a hero...just going to make sure my wife and I stay alive and everyone else is secondary at that point.

I understand how that might sound...but it would be my luck I end up hitting a bystander and get sued and put in jail...and well that is just not worth it to me. Now if I have to kill the bad guy to save my life or the wife's well I would do that and then deal with the repercussions afterwards...it is what it is at that point.

I don't disagree with what you said. I disagree with the idea that because some commit crimes, my rights should be infringed.