WHA WHA WHA WHAT ?!

[twistedcrankcammer]

More Guns=More Deaths??

Another uneducated statement!! The second ammendmant is to protect the citizen against an oppressive government!! I guess less guns depends on who has those guns now doesn't it?? Go ask the Sadam era "marsh arabs", and Shites, Hitler era Jews, Catholics, Gays, or countless other minorities in their own countries arround the world. Think it can't happen here?? Tell it to the Asians put in detainee camps in WWII.

So should those American citizens of Asian descent have armed themselves and used their rifles and pistol to take on the US Armed Forces in order to avoid being rounded up and put in detainee camps? Wouldn't that have been very disloyal, fighting against your own country's forces in a time of war, in effect opening up a home front? Their chances of success would have been pretty slim, too.

Those citizens of Asian descent were loyal to America and showed it by obeying the laws of the land, cruel and unnecessary as they were in that case.

Islander,

By your own definition above, the Jews in Nazi Germany must have been some fine citizen for letting their contries government execute them!! No logic at all...

Roger

[twistedcrankcammer]

I must admit that I am generally unconcerned about gun owner-ship. But I would be concerned by the likes of Srobak & Twisted walking around with anything more than a water pistol.

oldenough,

Please post an actual picture of yourself so that if I am ever on a bus with you, and somebody starts attacking you with a knife, I may recognize you, so that I may sit idle and not interveen on your behalf. People who are incompetent in their training with weapons, and those who would disarm this country are the ones to fear, not me. By the way, I don't carry, nor have I obtained or want a CCW, but I believe in the rights of others to do so.

Roger

[twistedcrankcammer]

Rushing a cockpit unarmed knowing you are going to a certain death....now thats a hero!

I agree. I would have been the first one in line to do the act. As I mentioned very early on - I am very bothered by the fact that out of 37 passengers on that bus, not a single one of them took it upon themselves to try to intervene. Even a small group could have easily overwhelmed this guy, and suffered only minor injuries at worst. I would have gone after him myself, and alone if necessary, and unarmed. I have done it before. No - I'm not a hero... I'm a citizen, and whenever possible, I will protect my fellow citizen from harm. This is each of your responsibilities as citizens of this country.

"This is each of your responsibilities as citizens of this country" Amen!!!

Roger

[twistedcrankcammer]

OB, What exactly are you claiming "BS" about?

The law-abiding folks who apply for permits and clear background checks and are issued licenses to carry are not the gun owners you need to worry about. These are the responsible ones. Try to remember that.

Hey SROBAK—don’t take what anyone says here personally. I don’t know OldEnough at all, so I can’t speak for him or against him. So my comments ARE NOT directed at him. However, there an active forum member that I will not call out; but, a year or so ago, we had a lengthy and spirited debate regarding the legalization of drugs and its impact on the individual/society. Now, I’m a former addict (been clean since late 1980, so it’s out of my system). I surrendered too many years to that monster (drugs) but still have to deal with some permanent reminders of those dark years. I faired better than some of my running mates that ended up either in jail or dead. Anyway, I was speaking from direct and personal experience; but, since what I was saying to this forum member didn’t fit into the mold presented by those on the Left—he disregarded it completely and clung to his own philosophy about the way things “really” are and how best to solve the problem—basically giving me the equivalent of the BS button. I couldn’t get him to understand that his textbook arguments fresh out of the leftist operating manual about how things really are weren’t true and often flat out lies that are commonly passed through those circles. I LIVED that life, and for YEARS I only associated with those that also LIVED that life. I saw firsthand how things REALLY WERE (and they weren’t like he claimed)—but, pay no attention to the man on the street, listen to those whose political motives trump the individual that they claim to represent. You see, I’ve learned that many could care less about the individual, only giving them attention when it suits their argument; they are far more concerned with putting on this mystical badge of honor from being counter-culture, anti-establishment or whatever else is the banner of the month. Sorry for rambling, all this trying to say that you can’t convince some because their motive isn’t to learn, to help, to solve, or even to understand those that don’t share the same ideology. So, don’t get upset. And besides, I’m also convinced that some don’t even believe what they say—just like to ruffle some feathers from time to time. Hang in there. If you lived it—nobody can tell you that it isn’t real.

BigStewMan,

Let me sum up what you just stated with a phrase my grandmother used to say. "He of opinion changed against his will is of the same opinion still"

Roger

[twistedcrankcammer]

..

Jacksonbart,

Does your cat have a class 3 liscense, or is he just bump firing??

Roger

[twistedcrankcammer]

Responsibility as a citizen is not being taught any more. Hasn't been for some time. Now we reap the rewards.

Amen!!!

Roger

[Islander]

More Guns=More Deaths??

Another uneducated statement!! The second ammendmant is to protect the citizen against an oppressive government!! I guess less guns depends on who has those guns now doesn't it?? Go ask the Sadam era "marsh arabs", and Shites, Hitler era Jews, Catholics, Gays, or countless other minorities in their own countries arround the world. Think it can't happen here?? Tell it to the Asians put in detainee camps in WWII.

So should those American citizens of Asian descent have armed themselves and used their rifles and pistol to take on the US Armed Forces in order to avoid being rounded up and put in detainee camps? Wouldn't that have been very disloyal, fighting against your own country's forces in a time of war, in effect opening up a home front? Their chances of success would have been pretty slim, too.

Those citizens of Asian descent were loyal to America and showed it by obeying the laws of the land, cruel and unnecessary as they were in that case.

Islander,

By your own definition above, the Jews in Nazi Germany must have been some fine citizen for letting their contries government execute them!! No logic at all...

You made two statements and I disagreed with one of them, the one about Asian-American citizens in America. I did not disagree with the idea of Jews or gays in Hitler's Germany defending themselves. Try to keep things straight: Nazi Germany bad, America good (mostly).

Seriously, if Asian-American citizens had taken up arms against their own government during a war against the Japanese Empire, they would have been slaughtered and any that were alive today would be seen as treasonous, disloyal, backstabbers. Wouldn't you agree?

[oldenough]

Twisted[:|]...You said: .By the way, I don't carry, nor have I obtained or want a CCW, but I believe in the rights of others to do so.

The first part of this statement pleases me....The second part I am in complete agreement with.

[twistedcrankcammer]

More Guns=More Deaths??

Another uneducated statement!! The second ammendmant is to protect the citizen against an oppressive government!! I guess less guns depends on who has those guns now doesn't it?? Go ask the Sadam era "marsh arabs", and Shites, Hitler era Jews, Catholics, Gays, or countless other minorities in their own countries arround the world. Think it can't happen here?? Tell it to the Asians put in detainee camps in WWII.

So should those American citizens of Asian descent have armed themselves and used their rifles and pistol to take on the US Armed Forces in order to avoid being rounded up and put in detainee camps? Wouldn't that have been very disloyal, fighting against your own country's forces in a time of war, in effect opening up a home front? Their chances of success would have been pretty slim, too.

Those citizens of Asian descent were loyal to America and showed it by obeying the laws of the land, cruel and unnecessary as they were in that case.

Islander,

By your own definition above, the Jews in Nazi Germany must have been some fine citizen for letting their contries government execute them!! No logic at all...

You made two statements and I disagreed with one of them, the one about Asian-American citizens in America. I did not disagree with the idea of Jews or gays in Hitler's Germany defending themselves. Try to keep things straight: Nazi Germany bad, America good (mostly).

Seriously, if Asian-American citizens had taken up arms against their own government during a war against the Japanese Empire, they would have been slaughtered and any that were alive today would be seen as treasonous, disloyal, backstabbers. Wouldn't you agree?

How they would be portrayed in history would not affect that what they could have done if they had so chosen and that would have been their right to do if they had chosen to do so. This countrys history is skewed in the majority from what is often truely the case. The saga of the American Indian is a prime example, it is also a prime example of our country sumarily executing it's own citizens of a minority status.

Roger

[oldtimer]

Merely as a point of information, it was during the Weimar Republic that gun possession was outlawed in Germany. You could however, make the argument that this made the Nazi's ascension to power a little easier.

[oldtimer]

By "you" I didn't exactly mean me, although we could discuss it as an academic exercise. I don't really see the need for it though.

[Tom Adams]

http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/731604.html

[twistedcrankcammer]

Twisted...You said: .By the way, I don't carry, nor have I obtained or want a CCW, but I believe in the rights of others to do so.

The first part of this statement pleases me....The second part I am in complete agreement with.

oldenough,

I still need to know what you look like, so if ever I see you being hacked up on a bus, I can honor your wishes to sit idly by why you and your family are decapitated and eaten as I would not wish to go against your wishes.

Roger

[Guest srobak]

http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/731604.html

Chalk one up for the good guys.

[Guest srobak]

Reading the posted comments will tell you everything you ever wanted to know about gun nuts.

I can assure you that most of those that posted either do not even own guns, or do not have permits. I have explained this repeatedly, but you still do not seem to get it: Law-abiding citizens who go through the steps necessary to obtain gun licenses and ccw permits are responsible people. These are not the ones you need to worry about. The gun-toting criminals who rob you at a bank ATM are. The ones who purchase firearms through other illicit means are. Again - as I mentioned before - your responsible, law-abiding citizens who have ccw permits do not go waving guns around (unlike the robber in this case), or for an excuse to shoot people. Ever wonder why you rarely hear about someone with a ccw permit shooting someone? Think about this real hard... ready? Because it rarely happens, and obviously happens far less frequently than thug gun violence, you hear about it 10x a day in the news.

[oldenough]

"oldenough, I still need to know what you look like, so if ever I see you being hacked up on a bus, I can honor your wishes to sit idly by why you and your family are decapitated and eaten as I would not wish to go against your wishes"

You don't need to know what I look like. In all probability you WILL sit there and do nothing, just like the other 37 people did. Now you can assure me all you like and I will stand by what I think. After a long military career I saw enough incidents in three major conflicts to know that what people mouth of about while sitting in front of their computer screens and what they will actually do when "push comes to shove" CAN be quite different. I count myself as no different by the way. You on the other hand can say with all certainty that given a hypothetical situation that your actions would be a cut above the rest of us.[bs] . To get back to the subject, my heart goes out to that poor kids family. Seems this has been forgotten in all the big talk.

[Tom Adams]

By "you" I didn't exactly mean me, although we could discuss it as an academic exercise. I don't really see the need for it though.

I don't either as far as my central point goes, which might be simplified as this: If you thought guns were going to protect you from totalitarianism, sorry, you lost.

I haven't been advocated a gun ban, just advocating that they are pointless in the big picture, and thus not an important argument.

Then why do you keep posting?? [*-)]

Tom

[Guest srobak]

C'mon, you have no idea who those people are, or what they do or don't have in the way of guns.

No, but I do know many other people who do have firearms, and who do ccw, and who are responsible. It is only unfortunate that you have not met them. Chances are however that you HAVE indeed met them - and never knew it. That's the idea.

How much can you get from an ATM - $300? or so? So, a guy gets robbed of $300 and in exchange he's going to shoot the guy in the head? The guy starts a gunfight in a public place with a woman in the car?
Since the robber was walking away, the couple was out of any immediate
danger, but this guy wants to instead endanger the entire public with a
gun battle? Over $300?

Actually - I can get 1000 a day, and you have no idea if or what other things the individual was robbed of - including credit cards, other cash, items with personal information on them (address on the license, SS card, etc).

You're attempting to say the reason he was shot was because he stole $300. This is wrong, and it is something you need to become aware the difference of very quickly. The guy got shot because he threatened the life of another human being with a firearm. The money or anything else other than the safety and lives of other people is inconsequential at that point. Understand this - YOU DO NOT THREATEN THE LIVES OR SAFETY OF OTHER PEOPLE. You are *nobody* to do this. You are *nobody* to revoke those liberties. The money is moot. It is about safety, security, freedom and the very liberties that others in this thread have been complaining are being stripped or no longer exist.

Just because he was walking away doesn't mean that the danger is over, any more than when a guy stops beating his wife is that danger over. He is STILL a criminal, he is STILL armed, and he is STILL going to point a gun at some other innocent person, threatening their life and the lives of the people with them, and rob them. And that is if he doesn't decide to turn around and get more money out of this couple, or possibly kill them so as not to leave any witnesses. He already demonstrated that he places no value on their lives. He is an immediate threat to everyone around him until he is disarmed and subdued. This is not disputable.

I think you need to read the article again. No gun battle ensued, and the single shot fired was not in response or retaliation to getting robbed - it was in response to having a gun pointed at him for the SECOND TIME in 30 seconds. How many times are you gonna let someone point a gun at you before you decide to do something about it, or feel that your life and that of your wife is worth protecting and even fighting for?

I think you have lost sight of who the real victim in this situation is. This guy did what needed to be done, both to protect the lives and safety of himself and his wife, but also of any other everyday schmoe who was walking down the street. His next victim could have well been YOU.

You should be thanking him for taking action to stop this person (read: you shoot to stop, not shoot to kill), and not chastizing him. You really have your priorities and your understanding of victims backwards, man. You would rather have an armed criminal roam the streets and his next victim may very well be you, your family or your friends, instead of having someone with common sense stop this maniac from putting more lives in danger.

*shakes head and walks away*

[Jeff Matthews]

Right on, srobak. I do not like guns, but I totally agree with you.

[twistedcrankcammer]

C'mon, you have no idea who those people are, or what they do or don't have in the way of guns.

No, but I do know many other people who do have firearms, and who do ccw, and who are responsible. It is only unfortunate that you have not met them. Chances are however that you HAVE indeed met them - and never knew it. That's the idea.

How much can you get from an ATM - $300? or so? So, a guy gets robbed of $300 and in exchange he's going to shoot the guy in the head? The guy starts a gunfight in a public place with a woman in the car? Since the robber was walking away, the couple was out of any immediate danger, but this guy wants to instead endanger the entire public with a gun battle? Over $300?

Actually - I can get 1000 a day, and you have no idea if or what other things the individual was robbed of - including credit cards, other cash, items with personal information on them (address on the license, SS card, etc).

You're attempting to say the reason he was shot was because he stole $300. This is wrong, and it is something you need to become aware the difference of very quickly. The guy got shot because he threatened the life of another human being with a firearm. The money or anything else other than the safety and lives of other people is inconsequential at that point. Understand this - YOU DO NOT THREATEN THE LIVES OR SAFETY OF OTHER PEOPLE. You are *nobody* to do this. You are *nobody* to revoke those liberties. The money is moot. It is about safety, security, freedom and the very liberties that others in this thread have been complaining are being stripped or no longer exist.

Just because he was walking away doesn't mean that the danger is over, any more than when a guy stops beating his wife is that danger over. He is STILL a criminal, he is STILL armed, and he is STILL going to point a gun at some other innocent person, threatening their life and the lives of the people with them, and rob them. And that is if he doesn't decide to turn around and get more money out of this couple, or possibly kill them so as not to leave any witnesses. He already demonstrated that he places no value on their lives. He is an immediate threat to everyone around him until he is disarmed and subdued. This is not disputable.

I think you need to read the article again. No gun battle ensued, and the single shot fired was not in response or retaliation to getting robbed - it was in response to having a gun pointed at him for the SECOND TIME in 30 seconds. How many times are you gonna let someone point a gun at you before you decide to do something about it, or feel that your life and that of your wife is worth protecting and even fighting for?

I think you have lost sight of who the real victim in this situation is. This guy did what needed to be done, both to protect the lives and safety of himself and his wife, but also of any other everyday schmoe who was walking down the street. His next victim could have well been YOU.

You should be thanking him for taking action to stop this person (read: you shoot to stop, not shoot to kill), and not chastizing him. You really have your priorities and your understanding of victims backwards, man. You would rather have an armed criminal roam the streets and his next victim may very well be you, your family or your friends, instead of having someone with common sense stop this maniac from putting more lives in danger.

*shakes head and walks away*

srobak,

He plays the typical leftist buls--t, where he skirts the issue, and comes in from the side with more crap. If you pay attention to his rederick, he will not debate, nor discuss comon sense, it is not about learning, or knowing anything. He is only interested in winning in his own mind and having the last word. His mind, how ever delusional it may be, was closed before this discussion started, yet he will spout off about others learning. I have learned this much from him, we are wasting our time trying to discuss facts or comon sence with him. We need to extend the same curtisey to him that he has to us, wich would be to ignore anything he might have to say, take nothing into account, and blurt ideals that are not able to be defended or substantiated, and arrogance in our own ignorance because we are correct in our own mind, then smoke some more pot and hold contempt for others who have lost our freedoms, while we sat arround and got high. As far as his dilusions that "gun nuts" are responsible for our loss of freedoms in this country, the only conclussion I can come up with is that he somehow probably thinks that since the NRA had enough pull to get a Republican in the white house, that gun lovers are responsible some how for loss of fredoms and this couldn't possibly of happened from the Democratic side, who was attacking the second ammendment in the first place, but he doesn't even have the spine to say it.

Roger