Guns are violent???

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

Well.... back to the OP. I guess you COULD have asked him if he'd be comfortable posting his feelings towards firearms on a sign in his front yard. And then, if he has the good sense to say no, just ask him why not? But then, he IS the customer, so you probably wouldn't win that one if he complains to your boss about what a smart aleck you are... Hmmmmmm.... Problems, problems, problems....

 

[LEO IN TRAINING]

Firearms are violent. When they are in the hands of violent people...they can cause harm and even death when used in the wrong manner or in a unlawful act...

 

[JBusch8899]

Firearms are violent. When they are in the hands of violent people...they can cause harm and even death when used in the wrong manner or in a unlawful act...

Firearms are not, in fact, violent, provided that your statement is not a sarcastic statement of fact. Neither are automobiles, hammers, knives, clubs, broomsticks, axe handles, sledgehammers, tonka toys, shoes, dominos, baby clothes, lollipops, and pacifiers.

People are violent. Only living beings have the capability of becoming violent. When a violent person utilizes an object for a violent act, one's action doesn't affect the object's state of inanimation, but quite the contrary as it's state remains static within the known universe.

 

[Bunnykid68]

One of my shotguns was abusing my glock the other day. It's still very upset.

 

[lashicoN]

Nice first post.

A troll in the making do I smell?

Nope, not a troll, just a new INGO member. No mass conspiracy here, you can put your tinfoil hat back in your gun safe. This is what I was talking about a few weeks ago. The word troll is thrown out on INGO way too much and it drives new members away. I have to stick up for the OP, we live in a similar location.

I don't think anti gunners are "all" stupid, but the vast majority are either ignorant or extremely naive when it comes to gun use, ownership, shipping, and storage. A firearm is not alive, it cannot do anything on its own, proven by this scientific study. When something that is alive handles a firearm it can be used (coupled with the user) to do violent acts. Cars, alcohol, and cigarettes aren't violent either, but each of these singular items attribute to the deaths of more humans per year than firearm use does. Some liberals want to also ban alcohol and smoking, which is why I said the vast majority are just ignorant or naive, like we can keep people from ever dying. But there are some who I suspect simply truly hate freedom and everything that comes with it.

 

[Airborne33]

If guns are violent because they kill people, then planes, trains, and automobiles are weapons of mass destruction.

 

[ol' trucker]

I keep my guns locked up in a safe. and only let them out a couple times a year. they are so violent,I think they are institutionalized. maybe I should let them out more often. to soften them up a bit. but they just scare the family. darn violent firearms.

 

[finity]

The word troll is thrown out on INGO way too much and it drives new members away.

+1

I don't think anti gunners are "all" stupid, but the vast majority are either ignorant or extremely naive when it comes to gun use, ownership, shipping, and storage.

+1

Some liberals want to also ban alcohol and smoking,

I think there are some conservatives who want to do the same. Remember that time in history called "prohibition"? I don't think it was "liberals" who pushed the strongest for that.

 

[Duce]

I really don't think that all anti's are ignorant, just misguide. Instead of researching and studying a subject they prefer to be lead by the likes of Johnny Depp, Oprah, and others in the media. Who's only real talent is being able sensationalize a subject and twist the facts, to there own gain.
I was ask to speak to a group once and was asked what I was going to say, I answered "the Truth". Their reply was who's truth. This set me to thinking that now we have 2 truths so to speak, one that gives that warm fuzzy feeling or excites fear in some and makes their hand move to their wallet or one that is nothing more than the facts allowing us to make up our own mines. Sad part is that many people don't want to make up their mind, to take a side/stand for fear of either offending or being wrong, lead like sheep to slaughter...........Rant off.........Duce<><

 

[lashicoN]

+1




+1





I think there are some conservatives who want to do the same. Remember that time in history called "prohibition"? I don't think it was "liberals" who pushed the strongest for that.

Absolutely. Conservatives are all for "banning", just different things. They want to ban - immigration, pot, gay marriage, abortions, and many other things.

My point was only that some liberals want to ban smoking and alcohol too, because some of them truly believe that if you ban something, it goes away. Others, both conservative or liberal, do just hate the freedom to choose. You have to remember that during our revolutionary war, only 1/3 of our country "supported" the few who fought. 1/3 outright supported England and the final 1/3 just didn't really care. The 2/3 who didn't support freedom and independence are still Americans and are still alive and kicking today. Their great great great great great grandparents didn't support liberty in the 1700s, it's in their despotic loving DNA.

 

[finity]

Absolutely. Conservatives are all for "banning", just different things. They want to ban - immigration, pot, gay marriage, abortions, and many other things.

My point was only that some liberals want to ban smoking and alcohol too, because some of them truly believe that if you ban something, it goes away. Others, both conservative or liberal, do just hate the freedom to choose. You have to remember that during our revolutionary war, only 1/3 of our country "supported" the few who fought. 1/3 outright supported England and the final 1/3 just didn't really care. The 2/3 who didn't support freedom and independence are still Americans and are still alive and kicking today. Their great great great great great grandparents didn't support liberty in the 1700s, it's in their despotic loving DNA.

Ok, I can accept that.

Some people like to blame "liberals" for every ill in the world. Their short-sightedness & narrow minds are idiotic. Both sides have their negatives & I don't think I'd want to live in either sides idea of "utopia"...even though I think I could tolerate the liberal side a little more. Conservatism just doesn't sound like much fun to me. To each their own.

 

[lashicoN]

I'm conservative with some things and liberal with other things. More specifically, I'm neither a total liberal or total conservative, I'm simply pro freedom.

 

[buffalo-springfield40]

<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HNdIBZWhzO8"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HNdIBZWhzO8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>

 

[rambone]

Ok, I can accept that.

Some people like to blame "liberals" for every ill in the world. Their short-sightedness & narrow minds are idiotic. Both sides have their negatives & I don't think I'd want to live in either sides idea of "utopia"...even though I think I could tolerate the liberal side a little more. Conservatism just doesn't sound like much fun to me. To each their own.

I'm conservative with some things and liberal with other things. More specifically, I'm neither a total liberal or total conservative, I'm simply pro freedom.

I'm not sure how you view social spending and entitlements, Finity, but you guys both seem pretty libertarian to me. +1

Liberalism comes with a lot of baggage, which includes most of the anti-gun movement. Unfortunately for everyone. Typical democrats a generation ago didn't have this awful anti-gun mentality. An ideological movement has shifted their opinions.

 

[finity]

I'm conservative with some things and liberal with other things. More specifically, I'm neither a total liberal or total conservative, I'm simply pro freedom.

+1

 

[finity]

I'm not sure how you view social spending and entitlements, Finity, but you guys both seem pretty libertarian to me. +1

My views on social issues, including spending (with some limitations), are why I have generally considered myself a liberal. But (discounting social spending) libertarian is more technically correct, I guess. I liked Ron Paul (mostly) & voted for Perot, if that means anything. The vote for Perot could just mean that I'm cazy, though.

Liberalism comes with a lot of baggage, which includes most of the anti-gun movement. Unfortunately for everyone. Typical democrats a generation ago didn't have this awful anti-gun mentality. An ideological movement has shifted their opinions.

I don't think that, when the rubber hits the road, the anti-gun mentality is as strong with liberals as it once was.

Guns sales & gun licences have sky-rocketed. Not all of that can be accounted for by conservatives. We have a Democratic congress & prsident but there has been no overt signs of any new gun-control measures put in place. As a matter of fact we can now legally carry in National Parks, which was a law enacted by this congress/administration. Before it was just an administrative rule that could be changed on a whim by the the head of the NP service.

I'm not trying to say that all the Democratic leadership is pro-gun (or that their aren't a good amout of anti-gun liberals, either) but I think they realize that their base wouldn't be as willing to accept any more infringements on their gun rights. I think you can probably thank the Bush administration policies for that. Those 8 years really opened up the eyes of a lot of the previously anti-gun liberals to the dangers of an un-opposed government running rough-shod over our civil liberties.

 

[rambone]

My views on social issues, including spending (with some limitations), are why I have generally considered myself a liberal. But (discounting social spending) libertarian is more technically correct, I guess. I liked Ron Paul (mostly) & voted for Perot, if that means anything. The vote for Perot could just mean that I'm cazy, though.

Ok, here's the test.

Congressman Finity, how do you vote on the Health Care Reform Bill of 2010, yay or nay?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[finity]

Ok, here's the test.

Congressman Finity, how do you vote on the Health Care Reform Bill of 2010, yay or nay?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Not having read the actual bill & just going by summaries in the media (which I have no evidence to believe are misleading):

Health Care Reform Bill Summary: A Look At What's in the Bill - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

I would have no problem voting "yes".

Even with the recent economic turmoil (which every country is dealing with) we still live in one of the richest countries in the world. There is no reason why people have to die from preventable causes. Many problems, which if caught early, can be treated successfully & at a lower cost before they escalate to more serious issues.

The reason many (most?) poor pople don't get treated early is because they don't have money for "well" check-ups & pretentative doctor visits. If you have to decide to either eat or see the doctor for a not-as-yet serious illness...well, I think you can see the dilemma here.

Even without providing subsidies for premiums we still get charged for those more expensive treatments, anyway. Hospitals can't reject a patient with serious ailments for lack of ability to pay. They still treat those people anyway. Then when the people can't pay the bill (which obviously they can't or they would have bought the cheaper-than-a-huge-hospital-bill insurance) the hospital raises it's fees to recoup those losses from everyone else. I'd rather pay a little more now than a bunch more later. And, as I've said, the humanitarian side is just as important, if not moreso.

Medicare may not be the most efficiently run system (I know - understatement) but that & all the other government investment in medical care over the last several decades (research & developments grants, etc) has greatly improved the life expectancy of people. I don't know what your situation is but I think most people like having grandma & grandpa around for a few more years. Or even mom & dad.

I can really see few downsides to providing health coverage to the needy.

 

[JBusch8899]

Not having read the actual bill & just going by summaries in the media (which I have no evidence to believe are misleading):

Health Care Reform Bill Summary: A Look At What's in the Bill - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

CBS? Not a flame, but I'm questioning your judgment already.

 

[finity]

CBS? Not a flame, but I'm questioning your judgment already.

Like I said, I have no "evidence" to believe they aren't being truthful in their summary (i originally wrote "reason" in my post but changed it for obvious reasons). That link was just a quick and ready example, not the final authority. If you have any information that would lead me to think otherwise then post it up so that I can become more educated on the subject. I'm more than willing to listen to FACTUAL counter-arguments. If not then my judgement stands.