Skip to main content

View Diary: House on NY "Gun Owner" map burglarized, gunnies whine more (282 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well......actually it doesn't (11+ / 0-)

    but I have become fond of that line.....

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:43:04 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I've never been at fault in a car wreck (3+ / 0-)

      so I should cancel my auto insurance.

      otoh - the primary purpose of guns is to KILL - and gun insurance should be a requirement.

      "Tax cuts for the 1% create jobs." -- Republicans, HAHAHA - in China

      by MartyM on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:03:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The only killing going on with the guns we (13+ / 0-)

        and our friends and family own are deer and pheasants and the occasional clay pigeon.

        The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die. ~ Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy

        by cherie clark on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:17:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the potential is there, though (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wilderness voice, splashy, Sandino

          every gun, and gun owner, can easily kill people

          •  Every man is POTENTIALLY a RAPIST!!!!! (14+ / 0-)

            Same exact faux-logical-like product.

            LAME.

            The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

            by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 07:59:58 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  exaggerated, but still technically true (4+ / 0-)

              Gun owners have the power to kill and no amount of honor, discipline, or friendship will change that.  Just as no woman wants to simply trust that the men in her life won't get angry and decide to rape her, the rest of us don't want to have to trust that gun owners won't get angry and decide we need to die.

              Yes yes, like the woman fearing the possibility of rape, we can just buy a gun ... but who wants to live in a society with an arms race going on: where the only way to be safe is to have more guns, bigger guns, and an itchier trigger finger than anyone else?  Who wants to live in a society where the peace is kept by some Cold War-esque balance of terror?

              Something's wrong when the bad guys are the utopian ones.

              by Visceral on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:02:12 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  In this case, "technically true" is synonomous (6+ / 0-)

                with "truly stupid".

                Sure you can TECHNICALLY make such a ridiculous statement but you'd REALLY have to be STOOOOOOO-PID to truly believe it or get all pushy about it because most people will see that's ...well.... just stupid.

                And your logic is unassailable:

                Just as no woman wants to simply trust that the men in her life won't get angry and decide to rape her, the rest of us don't want to have to trust that gun owners won't get angry and decide we need to die.
                When is my booze-soaked neighbor finally going to hit me or somebody else with his car?

                All those people....drinking at bars every night.... drunk driving is being reduced ever so slightly every year but still, you never know, that alcohol-addicted lush could hit somebody I know or that you know.

                But you know what? I am told that most alcohol consumers are fairly responsible and DON'T get arrested or cuaght for drunk driving and don't kill people when they drink.

                But they always could.

                We should ban alcohol because it is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE somebody could get hurt because some irresponsible boozer loses it.

                Far better EVERYBODY be banned from becoming intoxicated so that we can have a safer place to live.

                We can't be too safe.

                The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

                by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:16:59 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I've got no problem w/ banning alcohol and cars (0+ / 0-)

                  I can think of a million reasons why they're bad for everyone and why getting rid of them would not only make us safer, but healthier and happier.

                  But then I actually want to fix problems instead of sweeping them under the "freedom" rug.  You might be prepared to take the risk, but who are you to make other people take it?

                  Something's wrong when the bad guys are the utopian ones.

                  by Visceral on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:28:22 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well.... intellectual powerhouse, you are. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cherie clark, Neuroptimalian
                    You might be prepared to take the risk, but who are you to make other people take it?
                    You really assume that If I owned a real gun its merely a calculatable period of time before I go kill somebody?

                    God.....is that stoooooooooooooooooooooopid, or whut?

                    I'm not making you take a risk by owning my own gun.

                    it's not my fault if you worry yourself into having hemorrhoids about it: it is ENTIRELY your issue.

                    If and when I buy the little side-by-side shotguns I want for home defense, you won't be any less safe nor any closer to death's door. You won't even know. (Unless you intend to burgle.....at which point you would likely be advised of their presence.)

                    But you'll probably be down there in your house, worrying yourself sick.

                    Because you have assumed something really really stupid.

                    You make the same argument with cars....odd.

                    You might be prepared to take the risk, but who are you to make other people take it?
                    You know.....cars being sold are at the core of our economy: and there are bars EVERYWHERE serving alcohol: you;re entire life is just one massive pit of DANGER.

                    I am actually going to START ONE in a little while and DRIVE IT out on the highway and go home!

                     Horrifying.

                    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

                    by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 12:00:10 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  laws can't make exceptions for good people (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      shaharazade

                      anymore than freedoms can make exceptions for bad people.  Even if you are the most careful drinker, driver, and gun owner in the world, there are plenty of people who are not.  The laws exist to control them, while the rest of us give up freedoms that we never planned on exercising anyway: like the freedom to drive drunk or the freedom to shoot people for reasons society does not approve of.

                      I'm not arguing that it's only a matter of time before you personally kill someone with your gun; I'm arguing that it's only a matter of time before someone kills someone else with a gun, and not necessarily for a justifiable reason.  But far more importantly, I'm arguing that neither you, nor I, nor anyone has the right to say to that person who dies that they're acceptable losses.  

                      Maybe you're ready to die for the Second Amendment, but I am not and I imagine that most people aren't either.

                      Something's wrong when the bad guys are the utopian ones.

                      by Visceral on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 12:22:38 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Not exactly, many states hold the bar owner and (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Robobagpiper

                        servers liable as well as private individuals if they allow someone to over imbibe to the point of drunkeness and that person then causes property damage or a death as a result.  A lot of people have already died to protect the 2nd amendment. I can not understand why you can't grasp that the vast majority of gun deaths are from illegal weapons, gang bangers and drug wars and what have you, NOT responsible gun owners who hunt or target shoot.  

                        The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die. ~ Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy

                        by cherie clark on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 01:32:32 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Point of issue. (0+ / 0-)

                        Laws are not about controlling people, because they don't have that power. Rather, laws are about codifying people's behaviors so they can be punished after the fact (if they get caught in violation).

          •  So can every knife, every (11+ / 0-)

            baseball bat, every arrow, every car... every stick and every stone. Why aren't you up in arms (pun intended) about those?

            •  My grandma's ice pick (9+ / 0-)

              that I keep at ready by the door is a scary fucker. Perhaps I should register it???

              "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

              by high uintas on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 09:21:21 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  knives, baseball bats, cars.... (3+ / 0-)

              aren't specifically designed in the U.S. to kill - but guns are.

              "Tax cuts for the 1% create jobs." -- Republicans, HAHAHA - in China

              by MartyM on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:44:28 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Of course they are just not from a distance. (3+ / 0-)

                The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die. ~ Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy

                by cherie clark on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:00:27 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  And as a tool designed to kill (5+ / 0-)

                guns are pretty darned useful. But if you've a mind to kill someone or some other living critter, you don't actually have to have the proper tool for the job. Lots and lots of other tools would serve as well, depending on how close you have to be, and how well you know what kind of strikes do the killing. I mean, the gazillions of stock abattoirs in this country don't use guns to do the killing. Primarily because guns are messy, ammo is expensive on a large scale, and other, more useful up-close means have been invented for use. Those too can be used against humans, but seldom are (except of course for knives).

                I could kill a rabid coon or skunk with an arrow from a distance - either from the pistol-action mini-crossbow or from the longbow. If I were a really good shot and the animal stayed still for me. But since I'm not going to eat a rabid coon or skunk, and a wounded as well as rabid coon or skunk is even more dangerous than it was before, I prefer the shotgun. Makes a mess, but from a safe distance it'll definitely kill the critter quickly without dependence on perfect aim and access.

                Not that rabid critters are the only needful use for a tool designed to kill (more than just maim, though that is a possibility). It's just a use I have encountered in my life for which I was glad I had the proper tool. For killing pit vipers a gun is not the best or most reliable tool. I have machetes, hoes, an impressive-looking bank scythe, swords and shovels.

              •  Bows and arrows and crossbows... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Joieau, cherie clark, Robobagpiper

                ...are specifically designed to kill, as are blades that aren't useful for another purpose (like a sword).

                If "designed to kill" is the only standard required for a given device to be banned, shouldn't those devices be banned as well?

                "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                by JamesGG on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:59:52 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I've got many other tools (2+ / 0-)

                  for maintenance of my property than those. Also have two chainsaws and a DR (you know you're a Plugger if your mower costs more than your truck). That'll mulch the hell out of pit vipers, let me tell you. As well as timber rattlers and a host of non-poisonous snakes I don't want to kill (but sometimes do). Not even to mention the maul, sledgehammer, axes, or any other potentially lethal implements of destruction I own.

                  For my needs - admittedly as far out in the wilderness as citizens are allowed to live - the shotgun is the best choice of tool for some applications I have encountered. I know not to use it against bears, it'll just make 'em mad and cause infections that will make them more aggressive and dangerous. So it's limited to a certain size range of varmint I may have responsibility for killing (humans happen to fall within that range). I'm just saying that killing is a legitimate use for which tools are developed. Including guns.

                  Killing other humans with them, apart from specific circumstances, is and has always been illegal. That has not stopped people from killing other people with guns any more than making marijuana illegal has stopped people from buying and using marijuana. No one is justified under the law. I read that somewhere... Something about law being a code of specifieds subject to judgment because simply making something illegal doesn't stop people from doing things illegal. In heart, mind or action. Hence specified punishments for infractions everybody knows will happen...

                •  "Designed to kill" isn't their target because (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  theatre goon

                  of efficacy. It's because they're trying to criminalize mean thoughts.

                  Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                  by Robobagpiper on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 03:26:04 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  that's what I wrote.... (4+ / 0-)
          the primary purpose of guns is to KILL
          - whether it be animals or people.

          "Tax cuts for the 1% create jobs." -- Republicans, HAHAHA - in China

          by MartyM on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:45:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with having insurance (0+ / 0-)

        That covers if the gun is stolen, along with any damages caused by the gun.

        Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

        by splashy on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:55:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site