And you think the police are trained professionals obligated to protect you?

http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/289374-guam-stabbing-rampage-suspect-held-2m-bail.html

Guam stabbing rampage suspect held on $2M bail


http://news.yahoo.com/guam-stabbing-...211548034.html

A Guam judge on Wednesday ordered $2 million bail for a man accused of killing two Japanese visitors and injuring 12 others after he drove his car into pedestrians and went on a stabbing rampage in the U.S. territory's tourist district.
The prosecution requested the bail after saying Chad Ryan De Soto, 21, committed "heinous, extreme" violence rarely seen in Guam, a tropical island about 1,500 miles south of Tokyo that is heavily dependent on tourism............

Got no gun? use a car and a knife instead..........

Remember no psyc evals for cars or drivers....................

 

Oh, so we're quoting tired old arguments rather than moving on with productive discussion? Ok, my turn:
"If cars an knives are so deadly, why not use them instead of a gun for personal defense?"

 

Duh cause bad guys carry guns, you have heard of the expression, don't bring a knife to a gun fight...good luck with your point hehe

 

And the reason you don't bring a knife to a gun fight is because guns are more deadly than knives, right?
Thanks for the assist in totally invalidating stjames1_53's earlier post (not that it was valid to start with).

 

why not all three?

 

Just had a mental image of you chasing kids off your lawn in a Ford Ranger while holding a knife in one hand and a gun in the other...

 

There's no one forcing you to respond to anything I put up. But if you want to derail this, let's include cell phone use and texting while driving. (climbing and soon to be the number one cause of preventable deaths in America)

 

you have a twisted mind............however, I can dismiss this as a case of PTSD, because only a sick mind can have such visions.

 

Whose "right" is greater, the citizen with a documented privilege and his government tax stamp or the citizen without need for those government mandated restrictions? How is it that these weapons are restricted/prohibited by "shall not be infringed"?

One of the consequences of the Power to tax the right to keep (obtain) and bear results in driving up the cost of some firearms for Joe-citizen. Limiting availability to a decades old terminal production run date, therefore and effectively drying up both an affordable and accessible (due to a forever finite number of arms) opportunity for keeping and bearing that style of firearm.

The Power to tax is the Power to destroy. Taxing a right is a terrible and tyrannical expression of government Power. What was once Liberty for all becomes the Natural Right one can afford. Therefore, I would suggest any right you have to pay for is not a right, but a perishable privilege, bestowed by the force of Power to which your tribute is rendered. What Power provides, Power can withhold.

How do you feel about a registration, license or tax for the right of free speech, artful expression, criticism, anger, hate, love, religion, press, to a speedy trial etc.? The government is about Control, Power, Force etc. and what you bloodlessly surrender it, is only, if ever, regained by what was heretofore an avoidable blood loss. We are most fortunate that a semblance of what the framers (those who first bled) envisioned and documented remains as our best civilized defense. Brilliant People, some of them warned us to beware any force that would offer security in exchange for relinquishing personal Liberty.

Your supposition brings some questions to mind, One-why do unregistered firearms stolen from private property locations receive a pass from your plan? Two- how does registration change a firearm disposition from a criminal mindset to one of not a potential threat? Three- how would your registered firearm have stopped any of the maniacal killers' acts recently referenced by our President (has he referenced the late, left leaning, gun control advocate, murderous, rogue former LAPD officer?) and broadcast on the US national media outlets?

Because confiscation can't happen...try N'Orleans during Katrina...Elected official orders confiscation of firearms, N.O. Police take arms by force and threat of force...but let's go with your thought, never here in America. Let's say a government would like to have a tool enabling it to take arms...How would you suggest, as a bloodless way, for a government to go about compiling a list of arms held by private citizens? Would this government be best advised to promote this idea of (let us call it) "firearms registration" by telling the people it is in their best interest and of course they will all feel safer? But of course that would never happen anywhere in America...interesting enough I remember the Senate debating a bill that forbade the government from confiscating arms during natural disasters (after the Katrina firearms confiscation)...funny but wouldn't the 2A already have the citizens' collective back in that regard...believe Senator Obama voted for this.

Why should the law-abiding citizens' rights be determined or limited by the acts of criminals and madmen?

Hard to follow your thought above. Have a question; what is the "fundamental" distinction you are trying to draw between defending one's life on private property vs. public property?

Thieves steal. Criminals commit crimes and vehicles are stolen while registered and licensed.

Race car? It can happen http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/...cle_a3c2e127-e95d-53a8-b3f1-58947c6ee81f.html

Why do you fear and support infringing on your fellow law abiding citizens' free exercise of some of their rights?

 

A loud response with better aim in the first and the woman could say something along the lines of "smile and wait for the flash" BANG!
That is the whole point. The gun equalizes people.
The truth is that a 4 foot 11 inch woman who weighs 100 pounds can prevail against a 6 foot 4 inch man who weighs 400 pounds if she has the will and the help of a firearm.
Period.

 

Let's not forget that equalization is just as likely to be a bad thing as a good thing.
The truth is that a 4'11" inch heroin addict who weighs 100 lbs could now rob a 6'4" bodybuilder if the heroin addict has the will and the help of a firearm.
Period.

 

And THIS is your response?
There are absolute rights and wrongs.
There are relative rights and wrongs.
There are hundreds of support groups across the United States for women and relatives of women who were raped (with or without guns) or beaten (with or without guns) or killed (with or without guns).
Show me one support group for 6'4" bodybuilders who have been victimized by diminutive heroin addicts...
Just one.
There is an absolute right to a woman being able to live her life without fear from men or women who are bigger and stronger and/or more vicious than she is. The bad guys don't have to have a gun to beat her to death with a pipe or choke her with a belt or just plain kick her until she dies.
There is an absolute right to my little girl being able to get off of her shift at the hospital at night and walk to her car without worrying about some hulking mound of testicle meat deciding he wants to use her for his current punching bag. Or some drug addict trying to force her to get him drugs. A carry gun gives her that ability. A-a-a-a-a-and before you try to say that Joe Security Guard or Billy Bob the local cop should protect her please be aware that the last one to scare her WAS A COP.
Ten percent of every group of people are A**Holes. Ten percent of priests. Ten percent of cops. Ten percent of any group you list.
And in all honesty dealing with drug addicts is hazardous even when they are cuffed and shackled. The gun would at least make a wound that probably wouldn't give you Hep C or AIDS

 

bhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaa that is so lame

 

Was there point to this post, or did you just fall asleep with your hands on the keyboard?

 

Here you are twisting again LOL Imagine that eh. The comment was about a small person using a weapon against to prevail against a larger opponent....try commenting on how that is bad or good instead of adding your own form of distortion. You want to discuss how a small bad person can use a gun to defeat a bigger good person...start your own thread. I suspect that the answer would be fundamentally the same...If a small bad person is using a gun to to rob a big good person the answer would be the same....Good people should have guns because bad guys come in all size, shapes and forms.....Guns for law abiding citizens=good eh?

 

No, not just as likely. Let's not forget that there are millions of legal kept and carried firearms. I would venture a guess that most of these firearms are used in a positive and lawful way. Thus a HUGE imbalance in favor of lawful use. I'll stand with these folks.

Unlikely, more likely the addict sold the firearm for heroin. However, if the addict had a firearm would he register it? Moreover, regardless if the answer is yes or no then registration could not, would not have prevented your addict from committing the aggravated robbery of the 6'4" bodybuilder. Another example on how registration fails to protect the law abiding, so all things being equal, why have it.

 

Looking at ALL effects and acknowledging the "flip side of the coin" is not a distortion of the facts.
Ignoring the bad effects while trumpting the good effects is not enlightenment.
Discussing all ramifications of "small people being as powerful as big people" does not require another thread.

- - - Updated - - -

What does any of this have to do with saying it's always a good thing for small people to be as powerful as big people?

 

What does any of this have to do with the fallacy that it is always a good thing for small people to be as powerful as big people?

 

not only is it a distortion, twisting a topic to fit your agenda is intellectually dishonest, why can't your kind simply answer the question asked...wait I know...without adding twist.. your answer is null and void....good try though.

- - - Updated - - -

Because like most intellectually dishonest discussions by your side you tend to rephrase the question to fit your agenda. Just answer the question asked instead of rephrasing it to fit your misguided agenda eh.

Seriously do you think the average citizen doesn't understand your deciet eh? It's pretty obvious you like to rephrase questions.

 

Dude, I agree that guns equalize power.
How is this "intellectually dishonest"? Wouldn't it be more "intellectually dishonest" to claim that weak=good and strong=bad?
I'm not rephrasing a question, I'm pointing out a flaw in a premise.

 

WHAAAAT this isn't a form of rephrasing a question or intellectual dishonesty?

Especially since the original question was:

Golly Gee I guess I don't understand intellectual dishonesty. NOPE I do! Dude epic fail. Fact remains unless you rephrase questions you have no argument eh?
Please define defend.

 

Especially since the original question was: "Guns allow for the weak to defend themselves against the strong.[/QUOTE]

Golly Gee I guess I don't understand intellectual dishonesty. NOPE I do! Dude epic fail. Fact remains unless you rephrase questions you have no argument eh?
Please define defend.[/QUOTE]

Actually, this is a statement - not a question - and I simply pointed out that it is "intellectually dishonest" because it incorrectly implies several things:
1) guns are only used for defense
2) only the weak would have access to them
3) the strong are a threat to the weak
4) the weak are not a threat to the strong, even if armed.

If I had made the general statement that "Guns allow for the weak to commit crimes against the strong." without acknowledging the balance of power works both ways, you would have a point. As it stands, you don't.

Try taking a class in critical thinking, or at least familiarize yourself with "hasty generalization" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization)