71 replies to this topic

[nekkidtruth]

KingCracker, on 30 November 2012 - 04:59, said:

Wait wanting punishment for his crime is only a pro-gun crowd reaction??

Where did I say it was only a reaction from the pro-gun crowd? If you're going to respond at least try to remember the entire conversation. Pulling one post out of the many that have been posted in the last hour or so, is simply laziness on your part.

Remember earlier when I compared pro-gunners to religious nut jobs? I fully expected each of you to say "Yeah he deserve his punishment cause he broke the oath we all secretly took as gun owners!". Except what makes it so predictable and ridiculous at the same time is, up until the second he pulled that trigger, you would have fought tooth and nail for him and his "right". Regardless whether a gun was being point at him or not.

Bunch a flippin' hypocrites.

[SupportGeek]

nekkidtruth, on 30 November 2012 - 04:53, said:

Except, it isn't a lie. Guns are made specifically for killing/destroying. You would also be incorrect in your assumption that there isn't anyone with a brain or sense listening to me, there are plenty who agree with me here. I don't require their validation though. It's entirely up to them to post.

Of course, I fully expected the "He should fry if it wasn't in self defense!" from the pro-gun crowd.

It is, you have been proven wrong on this before, there are many guns designed with many purposes, not all of them killing, its the ammunition that has the engineering and design to do the damage, wounding etc.

"Fry" was simply a catch all to cover the maximum penalty allowed by the law, in the case of a state with the death penalty, then he should receive that, if not, then whatever maximum penalty is supported by that state for intentionally initiating, then shooting and killing an unarmed and non threatening individual (if thats what is found to have occurred) I could have said he should "sleep" but that just sounds silly.
Are you implying that if he is found to have been the initiating agressor , he should not receive the maximum penalty? No I am not trying to put words in your mouth before you play that game, but your need to play a word game opens the door to that implication, I hope unintentionally.

[KingCracker]

nekkidtruth, on 30 November 2012 - 05:05, said:

Where did I say it was only a reaction from the pro-gun crowd? If you're going to respond at least try to remember the entire conversation. Pulling one post out of the many that have been posted in the last hour or so, is simply laziness on your part.

Remember earlier when I compared pro-gunners to religious nut jobs? I fully expected each of you to say "Yeah he deserve his punishment cause he broke the oath we all secretly took as gun owners!". Except what makes it so predictable and ridiculous at the same time is, up until the second he pulled that trigger, you would have fought tooth and nail for him and his "right". Regardless whether a gun was being point at him or not.

Bunch a flippin' hypocrites.

Damn right I would, you should be allowed to own any gun you want so long as you're not doing any harm to anyone. Just like I would fight tooth and nail for your freedom of speech. A knife is a legal object that can kill and destroy plenty of people get stabbed to death but I don't see anyone starting threads calling for them to be abolished.

[nekkidtruth]

SupportGeek, on 30 November 2012 - 05:07, said:

It is, you have been proven wrong on this before, there are many guns designed with many purposes, not all of them killing, its the ammunition that has the engineering and design to do the damage, wounding etc.

"Fry" was simply a catch all to cover the maximum penalty allowed by the law, in the case of a state with the death penalty, then he should receive that, if not, then whatever maximum penalty is supported by that state for intentionally initiating, then shooting and killing an unarmed and non threatening individual (if thats what is found to have occurred) I could have said he should "sleep" but that just sounds silly.
Are you implying that if he is found to have been the initiating agressor , he should not receive the maximum penalty? No I am not trying to put words in your mouth before you play that game, but your need to play a word game opens the door to that implication, I hope unintentionally.

There is no word game here. I'm simply pointing out how easily you hang each other out to dry when it's convenient. How do you know this man wasn't all bout using his gun to protect himself and in a fit of rage hauled off and killed this teenager? The fact remains every single human being is capable of doing just that, hence why guns do not belong in civilian hands. This isn't rocket science.

For the record, guns are designed for something very specific. Shooting clay is still the destruction of something. You can spin it however you like, guns are designed for one thing.

KingCracker, on 30 November 2012 - 05:09, said:

Damn right I would, you should be allowed to own any gun you want so long as you're not doing any harm to anyone. Just like I would fight tooth and nail for your freedom of speech. A knife is a legal object that can kill and destroy plenty of people get stabbed to death but I don't see anyone starting threads calling for them to be abolished.

Then your argument is inherently flawed. Due to the fact that guns are designed specifically for destruction, they will eventually be used in such a way. Whether it's to shoot a person, an animal or a clay disc. It will be used for harm at some point or another so...why is it needed? Hint...it's not.

[KingCracker]

nekkidtruth, on 30 November 2012 - 05:16, said:

There is no word game here. I'm simply pointing out how easily you hang each other out to dry when it's convenient. How do you know this man wasn't all bout using his gun to protect himself and in a fit of rage hauled off and killed this teenager? The fact remains every single human being is capable of doing just that, hence why guns do not belong in civilian hands. This isn't rocket science.

As the story stands now he broke the law, why would anyone defend him? This isn't a pro-gun crowd hanging anyone out to dry this is as the story stands now a criminal an idiot that murdered someone for a stupid reason why the hell would we not want him to be punished?

Every single human being is capable of murdering innocent people? Sure if they were brainwashed but in a civilized society normal human beings don't have the desire to go out and just kill someone.

[nekkidtruth]

KingCracker, on 30 November 2012 - 05:20, said:

As the story stands now he broke the law, why would anyone defend him? This isn't a pro-gun crowd hanging anyone out to dry this is as the story stands now a criminal an idiot that murdered someone for a stupid reason why the hell would we not want him to be punished?

Every single human being is capable of murdering innocent people? Sure if they were brainwashed but in a civilized society normal human beings don't have the desire to go out and just kill someone.

Then in a "civilized society" normal human beings do not need guns.

As for hanging him out to dry, before this happened you would be instigating his alleged right to own a gun. "Here! Everyone have a gun! Just don't shoot it k?" *rolls eyes* What boggles my mind is the fact that you guys actually believe what comes out of your mouth.

[SupportGeek]

nekkidtruth, on 30 November 2012 - 05:05, said:

Where did I say it was only a reaction from the pro-gun crowd? If you're going to respond at least try to remember the entire conversation. Pulling one post out of the many that have been posted in the last hour or so, is simply laziness on your part.

Remember earlier when I compared pro-gunners to religious nut jobs? I fully expected each of you to say "Yeah he deserve his punishment cause he broke the oath we all secretly took as gun owners!". Except what makes it so predictable and ridiculous at the same time is, up until the second he pulled that trigger, you would have fought tooth and nail for him and his "right". Regardless whether a gun was being point at him or not.

Bunch a flippin' hypocrites.

More lies, is that really all you have?
There is no "Oath" what crackpot HuffPo piece did you garner that from?
There is a responsibility to understand that the right you have and the tools you may use to exercise that right have an inherent accountability every time you use them.
Make no mistake, firearms are not toys, and no responsible owner should treat them as such, even the act of producing that firearm in a simple argument is an unconscionable act of irresponsibility and it disgusts me to think that this may have been what occurred here.
Was it his right to legally own and possess a firearm? Yes it certainly is unless he is a prohibited person.
Was it his right to use it in an unlawful manner? No, and if that is what happened, then he should be punished severely.
Was it his right to use that firearm to defend himself lawfully if indeed he was threatened with grievous bodily harm or death? It certainly is.

Im not sure what you are trying to twist by saying that pro-gun people would support the right to own/possess firearms until that person did something illegal with it. Isnt that what anyone would do for any circumstance? I would support your right to free speech, up to the point you used that right to slander or libel someone, I would support your right to run your own religious cult, up to the point you had your followers drink poisoned kool-aid.
Freedoms are not in and of themselves a bad thing, its what the individual does with those freedoms that matter in the end, and just because I am pro-gun and pro-self defense does not mean I am bound by your twisted logic to think that if someone does something illegal, I need to support his illegal act because it was committed with a firearm.

[KingCracker]

nekkidtruth, on 30 November 2012 - 05:23, said:

Then in a "civilized society" normal human beings do not need guns.

As for hanging him out to dry, before this happened you would be instigating his alleged right to own a gun. "Here! Everyone have a gun! Just don't shoot it k?" *rolls eyes* What boggles my mind is the fact that you guys actually believe what comes out of your mouth.

I don't think felons should own a gun. Also in a civilized society there are some uncivilized people, mentally deranged people that will, shoot,stab,strangle, rape and kidnap innocent law abiding people. There you go again with you're fish bowl thinking.

[SupportGeek]

nekkidtruth, on 30 November 2012 - 05:19, said:

There is no word game here. I'm simply pointing out how easily you hang each other out to dry when it's convenient. How do you know this man wasn't all bout using his gun to protect himself and in a fit of rage hauled off and killed this teenager? The fact remains every single human being is capable of doing just that, hence why guns do not belong in civilian hands. This isn't rocket science.

Apparently for you, it is.
If the other side pulled out a shotgun as was reported, then Im guessing it was NOT a fit of rage, and he acted within the law.

If every single human being is capable of using a firearm in a rage, why do you only want to disarm civillians? Why not Law enforcement? Or the military?
Your argument is completely flawed.
Dont bring up the old tripe about the military being conditioned to be more responsible, they are trained to use firearms to kill, drilled in stressful situations, they are not taught various circumstances that its ok to use and when its not ok, in general the military are far less responsible than the law abiding firearms owner who are well aware of the laws and restrictions surrounding ownership and use.

nekkidtruth, on 30 November 2012 - 05:19, said:

For the record, guns are designed for something very specific. Shooting clay is still the destruction of something. You can spin it however you like, guns are designed for one thing.

They are, they are designed to propel a projectile, that could be a rubber plug, water, an electrode with a bit of wire, paint, nails, staples, other metal whatever you like.
You really reach hard to hold those lies together though, Id be impressed if you actually had a winning argument, sadly, you do not.

[nekkidtruth]

SupportGeek, on 30 November 2012 - 05:35, said:

Apparently for you, it is.
If the other side pulled out a shotgun as was reported, then Im guessing it was NOT a fit of rage, and he acted within the law.

If every single human being is capable of using a firearm in a rage, why do you only want to disarm civillians? Why not Law enforcement? Or the military?
Your argument is completely flawed.
Dont bring up the old tripe about the military being conditioned to be more responsible, they are trained to use firearms to kill, drilled in stressful situations, they are not taught various circumstances that its ok to use and when its not ok, in general the military are far less responsible than the law abiding firearms owner who are well aware of the laws and restrictions surrounding ownership and use.


They are, they are designed to propel a projectile, that could be a rubber plug, water, an electrode with a bit of wire, paint, nails, staples, other metal whatever you like.
You really reach hard to hold those lies together though, Id be impressed if you actually had a winning argument, sadly, you do not.

First, you're assuming I believe anyone should own/have a gun. Incorrect. I don't believe guns should be available to anyone.

Second, a gun (any kind, let's not play favorites) is capable of seriously harming and or killing someone. Of course I'm fully capable of understanding the difference between a nail gun and a firearm. But if all you have left are silly strawman arguments that require you to pull in nail guns, staple guns and why don't we throw knives into this too, I don't see any point in continuing, do you?

[Wyn6]

Some of the comments in this thread are disturbing at best whether it was an attempt to be sarcastic, amusing or what not. I suppose I look at things differently because I've seen and heard of way too many instances of people being murdered senselessly. I've been to way too many funerals and had to walk past way too many mothers and fathers with tears streaming down their faces wailing at the lifeless body of their child lying in a casket mere feet from them.

I've seen too many children, some who understand and others who don't, who have lost their mothers and fathers and I wonder how it will affect them. I've lost good friends, class mates, and relatives to this sheer stupidity and I can't decide if I'm more infuriated or saddened by the reasons they died. The fact that this kid, somebody's child, somebody's brother, was murdered over loud music when the man could've simply just went home, is beyond explanation. The really sad thing is, is that this isn't an isolated incident. It happens every single day and will continue to happen for the foreseeable future. So, much loss. So much pain. For what? Nothing. I guess that's why I see things different than a many of you.

And, to all those who say, hey it was just a joke, or why so serious... it is my sincere hope that you never have to stand and watch someone you love be lowered into the ground because another person decided that their life was a frivolous thing and took it away in a moment of thoughtlessness or carelessness.

[John S.]

we have a gun debate thread....take it there



thread closed