TBT posts wackjobs thoughts about guns

[Goop]

Oh and I'd rather an FA-18 anyday, fuck the Tomcat

[Funk]

Originally Posted by Goop

Why have SR20's and or new ZR1 Vettes makes 600+ hp? We cant legally do the top speed they can see unless we are on a track that is big enough so why have it?

ok, fuck. i have to agree now.

somebody give me an ak

[Cal]

Originally Posted by stangerang

this artilce was on page 19 of todays TBT -

why would they put shit like this in there - the guy is obviously crazy.

if they put BS like this in there, i want them to list my storys about sasquatch and the aliens i talk to behind walmart


WTF - can you say paranoid.

I actually sent this to them right after reading that this morniong


I must say as an avid reader of your paper I am disapointed that you would print the letter in question from Daniel Furin (10-23) regarding gun control. Everyone is indeed entitled to their opinion, but perhaps TBT* could take the proactive step of ensuring that the facts are true before publishing misinformation which will no doubt reach thousands of readers. Automatic weapons are, and have been illegal for years, the NRA is not arguing that these should be handed to every man, woman and child and they certainly aren't standing up for the rights of criminals. The one thing that sets us (law abiding citizens) apart from criminals is the fact that WE FOLLOW THE LAWS. Criminals commit CRIMES and they don't care if owning, carrying or firing a gun is illegal, a criminal will act in the same matter regardless of what the laws say. Obama voted in 1994 to allow the prosecution of persons who used firearms in their homes in self defense (SB2165).

How in the world can you support a person who is in favor of not only allowing a person to be a victim of a violent crime, but then supports the prosecution of that same person, effectively twice victimizing someone trying to defend themselves? The fear of guns is often one bred from ignorance and a life lived without the desire to educate one's self on the facts. Firearms in the hands of competent, law abiding citizens are not the guns one needs to worry about, and punishing or further regulating honest citizens is a misguided effort and a slap in the face to everyone who already plays by the rules.

[kender]

All the anti gun nuts out there making gun enthusiasts explain why we "need" any of it need to re-examine the constitution. I don't have to give a reason I need it IT'S A RIGHT. You need to give me a reason why I don't need it and how my owning it, shooting it at the range, keeping it in my car, concealing it on my body, hurts or infringes on anyone's rights. It doesn't, what hurts others is when the items are used illegally. It is not illegal to own a jump rope but it is illegal to strangle someone with it. If used legally the object itself is of no harm.


Looking at all those gun deaths, how many were by citizens legally armed and in self defense? How many were from illegally obtained and illegally used firearms. I would wager that a stunning majority were from illegal uses and of the 450 assault weapons deaths maybe a small handfull were from self defense.....the rest would be gang bangers with a backyard modified full auto.

The intent of the 2nd amendment is to keep what happened with the British government from repeating itself... in other words the people will always have the right to defend themselves from the army of the government should that government turn the army on it's citizens. Notice that the 2nd amendment doesn't say "Firearms" but rather "ARMS". Why is this? Most just assume it means firearms. Think about the time it was written, the days of swords, maces, pikes, and bows & arrows wasn't so far behind them. In the times before guns if you took up arms you grabbed one of the old medieval weapons. Given all the other verbiage the writers of the constitution used I am led to believe that they saw the possibility that the future would have different weapons than what they had......after all they had guns that were technologically superior to a bow and arrow. Did they know what the future of weapons would be? No, but they were smart enough to realize that weapons would change and the citizens of the future could not be stuck fighting advances in weaponry with a musket. So if the Arms of the day are full auto belt fed truck mounted machine guns then that is what the constitution is giving us the right to own.

I have no problem with requiring training before owning a group of weapons. Way back when, you grew up on a farm shooting a musket so by the time you were a young adult you knew how to not shoot your foot off. Today darwin's award winners look down the barrel of a gun and pull the trigger to see if it is loaded, so yes some training is needed. Also this import/manufacturing ban on full auto weapons is pure stupidity. How much money would the ATF rake in with $200 tax stamp if they let us drop a full auto trigger group into our semi-auto Ak's or Ar's? Instead of having to spend $13000 on transferable machine gun you spend $50 on the trigger group. The government would rake in tax stamps so fast they wouldn't be able to print out receipts fast enough.

[TampaNick]

Originally Posted by kender

Notice that the 2nd amendment doesn't say "Firearms" but rather "ARMS". Why is this? Most just assume it means firearms. Think about the time it was written, the days of swords, maces, pikes, and bows & arrows wasn't so far behind them

Sorry buddy but there were flint locks at this time. Swords yes, maces and pikes no, and only Indians used bow and arrows and maybe some woodsman.

[PPGMD]

kender,

Those 450 deaths include all rifles, not just the so called "assault weapons."

[TampaNick]

This reminds me of lewis black watch the entire thing the ending is the best!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6ene75RM3w

[Iroc Joe]

Originally Posted by TampaNick

Sorry buddy but there were flint locks at this time. Swords yes, maces and pikes no, and only Indians used bow and arrows and maybe some woodsman.

How is that relevant? Think about that. Computers and typewriters were not around either, but you have the same freedom of speech through them as a quill pen.

And now I will repost something I posted last week. This might take a little bit of time to sink in, so read it slowly. You were the one who pulled the history card, and now I'm going to bury you.

In 1791 people shot animals on their property to feed their families. Bear, deer, pig, squirrel, etc. Also, people regularly used .50 caliber and higher rifles to shoot bear, deer, wolf, etc. that would destroy their farms or livestock. There was no Publix supermarket people could run to to purchase meat. To disarm a person's hunting rifle would literally be a death sentence in those days as that would remove their ability to protect their farm from predators and remove their ability to put food on the table for their family. With this in mind, do you REALLY believe the Second Amendment has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with hunting? No, it does not. It protects a person's right to bear military arms.

Why don't you research the Congressional proceedings of the first United States Congress in 1789? Madison introduced the Bill of Rights because he was under obligation to the voters he promised them to during the ratification debates. The Bill of Rights was a compromise promised to the anti-federalists in return for their support in ratifying the Constitution. One of the cornerstones of the importance of the Second Amendment is protection from a standing army, regarded by many in 1789 (guys like Patrick Henry and Noah Webster, ever hear of them?) as the very definition of Tyranny itself.

Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist 29:

The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

However, because he knew without the voters of the state of New York (yeah, we were fucking awesome even in 1789), ratification would never occur so he elaborated:

What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

As I said earlier, this is one of the cornerstones of the Second Amendment, and it was a compromise to the voters to ensure they would have MILITIA arms to fight a standing army. Therefore your argument is a moot point, considering the right to own military arms is constitutionally protected. Military arms have evolved since 1791, and that doesn't make them any less protected regardless of how ignorant people have become.

[BAMF]

Originally Posted by Funk

exactly my point, if you can kill with that... why the fuck do ya need something more powerful?

Good spin, but let me spin it back on you.

Because the constitituon says "I can have guns". Not "I can have some guns". And you have no valid reason why I can't have high powered guns (the other poster was right, by the way. Animals have tougher hides and thicker/denser bones sometimes and we need higher powered rifles to effectively kill them.) since you agreed, no matter what gun I have I can easily kill you with it. thus, even a .380 poses the same risk to you as a .500. That risk being a mortal risk. So again, you aren't really using logic here to arrive at a conclusion.

[Iroc Joe]

Originally Posted by BAMF

Good spin, but let me spin it back on you.

Because the constitituon says "I can have guns". Not "I can have some guns". And you have no valid reason why I can't have high powered guns (the other poster was right, by the way. Animals have tougher hides and thicker/denser bones sometimes and we need higher powered rifles to effectively kill them.) since you agreed, no matter what gun I have I can easily kill you with it. thus, even a .380 poses the same risk to you as a .500. That risk being a mortal risk. So again, you aren't really using logic here to arrive at a conclusion.

Nobody who has ever argued against civilian ownership of firearms has been able to form a logical argument to support their stance. They just become a nuisance after a while and you wonder how the public school system could have failed so badly.

[TampaNick]

Originally Posted by Iroc Joe

How is that relevant? Think about that. Computers and typewriters were not around either, but you have the same freedom of speech through them as a quill pen.

I was not saying it is relevant i was just correcting him. Pilgrims were using flint locks not maces and bow and arrows. I agree with you

[Iroc Joe]

Originally Posted by TampaNick

I was not saying it is relevant i was just correcting him. Pilgrims were using flint locks not maces and bow and arrows. I agree with you

Oh, OK. Sorry. Direct my asshole-ness towards whoever doesn't grasp the concept of the Second Amendment.

[kender]

Originally Posted by TampaNick

I was not saying it is relevant i was just correcting him. Pilgrims were using flint locks not maces and bow and arrows. I agree with you

Go back and re-read what was posted, not just the words you want to but the whole sentence........"Think about the time it was written, the days of swords, maces, pikes, and bows & arrows wasn't so far behind them." Let me break it down for you........"it" is the bill of rights. "the days of swords, maces, pikes, and bows & arrows" refers to a time when these were used. "wasn't so far behind them" is stating that the days (of previously mentioned weapons) were not that far behind, as in the past. Taken all together this sentence states that a time when "Arms" did not include guns was not that far in the past...... Bone up on reading comprehension. You didn't correct me since I never stated that the colonists (NOT the pilgrims, a slightly earlier period of settlers) used medieval weaponry.

[kender]

Originally Posted by PPGMD

kender,

Those 450 deaths include all rifles, not just the so called "assault weapons."

That is part of the point I was making. Of the 450 rifle related deaths how many were from a legal ownership of the "EVIL" rifles? Any death attributed to the assault rifle has a >95% chance of being linked to illegal ownership, not collectors/hunters/weekend plinkers.

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

Originally Posted by Funk

exactly my point, if you can kill with that... why the fuck do ya need something more powerful?

It isn't a matter of need it's a matter of want and the freedom to pursue those wants as in - "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - the Declaration of Independence.

If you are gonna create laws based on need then we are in for a boring life.

[TampaNick]

Originally Posted by kender

Go back and re-read what was posted, not just the words you want to but the whole sentence........"Think about the time it was written, the days of swords, maces, pikes, and bows & arrows wasn't so far behind them." Let me break it down for you........"it" is the bill of rights. "the days of swords, maces, pikes, and bows & arrows" refers to a time when these were used. "wasn't so far behind them" is stating that the days (of previously mentioned weapons) were not that far behind, as in the past. Taken all together this sentence states that a time when "Arms" did not include guns was not that far in the past...... Bone up on reading comprehension. You didn't correct me since I never stated that the colonists (NOT the pilgrims, a slightly earlier period of settlers) used medieval weaponry.

Let me break something down for your dumbass.... at the time of the bill of rights/constitution guns existed so the right to bear arms is actually referring to guns. So why the fuck are you talking about medieval weaponry you are way off here and it is completely irrevelent to what the topic is so fuck off. I may need to work on my comprehension but you need to work on your intelligence.

[Goop]

I bet a gun will jump up and kill someone tomorrow, then go back to resting peacefully like they always do!

[kender]

Originally Posted by TampaNick

Let me break something down for your dumbass.... at the time of the bill of rights/constitution guns existed so the right to bear arms is actually referring to guns. So why the fuck are you talking about medieval weaponry you are way off here and it is completely irrevelent to what the topic is so fuck off. I may need to work on my comprehension but you need to work on your intelligence.

Even after admitting you need to work on comprehension you still didn't go back and re-read the post......who's the dumb ass? I explained why they used the word "ARMS" and not "Firearms", which does relate to the medieval weaponry since the word "Arms" when used as in reference to weaponry is subjective to the time period in which you are referring. ARMS can refer to star wars type laser blasters, Rail guns, full auto SAWs, Single action revolvers, black powder muzzle loaders, flint locks, or swords and mauls. ARMS is a temporally ambiguous word that can live and grow with the constitution, as it was intended to last the lifetime of this country.

The next time you want to try to bash on someone's intelligence make sure your shit is straight first. I know it's hard to get your mind to focus and not worry about wiping the drool off your chin but at least try to act as if your I.Q. hits the triple digits.

[TampaDude]

Originally Posted by Zealot

Because the TBT is as much a credible news souce as the weekly planet. It's a leftist TMZesque rag.

+1 TBT is a seething cauldron of leftist hippie douchebaggery.

[TampaDude]

Originally Posted by BAMF

And armor piercing ammunition is less deadly than other types of ammunition when fired at a regular unarmored human being. The more you know.

Yup...true AP ammo will go right through a person, leaving a minimal wound channel.