At risk of being called OP, whatever/whoever that is... I am a big gun enthusiast. Have always had them. Some are family heirlooms, some I use to hunt and some I use in competitive shooting. Also have one or two for security. I get A LOT of shit from people about gun control how it is killing kids, etc. These same people support abortion. How can you be in favor of abortion and still want to regulate guns? It seems abortions are killing many times more children than guns ever will?
[quote] At risk of being called OP
You fucking idiot.
If you're so fucking trigger happy, OP, why don't you and your fellow gun enthusiasts just point the gun at your own fucking heads. Bingo, problem solved.
If only the fetus had a gun...
OP, you win this year's stupid award.
We as a society separate (increasingly harder to do) church and religious beliefs from state. Science tells us that like a tumor, or a cyst, a fetus relies solely on the host to survive. At such time as the fetus is viable on it's own outside of the womb (I think around 6 months), we then consider it a person with full protection under law. If you believe otherwise, it's not based in fact but in fiction and you would have the right to not have an abortion. Under law (at least for a little while longer) the fetus is part of a woman's body and she has the right to do with it as she will. Guns, like cars, can be dangerous in the wrong hands and kill people. We have controls in place to assure that a car driver gets education, is tracked and monitored, licensed, insured and then only is the right exercised - only because the right for people to expect reasonable protection overrides the right of the car driver. This is how it should be with guns. The 2nd amendment was written at a time when people came up to your door with a gun in hand - most probably a musket - it simply does not apply anymore. Yes I think people should own guns for protection and hunting with reasonable controls in place to assure responsible use, but semi-automatic weapons, no - I don't agree - they were made for one thing and one thing only - I'm sure you would not like to see people be able to purchase grenades, missiles, nuclear war heads, surface to air launchers -ect. because in the wrong hands these things could cause massive loss of life - how then is this different from an assault weapon?
I'm not even wasting my time answering such a stupid question.
Proves my point - there is no logic in the argument if this is all you can come up with. Thank you!
R1 - new to this "discussion forum" and probably not here long. Didn't know what OP stands for, but thanks for helping you worthless cunt.
A headless cat with Down's Syndrome could work out what OP means in 5 seconds.
Put one of your heirlooms to good use and kill yourself. You have dishonoured yourself.
Luckily I don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out what bitter queens think or deciphering the acronyms they create.
You are an idiot, OP. The response in R5 answered your stupidity with far more insight and intelligence than you deserve. You just don't like the answer. Take a critical thinking class. It will do wonders for your worldview and understanding.
Your guns affect other peoples bodies. My uterus has no effect on your body.
[quote]new to this "discussion forum" and probably not here long.
Don't let the door hit you in the butt, idiot.
R5 - the problem with the current gun control debates is they are using the use of pistols in a school to attack assault rifles. They are doing NOTHING to address the root problem (1) stigma of admitting and being treated for mental health in this country (2) The violence that is rampant in our entertainment industry despite the fact those cunts (Matt Damon) are big gun control advocates. Mr. Damon - donate profits from your Bourne movies to gun control and I'll listen to you and (3) violent video games. People are desensitized to guns and their true effect where I was brought up with a profound respect of their power. A gun by itself has never hurt anyone.
R13 - the demon seed your uterus produces will actually have a lot of impact on people. Maybe you should have a license to use your uterus?
R16, straw man maker. If she DOESN'T use her uterus to procreate then she's clearly off the hook in your book, right? or are you not that smart to think in both scenarios?
You've repeated all the typical freeper talking points. The mental illness awareness is used to vamp so nobody will talk about guns. Suggesting the entertainment industry is to blame offers no solutions- censorship would infringe on freedom of speech, and there's already rating systems, what else can filmmakers and games producers do?
Why haven't you left yet?
Interesting idea, R16, but I'm looking at the first level "your laws/my body" implications.
Would there be a test, like for a driver license?
I love liberals with an agenda. Shooting fish in a barrel!!!
Why not? That could help with birth control, preventing unwanted pregnancies and the subsequent murders, oops abortions, child abuse, etc. The more we allow govt to regulate one thing the more it sets legal precedence for them to regulate everything
LOL a LOT of abortion loving dykes here. I own guns and so many of my gay friends.
OP, "OP" is a common acronym in use on the internet, not just on this forum. It is not an insult. Being new here is no excuse for such arrogant stupidity.
I won't bother telling you what it means, since you haven't bothered to ask.
Guns don't kill people. Violent video games and movies kill people. Right.
As far as increasing access for mental health services, most, if not all, gun control advocates would agree with you. Unfortunately, thanks to Republicans who oppose gun control laws, there isn't the funding for accessible mental health services in this country (a trend that started under Ronald Reagan). If mental health is a concern now for the NRA and its supporters, maybe we can expect them to endorse gun control laws that require an extensive psychological evaluation before being allowed to purchase a gun? Didn't think so.
Most of us in the NRA would back checks if you don't regulate types of guns. Get your news from another venue besides the current administration
R24. My point, lost on a goldfish, is people are desensitized - its not a movie or a game when you pick up a gun.
Femme les, you couldn't even spell feminine on one of the other threads. You're a freeper cunt. Go get raped then see how your opinion on abortion changes.
In 2011 there were just over 8,500 deaths in the U.S. caused by firearms.
In 2011 there were just over 32,300 deaths in traffic accidents in the U.S.
So by your reasoning, OP, we should be first outlawing abortion and then outlawing cars and trucks, as volume is the only basis for making a reasonable decision about legislation.
R23. I did ask. I typically don't use forums. I don't enjoy the more pedestrian portions of mankind and tend to limit exposure. Thankfully, gated communities are still legal!
R27. Better yet, give us your address
OP stands for Original Poster.
None of the wastoid losers on DL will ever tell you that even though they have nothing to do all day every day is post snarky comments here. Don't let them bother you, OP.
R25, so support for psych evaluations and thus public safety is conditional to your demands and only if the types of guns are left unregulated? Thinking like a true terrorist. ;)
No, by gun control logic we should be limiting. I shouldn't have my F250, because others drive a Prius right?
My guns, my business.
'Cause it's all about you, OP.
R31. Thank you
You don't use forums, but you paid $18 to join this one so quickly?
R34. No. It is about our country and our constitution being used as a doormat.
[quote] they have nothing to do all day every day is post snarky comments here.
And yet here you are, r31.
OP is still lurking but hasn't answer my question.
R2, waiting for a daisy chain of gun nuts
Gun control vs abortion
Apples vs oranges
[quote]I did ask.
In Russia, the average woman has 10 abortions.
In America, the average woman doesn't even have ONE abortion.
All this blather about abortions in America is absurd. Religious nuts carry on about it as if we have Russia's situation here. We don't.
So, let me get this right, OP. Your right to carry a weapon anywhere anytime trumps a woman's right to control her own body?
[quote]In 2011 there were just over 8,500 deaths in the U.S. caused by firearms.
[quote]In 2011 there were just over 32,300 deaths in traffic accidents in the U.S.
R28, you are either misinformed or you are a liar. Can you explain yourself?
Fact: In 2011, there were 32,163 deaths in the U.S. caused by firearms.
Abortions have, hands down, killed more people in the united states than guns.
Let's take this from another angle. Freedom of religion is provided in the constitution. Suppose at some point the government looked back through history and decided Catholicism started more wars, resulted in more people being oppressed and subsequently more deaths. With this information they decided to outlaw Catholicism.
Does that accurately address a problem, or does it laser focus on something symptomatic of a larger issue?
R41 Is this the only thread you are on?
R2 - because we have the fucking sense to know what a gun does. You are a goddamned moron and hopefully will drown in your cereal bowl.
R44 - how many were suicides vs murders? Someone who is suicidal is going to use any means possible, as with most murderers. Factor out suicides.
Now we are REALLY grasping at straws. Judging by the pro-gun nuts posting in this thread, it's obvious why the NRA opposes psych evaluations as a means of gun control: half their membership would be disqualified from being able to own one.
It's much more American to control a uterus than to control guns.
R47, like most gun nuts, has anger management issues, and thus, should never own a gun.
Well, that and a tiny dick.
The anger didn't seem to come from the gun control side? Which side suggested murder and suicide?
OP, you came in here with a firmly entrenched opinion under the guise of an honest question. You had no intention of allowing yourself to be challenged or even think about the issue. Like most Freepers, you came here just to be contentious and stir up drama.
R5 gave you a reasonable reply, and you predictably disregarded it. Big surprise.
And spare us all the fake concern for all the contributing causes of gun violence. I would tend to agree that mental health is as big of an issue as gun accessibility, but you cunting freepers don't want adequate mental health access in the US either. You oppose socialized medicine, support corporations whose health benefits dwindle more and more every year, and believe insurance companies should have the right to deny myriad coverages on a whim without government being able to say squat about it.
Just admit you are only interested in civil rights when it directly affects you personally (your arsenal of unnecessary weapons), while trampling the rights of anyone else (women, racial minorities, gays, non-Christians, etc.).
But don't come in here and pretend to care about having a logical dialogue about anything.
R54 Much like yourself - I guess I only conform when it fits the world as I see it.
R53 - I'm not sure I ever mentioned my views on healthcare. Double cancer survivor so that might surprise your cunt judgmental ass. I lived because I had the means. While I am grateful, I do not pretend to think it is fair. Please go have a few rounds of chemo and call me when you are crying you fucking prick.
I say do away with the 2nd amendment. It was founded on slavery and racism. Yes, the militia's were formed to keep slaves in line so the South wouldn't lose the backbone of it's economy. Slave labor. In order to get the constitution approved by Southern states, we invented the 2nd amendment.
r15 - rubbish plain and simple. Evidence to gun controls reducing or eliminating gun deaths is absolutely indisputable. The data is exhaustive in the sheer amount of it alone as so many modern societies on our planet have such controls. The NRA is backed by people who gain the most by having people purchase guns - the opposition has nothing to gain, doesn't that make you the least bit suspicious? Of course there is no perfect answer, and yes people will have to give up some privacy and freedom - it happens - let me guess, you're perfectly patient and compliant with the fact that you now go to the airport 2 hours before your departure, stand in line for an hour and take your shoes off for public safety because ONE person unsuccessfully tried to smuggle an ineffective bomb on board a plane in his sneaker but you don't want someone to have a simple background check and waiting period to buy a gun? that's because you believe a bomb on a plane could hurt you, but perhaps not a gun - that's lack of empathy and arrogance pure and simple
R56, I'm coming for you!
Question for the helpful dears who defined OP: What's a troll?
Maybe if we really do address access to and improvement of mental health treatment, traumatized, paranoid people like the OP can have a fair chance at a normal life.
R44, since you put it so graciously, I am plainly misinformed. I apologize. Maybe I'll shoot myself as penance.
Fuuuuck. The cunts in this place.
R56. Beat you twice and will win again. Bring it
R61. I have never asked to curb your rights. Afford me the same respect
I "afford" what is in the best interest of all citizens and that is swift mental health treatment to help people such as yourself calm their outrageous, persistent sense of vulnerability.
Didn't you hear, R65? The OP will only support mental health screening for guns once all guns are made legal. His support for saving lives is conditional, much like most of his morals. In other words, he is a true conservative.
OK OP (obvious prick?), I'll play.
1) Why does a private citizen need a fucking machine gun???
2) You have the right to decide what to do with your own body/life. Abortion affords that right to women up to the stage that a fetus cold be considered viable outside the womb. If you take away that right do you think society will benefit from the subsequent increase in the number of babies born to young/poor/uneducated/unemployed women?
Why is it freeper trolls profess to care deeply about 'unborn children' but would do nothing but demonise and despise many of them and their mothers after birth?
"Why does a private citizen need a fucking machine gun???"
Why do wealthy, white men, like OP and most other NRA members, feel the need to own any kid of gun.
I'm 60, white and live in the suburbs, the same demographic as most NRA members, and yet somehow I don't feel the need to own firearms. What is up with that?
Face it OP, you live in a country where guns will be regulated. We live in a country where, for the good of society, regulations will be put in place. This is what keeps us from being considered a 3rd world country.
If this is not something you can live with, you should seriously consider moving to a country where you can own guns, and no one will interfere with that right. The US is not that country and never will be.
r27, bulldyke go shave your face
r69, that will cause a revolution!
OP is a cookie-clearing fool!
If false equivalencies like this thread are the strongest talking points for the NRA, then you better hide your guns, because they will be confiscated.
WHET the OP?
No child is killed in an abortion.
A fetus is not a child.
[quote]Abortions have, hands down, killed more people in the united states than guns.
No they haven't. Not a single human being has been killed by an abortion. A fetus is not a human being. It's a fucking fetus. Embryo. Blastula. In 90% of the cases, its' indistinguishable from a tadpole. Grow the fuck up, you simplistic, simpleton moron.
If your argument is that an abortion snuffs out one potential human being, then I really hope you're against masturbation, which snuffs out literally MILLIONS of potential human beings. How far do you want to carry such an idiotic line of logic?
[quote]Face it OP, you live in a country where guns will be regulated.
I've seen a lot of stupid shit on DL but your post takes the cake. All of the debate going on right now at a national level is double talk.
Just look at Harry Reid. He won't back Feinsteins bill right now, and he's certainly not alone.
R68 - good for you, you don't feel the need to own a gun. Well I'm 48, gay, live in the burbs, yet I own 9mm Ruger. I enjoy target practice, and also feel safer in my house.
Just because you don't feel the need to own a gun, please don't try and take away my right.
[quote]Why do wealthy, white men, like OP and most other NRA members, feel the need to own any kid of gun.
i agree. I don't own one and nor does anyone I know.
[quote]Well I'm 48, gay, live in the burbs, yet I own 9mm Ruger. I enjoy target practice, and also feel safer in my house.
My, what a special little snowflake you are.
If you had three functioning brain cells in your head, you'd realize that nobody's talking about taking your precious 9mm Ruger away from you. The current discussions involve banning semi-automatics, which most sane humans should be able to get behind.
Smarter trolls, please.
One of the really interesting things about the gun control debate is that most people seem to accept without question that it's perfectly okay for hunters to use guns. But my question is, what kind of a person gets enjoyment from killing an animal? And can we not assume that anyone who enjoys doing so is a disturbed individual?
I'm sure some people are going to argue that anyone (like me) who eats meat or poultry or, for that matter, fish is hypocritical in attacking people who hunt for sport or even for food. But I'm sorry -- killing animals yourself, when you don't have to (and very few people DO have to), is to me indicative that the hunter has something wrong with him/her.
[quote]My, what a special little snowflake you are.
Why thank you sweetie, back at ya!
[quote]Smarter trolls, please.
I so enjoy folks who thrive on trying to pick out a troll. You lost here sunshine.
I have plenty of functioning brain cells, too bad the same can’t be said for you. Just a suggestion learn a little about a topic before you go flapping your gums. It makes you look stupid, just like here.
My Ruger is a semi-automatic. Current discussions revolve around banning assault style weapons including magazines that allow more than 10 bullets.
[quote]nobody’s taking about taking away…
Go back and read any thread on DL, most posters here would love to see a ban on all guns.
r85, if you can't incapacitate (or kill) a person with less than 6 bullets you need to spend A LOT more time at the firing range.
[quote]new to this "discussion forum" and probably not here long. Didn't know what OP stands for,
You mean new to ALL discussion forums?
Guilty as charged, R85. I didn't know that a 9mm Ruger is a semiautomatic. I don't know guns. I do know, however, that that weapon is built for the singular purpose of killing people. Therefore, there's no reason on God's green earth for a civilian to own one.
And I for one will be very happy when they take your Precious away from you.
R86 I couldn't agree with you more. I can't think of any legit reason to allow folks to own assault weapons, nor should any gun have a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets. My own holds 7 with one in the chamber.
Like you said if I couldn't stop what I needed to with 8 bullets then I shouldn't own a gun because I'm a lousy shooter. Actually I'm a pretty good shot, but that's another story.
I'm also have no problem with background checks, and no gun show sales.
There are many out there that would love to see all guns illegal. Those are the ones that annoy me.
Relax. Nobody's taking your Precious away from you anytime soon.
[quote]Since the massacre in Newtown, Conn., the gun control community has said the same thing over and over again: a new ban on so-called assault weapons sure would be nice, but we really doubt it’s going to happen. From congressional leaders to the White House to gun control proponents to the very sponsor of the new ban in the Senate, there’s no one who doesn’t think the road to a ban is a steep uphill climb at best.
But isn't it nice that this man had his God-given 2nd amendment freedom to use a semiautomatic to kill his children?
[quote]A Florida man armed with an weapon that had once been banned under federal law forced his wife to watch as he strangled one of his sons and then shot a second before turning a gun on himself.
[quote]Victoria Flores Zavala told Boynton Beach police that 45-year-old Isidro Zavala went to her home on Saturday with a plan to kill her and their two boys because she had filed for divorce last year, according to WTVJ. But Isidro Zavala decide to spare his wife at the last minute so she could suffer while watching him murder 12-year-old Eduardo Zavala and 11-year-old Mario Zavala.
The question can be asked of the pro-life but pro-death penalty group right?
[quote]Go back and read any thread on DL, most posters here would love to see a ban on all guns.
No, just a ban on gun ownership for mentally ill people... which would include most gun-nuts.
[quote]Well I'm 48, gay, live in the burbs, yet I own 9mm Ruger. I enjoy target practice, and also feel safer in my house.
You might FEEL safer, but it's a dangerous illusion. Statistically, you're dramatically LESS SAFE with a gun in the house, than with no gun in the house.
When allegedly "pro-life" people start caring about babies AFTER they're born, start opposing the death penalty, stop opposing health-care, stop war-mongering and supporting unnecessary wars, and stop thinking guns are great and the solution to everything, then MAYBE they might start having ANY credibility on the topic of 'life'.
They're just "anti-women-having-sex" if you get right down to it. It's about controlling women's sexuality. Period. It's misogyny, not any concern for "babies".
My first reaction when reading the OP was "WTF?!"
That quickly turned into "fuck this guy" thoughts in my head.
So yeah. Better to not have people know you're ignorant than to remove all doubt.
Abortion isn't about killing children. Abortion rights are about acknowledging that a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body. A lot of times that choice is to carry the fetus to full term - without Roe v. Wade, she wouldn't have that choice. She'd just be forced to carry by a patriarchal society that did not acknowledge her rights.
Sometimes a woman chooses to abort the fetus in the 1st trimester for reasons that are private to her and might have to do with medical reasons having to do with her health or the viability of the fetus itself or for matters of her own
well being. A fetus is not a child though, if nature allows, the fetus could be carried to full term when the woman delivers a baby. Even then, a baby's hold on life can be delicate. Women have miscarriages all the time, when a fetus dies in the womb or a fetus close to term is stillborn. There are a lot of things that can happen between conception and birth.
This was acknowledged 3 decades ago and yet you're still banging on about it. Move on. A fetus is not a child until it is carried to term and given birth to. To your way of thinking every cup of flour with a raising agent is a cake but that isn't so either. Grow up.
What R49 says. OP, if you hate forums so much, why have you made a home on this site, where we loathe you?
The John Fugelsang Page
"Only here can you be pro-death penalty, pro-torture, pro-preemptive war, pro-drone bombs & still call yourself 'pro-life.'"
It is no surprise that the OP of this thread is the crazy republican posting in defense of the oregon cake bakers.
OP also things marriage is exclusively a christian institution.
R109 I think once people started using facts to undermine OP's arguments here and on other threads, they did the old cut and run. Facts have a well known liberal bias after all.
Have we run this loser OP off yet? He was one of our more prolific freeper trolls. He claimed in one thread yesterday that we didn't need marriage because we could get all the same rights with private legal contracts (which is patently false) and that marriage was a Christian institution. He also claimed to be gay! Unreal. Where do these people come from?
[quote] Gun Control vs. Abortion
Did you read this? GUN CONTROL. It doesn't mean taking away everyone's guns. It means regulating the sale of guns the way they really should be regulated. Do you get this fact?
Why do you give a shit about either of these things OP? Unless you illegally own guns this shouldn't affect you. You aren't a felon are you? Because they can't own guns. You don't have a mental illness, do you? Because they can't own guns. I'm guessing you are a gay man. Why would you even think about abortions? Once again, gun control DOES NOT - I repeat, DOES NOT mean the government is going to take away your guns
Get a life and stop worrying about things that don't concern you
[quote]You don't have a mental illness, do you? Because they can't own guns.
Thats the issue for OP. He is flat out crazy.
OP, like a lot of pro lifers don't have plans for all the unwanted children they want forced into this world. They just want to have power over women's bodies. What happens after the baby is born is not their concern.
It's really about race. The white race is diminishing.
"My guns. My business."
Exactly, OP. The state should also not be interfering in a woman's "business."
However, beyond that, you've set up what is known as a false equivalency.
It has nothing to do with race unless you're a racist.
[quote]The white race is diminishing.
Who cares? All the races are mixing. In 500 years we'll all be beige with a mix of features. Get over it.
i heart r120.
[quote] good for you, you don't feel the need to own a gun. Well I'm 48, gay, live in the burbs, yet I own 9mm Ruger. I enjoy target practice, and also feel safer in my house.
Just because you don't feel the need to own a gun, please don't try and take away my right.
What the fuck is wrong with you? NO ONE is trying to take away your right to own a gun. Are you mentally retarded? Seriously. Unless you are mentally ill, a felon or retarded (you probably are) you can have as many guns as you like. No one is trying to take your guns away
[quote] please don't try and take away my right
please. Please don't take away my right. You are a moronic asshole