"The Gun Nuts"

[Kraven251]

I got told today by a former friend that "my people" were the problem with America. That in the aftermath of all of these shootings the only thing the firearm community was worried about was losing their guns.

I calmly explained to him that the first reaction of 99% of the community was pure outrage. Outrage that no one was armed in these places, nor trained, and that people failed to act. The simple fact that people didn't have to die was our first and foremost response. He hit me with the violence begets violence bullshit, and I realized "fuck you"

I just don't get it, people want to blame everything that they think they can control, but then want to remove the very catalyst for controlling a volatile situation. Compared to some I think I am a pretty middle of the road guy, but these conversations make me wonder what the fuck are we trying to protect.

I am just so enraged at the level of arrogance and ignorance, how do you talk to someone that doesn't even want to attempt to understand a differing opinion. /rant off

[KevDen2005]

Well you're new to the forum so maybe you don't know.

I give your rant a 1 out of 10. Not very heated. Not enough cussing. For the most party pretty civilized, which is the very thing a rant usually isn't.

[Bailey Guns]

I dunno...I thought it was pretty good. The only problem I can see is you admit to being "middle of the road". There is no middle of the road when it comes to your liberties.

The judge from Bailey gives the rant a solid 7.

[Ridge]

There is no middle of the road when it comes to your liberties.

Do you think felons should be able to have guns? People who have abused their spouses? People who are mentally ill?

[Great-Kazoo]

You should have told your stupid fukin friends they are fukin idiots. IF and when a threat ever arose they would more than likely call you or another gun owner. Also inform them with their head up their collective ass it would be a miracle if none of them was able to reproduce thus bringing more of the same stupid intellect in to this world.

THAT'S HOW YOU SHOULD HAVE RESPONDED, Then enjoy the lamentations of their women.

[KevDen2005]

Do you think felons should be able to have guns? People who have abused their spouses? People who are mentally ill?

My personal opinion on the "People who abuse their spouses" part. I make numerous arrests for domestic violence and in many cases are misdemeanor and not violent. I refer to them as Harassment-DV arrests. I also call them BS. The "I didn't want him touching me" when he brushed against her, or the some of the many BS phrases that fall under harassment because it is such a vague law. I think the DV advocates are out to make money more than they are out to actually help battered women. In these cases I don't believe a person's rights should be removed when they committed a non-violent misdemeanor, especially when a gun wasn't even part of the equation. However, under our current system, a conviction under these circumstances removes their rights. Just my opinion.

[Kraven251]

You should have told your stupid fukin friends they are fukin idiots. IF and when a threat ever arose they would more than likely call you or another gun owner. Also inform them with their head up their collective ass it would be a miracle if none of them was able to reproduce thus bringing more of the same stupid intellect in to this world.

THAT'S HOW YOU SHOULD HAVE RESPONDED, Then enjoy the lamentations of their women.

You sir are my hero.

[Sharpienads]

Do you think felons should be able to have guns? People who have abused their spouses? People who are mentally ill?

I'm not sure what this has to do with what you quoted from BG, but there is a big difference from an individual being denied a right after due process has been applied and stripping freedoms away from a group of people because of the actions of an individual. We can discuss due process and how it is applied, what it applies to, etc, but the bottom line is in a civil society some people's rights will be denied them after they have proven they can't handle freedom. But when people are treated as individuals, as they should be, the actions of some should not affect the liberties of others. That is where BG is saying there should be no middle ground. At least, that's how I took it.

[Ridge]

I'm not sure what this has to do with what you quoted from BG, but there is a big difference from an individual being denied a right after due process has been applied and stripping freedoms away from a group of people because of the actions of an individual. We can discuss due process and how it is applied, what it applies to, etc, but the bottom line is in a civil society some people's rights will be denied them after they have proven they can't handle freedom. But when people are treated as individuals, as they should be, the actions of some should not affect the liberties of others. That is where BG is saying there should be no middle ground. At least, that's how I took it.

I'm simply pointing out that we all agree there are some people who should not have guns. And that IS middle ground.

[Great-Kazoo]

You sir are my hero.

We don't need another hero.
Now man up, get back in touch with your loser former friends and set them straight.

Or let me put it to you in real time terms.
It took the loss of my brother (12/31/11 ) for the 40% of my family, who were not really gun friendly, to realize YES more RESPONSIBLE people should have guns, be armed. Until some folks get hit by that cold hard slap of reality, they live in a world where nothing can harm them, IGNORANT to the real world outside their brain.