Another Example of Yankee Gun Mentality

[AnnaG]

If people live on acreages in northern rural areas, or even southern rural areas, they
should have a right to defend their life and animals from predators, BUT, those
same people should not be able to carry those guns off of their property and
through heavily populated areas, towns and cities. There is such a difference between hunting in rural areas, protecting your farm, self and animals, or packing
a gun that has been manufactured to 'kill' people, around a city, just waiting for
someone to 'dare' you to use it.
People who live on farms and acreages should not be waving their guns around
threatening anyone who they disagree with, their guns are for a specific purpose,
and should stay that way.
If we don't have the ability to differentiate between those activities, and those
different guns and their useage, then we are just 'dumb', and our constitution
isn't like that of the u.s., which binds them very 'stupidly' to a law that was acceptable
generations ago, and does not fit now, and is ruining the lives of many, and
killing children who find guns laying around loaded, in bedroom dressers, etc.
There is a war going on below the 49th parralel, (guns and drugs,and gangs), and we better make sure we have the intelligence to stop it from coming into our country.

Right on, Tall.
But, what if the person DOES have the ability to distinguish between those activities and those different guns and their usage, but blanket labels anyone with a gun the same label as anyone else with a gun anyway, what then? Are they stupid or are they just malicious?

 

[AnnaG]

Well said, Talloola. I think when they go from the farm to the pub, they should leave the guns in the truck.

Oh, ha ha ha, aren't you funny. lol

 

[Colpy]

If people live on acreages in northern rural areas, or even southern rural areas, they
should have a right to defend their life and animals from predators, BUT, those
same people should not be able to carry those guns off of their property and
through heavily populated areas, towns and cities. There is such a difference between hunting in rural areas, protecting your farm, self and animals, or packing
a gun that has been manufactured to 'kill' people, around a city, just waiting for
someone to 'dare' you to use it.
People who live on farms and acreages should not be waving their guns around
threatening anyone who they disagree with, their guns are for a specific purpose,
and should stay that way.
If we don't have the ability to differentiate between those activities, and those
different guns and their useage, then we are just 'dumb', and our constitution
isn't like that of the u.s., which binds them very 'stupidly' to a law that was acceptable
generations ago, and does not fit now, and is ruining the lives of many, and
killing children who find guns laying around loaded, in bedroom dressers, etc.
There is a war going on below the 49th parralel, (guns and drugs,and gangs), and we better make sure we have the intelligence to stop it from coming into our country.

You are sooooooo far off base......

Guns don't kill people. the areas of the USA with the most guns per capita are the places with the lowest murder rates. In the American west, where everybody owns a gun or five, and a lot of people carry handguns, the murder rates are much much LOWER than those in the Canadian west........

The inflated US murder rate comes from the horrendous rate in inner cities......with fatherless boys cutting each other down with illegal guns.....a damn shame, but not a lot can be done about it....

As for accidents.....1500 per year. Twice as many people die in fires, almost 3 times that many drown, and 28 people die in car crashes for every person accidentally killed with a gun in the USA. Hardly a scourge, considering there are many more guns than cars in the States......

SoYouWanna the top ten causes of accidental death in America | SoYouWanna.com

 

[talloola]

Right on, Tall.
But, what if the person DOES have the ability to distinguish between those activities and those different guns and their usage, but blanket labels anyone with a gun the same label as anyone else with a gun anyway, what then? Are they stupid or are they just malicious?

As I stated in my post, we should have the intelligence to differentiate, and make laws
that do the same, and there are always people who 'blanket' label anything and everything, without thinking about it.
There are some needed purpose for certain guns, but not many, there was just another
hunting death today, where some idiot shot at the 'movement' in the bush, not once
but twice, then went over and found his partner lying on the ground, and he died
a short time after that, so why is it that hunters always where 'camo' now, and not
the bright red they used to where, but even then, some people with a gun in their hand,
don't have a clue, they are as bad as those that do have a clue, and aim to kill 'people'.

I don't understand how people are even allowed to buy a gun that is manufactured to
kill people, or how those companies are ever allowed to sell to the public, it's bad
enough that we have wars and make guns for that purpose, which is also showing
everyone how insane that is too, what is the matter with us humans, can't we figure
out how to save each other rather than kill each other!!!

 

[Starscream]

The National Rifle Association is an American organization, and a damned fine one......but we live in Canada, in case you didn't notice.

I was making a reference to the Columbine shootings in how the NRA held a pro-gun rally shortly after the event. In case you didn't notice.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

As I stated in my post, we should have the intelligence to differentiate, and make laws
that do the same, and there are always people who 'blanket' label anything and everything, without thinking about it.
There are some needed purpose for certain guns, but not many, there was just another
hunting death today, where some idiot shot at the 'movement' in the bush, not once
but twice, then went over and found his partner lying on the ground, and he died
a short time after that, so why is it that hunters always where 'camo' now, and not
the bright red they used to where, but even then, some people with a gun in their hand,
don't have a clue, they are as bad as those that do have a clue, and aim to kill 'people'.

I don't understand how people are even allowed to buy a gun that is manufactured to
kill people, or how those companies are ever allowed to sell to the public, it's bad
enough that we have wars and make guns for that purpose, which is also showing
everyone how insane that is too, what is the matter with us humans, can't we figure
out how to save each other rather than kill each other!!!

If people weren't allowed by buy guns that were designed to kill people all guns would be banned. The Chinese didn't invent gunpowder for celebrations, they invented it for warfare. All guns were originally designed likewise, they were only modified for hunting. Muskets and newer black powder rifles were originally designed for warfare. The popular 30.06 hunting cartridge was designed by Springfield arms in 1906 to replace the rimmed 30.03 for warfare because rimmed cartridges jammed easily. All cartriges that fit into a No.2 shell holder were derivitives of this one. The popular Remington 700 hunting rifle is the same model of rifle used by snipers and the .308 Winchester round is a modified 30.06 casing. I could go on.

If guns and gunpowder were used for killing people since the 9th century, why should we think we are so special now? Are we more enlightened now than in each of the preceeding 12 centuries? Or just as deluded? Sure, lets' ban guns that were designed to kill people because we are peacable folk. But you can be damn sure that the people who would do us harm don't give a crap about bans.

Firearms will always be used for aggression, and those without them are almost always surely vanquished. This has proven itself out over and over throughout history. Rendering yourself defenseless is not a guarantee of survival and should be a personal choice, not one mandated by do gooders or governments, (who tend to be the worst aggressors and of course they support bans).

The geenie is out of that bottle, the only ones who will suffer from restricive laws will be the law abiding. And, unfortunately, you cannot legislate common sense, and accidents will happen, its part of being human.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

There is a war going on below the 49th parralel, (guns and drugs,and gangs), and we better make sure we have the intelligence to stop it from coming into our country.

Ummm...I don't know how it is in your corner of paradise, but it has already arrived in mine. What's funny though, all those criminals caught with illegal firearms were under court ordered weapons prohibitions, hmmm.

 

[Nuggler]

The value of an armed population?????
What I see is the more people who have guns, the more this sort of thing will happen. The armed people who kill policemen have no value.

You have a good point for sure, Juan; factor in poverty, ignorance, drugs, booze, and "the right to bear arms", and there's a bit of a volatile cocktail. It's not changing any time soon. Yet, it shouldn't interfere with my right to own guns.

If one of those now dead cops hadn't wounded this guy, he would probably still be out there, stalking...............cops?? hoonose.

He planned to "kill cops and go home and watch the news"........none too stable a lad. BIG rap sheet. His mamma might miss him, but no one else.

Too bad the "presidential hopeful" commuted his sentence.

 

[Colpy]

I was making a reference to the Columbine shootings in how the NRA held a pro-gun rally shortly after the event. In case you didn't notice.

And why wouldn't they??????

It was not as if they set up a "pro-gun rally" in Denver on a moment's notice.....the event was their annual meeting, in planning for a year, costing a LOT of money, and including extremely important events within the organization. Canceling it would have been first of all an extreme inconvenience to thousands of people who had made irreversible vacation and travel plans, and second of all, an admission of some kind of guilt in the Columbine shootings.....neither would be acceptable.

Guns did not kill at Columbine: two lunatics did, while the police sat on their hands......

We know that school shootings have been stopped by armed citizens with guns. In 1997, a Mississippi attack was thwarted after vice principal Joel Myrick retrieved a handgun from his trunk. The killer had already shot several people at Pearl High School, and was leaving that school to attack Pearl Junior High, when Myrick pointed his .45 pistol at the killer’s head and apprehended him. A few days later, an armed adult stopped a school rampage in Edinboro, Pennsylvania.

You should read the entire article......

Dave Kopel on National Review Online

By the way, I remember another time, at a college in the east, three citizens, according to the media "tackled" a shooter....actually all three civilians were carrying legal firearms and cornered the man with guns drawn....but the media refused to report that.....shame that didn't happen at Virginia Tech....a "right to carry" state where the university had banned licenced citizens from carrying on-campus. So you wind up with dozens dead.

 

[Starscream]

And why wouldn't they??????

It was not as if they set up a "pro-gun rally" in Denver on a moment's notice.....the event was their annual meeting, in planning for a year, costing a LOT of money, and including extremely important events within the organization. Canceling it would have been first of all an extreme inconvenience to thousands of people who had made irreversible vacation and travel plans, and second of all, an admission of some kind of guilt in the Columbine shootings.....neither would be acceptable.

Guns did not kill at Columbine: two lunatics did, while the police sat on their hands......

I'm sure that concerning the severety of the event, those who were going to attend the meeting would've understood the cancelation. It would not of been some admission of guilt, but showing that holding a pro-gun rally so soon after the massacre could be interpreted as insensitive and disrespectful to the victims and their families. The NRA would go on by saying that the rally would be rescheduled for a later, more appropriate time. There you go, a public relations slam dunk for the NRA.

Oh! Just one question for ya. When the coroners examined the bodies of the dead, were those bullet holes or finger holes that riddled the victims?

 

[Colpy]

I'm sure that concerning the severety of the event, those who were going to attend the meeting would've understood the cancelation. It would not of been some admission of guilt, but showing that holding a pro-gun rally so soon after the massacre could be interpreted as insensitive and disrespectful to the victims and their families. The NRA would go on by saying that the rally would be rescheduled for a later, more appropriate time. There you go, a public relations slam dunk for the NRA.

Oh! Just one question for ya. When the coroners examined the bodies of the dead, were those bullet holes or finger holes that riddled the victims?

I do disagree........

Ask yourself this question, if...in the same area, someone had purposely driven a large Ford truck into a crowd, killing several....would you expect the American Automobile Association to cancel their annual meeting?????

Of course not.

The howling about the NRA meeting was simply an attempt by anti-gun propagandists to make them "wear" Columbine.....

 

[Liberalman]

I hope the gun maker gets charged with the deaths of the police officers

 

[EagleSmack]

Guns did not kill at Columbine: two lunatics did, while the police sat on their hands......

And that they did. Some of the parents filed suit against the Columbine PD for refusing to go in and engage. The Police said they were outgunned to which the parents stated ...

"So were our children, only they had pens and pencils, not guns"

One father added that if they wanted to wear a badge and carry a gun they should have known there would be a time to risk their lives for the people they are sworn to protect.

I cautiously asked a police officer about this part of the case years later and stated that some parents were upset at the police for simply surrounding the building. His response to the parents....

"As well they should be upset."

 

[Risus]

I do disagree........

Ask yourself this question, if...in the same area, someone had purposely driven a large Ford truck into a crowd, killing several....would you expect the American Automobile Association to cancel their annual meeting?????

Of course not.

The howling about the NRA meeting was simply an attempt by anti-gun propagandists to make them "wear" Columbine.....

The purpose of guns is to kill. Trucks to transport. Your argument is full of holes...

 

[AnnaG]

I hope the gun maker gets charged with the deaths of the police officers

... and perps go free because they aren't the ones responsible. Convict Solingen Steel, General Motors, Boeing, and any other outfit whose products have anything to do with someone's death. roflmao You crack me up sometimes, LM.

 

[countryboy]

I hope the gun maker gets charged with the deaths of the police officers

Why?

 

[JLM]

I hope the gun maker gets charged with the deaths of the police officers

And if he'd beat them to death with a crow bar??????????????????

 

[AnnaG]

And if he'd beat them to death with a crow bar??????????????????

Convict the crow that owned the pub. lmao

 

[countryboy]

And if he'd beat them to death with a crow bar??????????????????

Why that's a downright simple thing to figure out...you could charge the crowbar manufacturer, the trucking company that shipped it to its retail destination, the hardware store that sold it, and even the store clerk who made the sale.

The actual user of the crowbar would not be charged, naturally. Why not?

Well, let's face it - IF the manufacturer hadn't made it in the first place, IF the trucking company hadn't brought it into the area, IF the hardware store hadn't made it available, and IF the store clerk hadn't recommended it, then the perp wouldn't have had access to that particular crowbar, thus preventing the crime from ever happening in the first place.

Geez, come to think of it, we don't actually have a crowbar registration in the hallowed halls of Ottawa yet! Oh no! Well, I'm going to start writing letters immediately on that because now I'm feeling threatened and you never know when a dangerous crowbar is going to cut loose and start causing death and destruction.

I do have to admit...that is a perfectly appropriate avatar you're sporting there, Mr. Liberalman. You are following the logic for which "Himself" was (in)famous! Keep up the good work!

 

[AnnaG]

Why that's a downright simple thing to figure out...you could charge the crowbar manufacturer, the trucking company that shipped it to its retail destination, the hardware store that sold it, and even the store clerk who made the sale.

The actual user of the crowbar would not be charged, naturally. Why not?

Well, let's face it - IF the manufacturer hadn't made it in the first place, IF the trucking company hadn't brought it into the area, IF the hardware store hadn't made it available, and IF the store clerk hadn't recommended it, then the perp wouldn't have had access to that particular crowbar, thus preventing the crime from ever happening in the first place.

*Looks in toolbox. No crowbar. Hammer might work* Thanks, Estwing.