Stoner's views on Firearm rights.

CSI Stickyicky

CSI Stickyicky

Well-Known Member
Hey thanks man. I agree that we disagree, but having the discussion is healthy. One thing we can probably agree on is that we probably would both choose sitting back and smoking a bong, joint, or bowl over getting in a gunfight. I do want to rebut one more point:

"if i wanted to rob your house i could do so within a week (assuming i knew which house this was :P)"

This may be true, as im not always home. But would you get away with it? My firearm is only one line of defense. I also have wireless hidden cameras. (been robbed before, didnt like it too much) Some criminals are smart, and some are dumb, im sure thats the same in any country. Some "victims" are smart too.
 
P

Parker

Well-Known Member
Fisherman Pete said:
CSI, if i wanted to rob your house i could do so within a week (assuming i knew which house this was :P)

i previously talked about how criminals are generally the dumb shits of society and as such rely on violence a fair bit, but even the dumbest criminal can study a house over the period of a few days and work out when to strike. robbing detatched houses is probably the easiest crime there is.

any house is a good score. do you know how rare it is for a house to be robbed while the residents are around? very! maybe all of your criminals are idiots, certainly a lot of ours are, but on the whole they know what they are doing. my murder figure earlier shows this, american robbers dont, they get pannicked and hey, a bullet it but the touch of a trigger away.

the touch of a trigger away is where slingshots and guns don't come into the same catagory, the chances of running into someone adept enough to kill you with a slingshot is ridiculous, wheras to quote imortal techineuq,

"Any bitch nigga with a gun, can bust slugs
Any nigga with a red shirt can front like a blood
Even Puffy smoked the motherfucker up in a club
But only a real thug can stab someone till they die
Standing in front of them, starring straight into their eyes"
Click to expand...
A polceman is not stationed at my neighbors house which is why a weapon is needed as a means of self defense.
When my neighbor is not home and you try to rob his house, I'm home. Now, "Drop your weapon and put your hands up".
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
There was a time when I advocated rather intense gun control. One day as I was flying across the country in the winter I looked down. I saw square after square after square of land bounded by tiny roads and at one side of each square was a house. I didn't see any towns for a long long time. In some places in this country the police are all but non-existant. Why should we force them to depend upon that nearly non-existant police force?
 
fb360

fb360

Active Member
canndo said:
There was a time when I advocated rather intense gun control. One day as I was flying across the country in the winter I looked down. I saw square after square after square of land bounded by tiny roads and at one side of each square was a house. I didn't see any towns for a long long time. In some places in this country the police are all but non-existant. Why should we force them to depend upon that nearly non-existant police force?
Click to expand...
I agree, but why does space/size have to do with anything? Even in urban environments, the police can be a good 10 minutes away. I live down the street (<.2mile) from a police station, and it took them 6 minutes to get to my neighbors once.

The concept of allowing guns for protection is independent of even the fact that the police are close, because all it takes is a raging lunatic going on a killing spree, as we saw in CT., to really fuck up your day. Protection in that case would depend on IMMEDIATE self-defensive actions.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
fb360 said:
I agree, but why does space/size have to do with anything? Even in urban environments, the police can be a good 10 minutes away. I live down the street (<.2mile) from a police station, and it took them 6 minutes to get to my neighbors once.

The concept of allowing guns for protection is independent of even the fact that the police are close, because all it takes is a raging lunatic going on a killing spree, as we saw in CT., to really fuck up your day. Protection in that case would depend on IMMEDIATE self-defensive actions.
Click to expand...

Space and time simply makes it very obvious. Of course there is another problem. That is that the gun toters believe that anyone with a gun save the bad buy is practiced, has a cool head and unflinching aim. The reality is that plenty of people who carry are not in the habit of heading down to the range and no one, including themselves knows what they may do in the heat of the moment. They could in fact actually cause more problems. They could be shot by the police thinking that they were the original shooters. They could wind up killing innocents themselves with missed shots (as the police in NY did recently - I don't think anyone died though). It really is not as easy as having an armed populace. We can also see the results of such a thing with the guy who wound up shooting a black kid because the music was too loud (oh, yea, and that they claimed they had a shotgun).

There is no wonder cure fo this problem, much as the NRA believes that if guns are a problem, then more guns is the solution.
 
nitro harley

nitro harley

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
There was a time when I advocated rather intense gun control. One day as I was flying across the country in the winter I looked down. I saw square after square after square of land bounded by tiny roads and at one side of each square was a house. I didn't see any towns for a long long time. In some places in this country the police are all but non-existant. Why should we force them to depend upon that nearly non-existant police force?
Click to expand...
I agree.....Not everybody is from a city.........When that storm hit new orleans and everybody had to fend for them selfs, I told my wife the bad guys were going to take over.......the cops left for the most part.....so you get ready to defend your self or you don't.......and that was just a storm......it doesn't take very long for the bad guys to want to be bad.........my self, I am ready if the time comes...............nitro..
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
nitro harley said:
I agree.....Not everybody is from a city.........When that storm hit new orleans and everybody had to fend for them selfs, I told my wife the bad guys were going to take over.......the cops left for the most part.....so you get ready to defend your self or you don't.......and that was just a storm......it doesn't take very long for the bad guys to want to be bad.........my self, I am ready if the time comes...............nitro..
Click to expand...

There is, unfortunately, a problem with this mentality. We see it often in RIU Politics as well as plenty of other discussion sites. First is the American paranoia that it is constantly likely that there will be an armed intruder into your home. The fact is that crime rates have been going down and not up for decades. But you wouldn't know from talking to folks who have firearms. Second, you will often encounter people with firearms who DREAM of the day, the hour and the second when their daughter gets raped or their wife gets mugged or some unfortunate junky breaks into their home. They love to recount what they will do (not would do mind you) to the person who intends to rob them - as though in their minds anyway, taking a life for an object is perfectly acceptable. Hell, they even plot how they would shoot someone who isn't even in their home and then drag their body inside so as to claim self defense.

Now, these are the very same people who will constantly claim that the general population of the United States (because that population doesn't vote as our vigilante hero votes) are stupid, incompetent and downright dull, but they believe somewhere in their NRA mindset that the very act of arming someone corrects all of those maladies and anyone with a .45 must certainly have been transformed into a Rambo. The truth is that no firearm will cure stupidity but in many cases it may serve to amplify that trait.

All this aside however, all of this aside as the fact is very simple. Our constitution in the way it is currently read, provides for even the most profoundly foolish person to be able to keep and bear the weapon of his choice.


Which means that what will be done about this current rash of shootings is..... nothing. Wich means that those children and the others who have been shot and will be shot in the future died in the protection of our 2nd amendment rights. the quicker the gun toting right accepts and actually defends this notion, the quicker we can accept that children dying is a natural result of our culture.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
the quicker the gun toting right accepts and actually defends this notion, the quicker we can accept that children dying is a natural result of our culture.
Click to expand...
I lol at your assumption that only conservatives carry guns, if this were true then 90% of all US Citizens are conservatives. The left is packing just as much as the right is buddy.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
I lol at your assumption that only conservatives carry guns, if this were true then 90% of all US Citizens are conservatives. The left is packing just as much as the right is buddy.
Click to expand...

Then the quicker the left will accept this as well. Better?
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
canndo said:
There is, unfortunately, a problem with this mentality. We see it often in RIU Politics as well as plenty of other discussion sites. First is the American paranoia that it is constantly likely that there will be an armed intruder into your home. The fact is that crime rates have been going down and not up for decades. But you wouldn't know from talking to folks who have firearms. Second, you will often encounter people with firearms who DREAM of the day, the hour and the second when their daughter gets raped or their wife gets mugged or some unfortunate junky breaks into their home. They love to recount what they will do (not would do mind you) to the person who intends to rob them - as though in their minds anyway, taking a life for an object is perfectly acceptable. Hell, they even plot how they would shoot someone who isn't even in their home and then drag their body inside so as to claim self defense.

Now, these are the very same people who will constantly claim that the general population of the United States (because that population doesn't vote as our vigilante hero votes) are stupid, incompetent and downright dull, but they believe somewhere in their NRA mindset that the very act of arming someone corrects all of those maladies and anyone with a .45 must certainly have been transformed into a Rambo. The truth is that no firearm will cure stupidity but in many cases it may serve to amplify that trait.

All this aside however, all of this aside as the fact is very simple. Our constitution in the way it is currently read, provides for even the most profoundly foolish person to be able to keep and bear the weapon of his choice.


Which means that what will be done about this current rash of shootings is..... nothing. Wich means that those children and the others who have been shot and will be shot in the future died in the protection of our 2nd amendment rights. the quicker the gun toting right accepts and actually defends this notion, the quicker we can accept that children dying is a natural result of our culture.
Click to expand...
I suspect the vigilante hero types are in the minority. More common (but also less conspicuous) are the millions who fear attack/invasion, hope hope hope it never happens ... but prepare against the eventuality. I am one such. Jmo. cn
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I suspect the vigilante hero types are in the minority. More common (but also less conspicuous) are the millions who fear attack/invasion, hope hope hope it never happens ... but prepare against the eventuality. I am one such. Jmo. cn
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure they are in the minority among the general population. Not so much among the more vocal rightist internet posters. did you intend to call it an eventuality? I am sure you are not one of those who keep one eye glued to the news and the other to his triple locked front door with a shotgun under the lazyboy and a revolver in every bathroom.
 
P

PurpleBuz

Well-Known Member
CSI Stickyicky said:
It seems that a lot of people like to pick sides on this whole "right left" "liberal conservative" "donkey elephant" thing. Can't i just be a free thinking person?

Anybody else a member of both the NRA and NORML?

Just curious how other stoners feel about firearm rights?

I'd like to open up a rational discussion about firearms rights, and i'd like to hear from both sides!

:peace:
Click to expand...
I have the constitutional right to bear arms. There is nothing else to say except that if I am a known dangerous criminal, mentally unstable, or too young to know better then family and society needs to take care of them. Anti gun laws which indiscriminately violate constitutional rights without due cause are simply a bandaid to our societies inadequecies for not taking care of the real problems.
 
CSI Stickyicky

CSI Stickyicky

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Space and time simply makes it very obvious. Of course there is another problem. That is that the gun toters believe that anyone with a gun save the bad buy is practiced, has a cool head and unflinching aim. The reality is that plenty of people who carry are not in the habit of heading down to the range and no one, including themselves knows what they may do in the heat of the moment. They could in fact actually cause more problems. They could be shot by the police thinking that they were the original shooters. They could wind up killing innocents themselves with missed shots (as the police in NY did recently - I don't think anyone died though). It really is not as easy as having an armed populace. We can also see the results of such a thing with the guy who wound up shooting a black kid because the music was too loud (oh, yea, and that they claimed they had a shotgun).

There is no wonder cure fo this problem, much as the NRA believes that if guns are a problem, then more guns is the solution.
Click to expand...
While it is true that a CCW permit holder might not act quickly or might be affected by adrenaline, part of the value of allowing armed citizens is the deterrent value.

If Mr. Crazy Nutjob wants to go shooting somewhere, and he wants a high body count, he needs to pick a location where he is less likely to receive return fire. These mass shooters don't go to gun shows, police stations, or courthouses, they go to schools, retail locations, and other so called "gun free zones". If CCW permit holders were allowed to enter schools and other places currently deemed "gun free zones" without disarming first, Mr. Crazy Nutjob wont know which school has several armed citizens (faculty members, parents dropping off kids, delivery personnel, etc), and which has few or no armed citizens.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
canndo said:
I am pretty sure they are in the minority among the general population. Not so much among the more vocal rightist internet posters. did you intend to call it an eventuality? I am sure you are not one of those who keep one eye glued to the news and the other to his triple locked front door with a shotgun under the lazyboy and a revolver in every bathroom.
Click to expand...
Probably not the best word. The nonzero possibility. I have been lucky so far, and cast my request to all-who-watch that that may continue. cn
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Everybody has the natural right to defend themselves. When a person commits an act of aggression with a firearm, THAT person should be held responsible, not others.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Space and time simply makes it very obvious. Of course there is another problem. That is that the gun toters believe that anyone with a gun save the bad buy is practiced, has a cool head and unflinching aim. The reality is that plenty of people who carry are not in the habit of heading down to the range and no one, including themselves knows what they may do in the heat of the moment. They could in fact actually cause more problems. They could be shot by the police thinking that they were the original shooters. They could wind up killing innocents themselves with missed shots (as the police in NY did recently - I don't think anyone died though). It really is not as easy as having an armed populace. We can also see the results of such a thing with the guy who wound up shooting a black kid because the music was too loud (oh, yea, and that they claimed they had a shotgun).

There is no wonder cure fo this problem, much as the NRA believes that if guns are a problem, then more guns is the solution.
Click to expand...
If this bit of ridicule is to be taken seriously then you need to be able to show two things:
1. instances where CCW holders spun like a top and shot in all directions killing and maiming indiscriminately
2. a net loss, i.e. in general has it been more dangerous to have armed citizens than not.

There is, of course, the absolute trump card: the second amendment! I can respect your opinion that we need to do away with US citizens being armed. Change things the legal way. Mount a campaign for a constitutional convention and revoke 2A. If you can accomplish that then I will abide. Until you do accomplish that, you abide.
 
Mr Neutron

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
doobnVA said:
There's a HUGE difference in choosing not to participate in an organization like the NRA, and not participating in something you are REQUIRED BY LAW to participate in (like paying taxes).

Like I said, there is no law requiring you to join the NRA or NORML, but there ARE laws that require you to pay taxes. That's just the way it is. Don't pay, and suffer the consequences. There are laws against murder, too. If you kill someone, you're breaking the law and should be punished, just as you should be punished for breaking ANY law.

Don't like the law? Then do something to change it.

Don't want to "participate" in following the law? Then you go to court, and possibly jail.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to income taxes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top