The Goat Pen

"so your basis for gun control is that everyone is a potential mass murderer so no one should have a gun."

You have to understand where AA is coming from. Namely, Alabama. Those people don't want weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of Auburn fans. They're just waiting to retaliate for the tree murderer...

But seriously, that does go to show you what lengths an ostensibly normal person will sometimes go when you throw college football fandom into the mix. Down thar in Alabammy, anyway...

that's because they've all been inter-breeding with them hot-blooded Mexicalis over in La Alabama...

Hedge,

I think you're on drugs. Wherever you got that quote, I doubt it was directed at me. I am pretty pro-gun. I have what many would consider an arsenal, including a so-called "assault rifle," and I have shot pistols competitively. I have been a member of the NRA since 1980. I have even taught "Eddie Eagle" gun safety courses.

In short, revise and resubmit.

uh oh, now them mississipianos are joining the fray:

There are more alumni from the University of Alabama than there are from the University of Mississippi.

But that still rings true. I'm not sure another university has more sidewalk fans than Bama. And we love them all. Except for the Teabagger, the tree killer and Tom Arnold.

but Roseann is a perfect pacyderm fit - n'est ce pas?

Roseanne is not a Bama fan. Just her ex. Other non-alum fans, Charlie Sheen.

From the sardis HollywoodReporter article...

I'm not sure what the solution is. I just know that the violence in this country is out of control. And the fact that guns are so easy to get is chilling. But nobody wants to blame the movies. Nobody wants to blame guns. And yet, it's so easy to buy them and there are more murders in this country than anywhere else.

I'm not too eloquent on the subject. I'm just too angry about it.

This is how I feel. Even seeing all of eCat's data, it still just tells me guns are too easy to get here. Too easy for criminals to get. It has made us, by far, the leader in homicides in the developed world (I wouldn't say "anywhere else," Bogosian. I'm sure many more were murdered in Sub-Saharan Africa or any number of despot controlled countries).

Anyway, my thing is, there should be some honest discussion about addressing that problem. Pols are too afraid, because making it harder for criminals to get guns means it will be harder for law abiding citizens to get guns. We can't have that. As a result, everybody gets a gun and we do nothing about it because "you can't stop a criminal from getting a gun." Then, everybody rides the argument around the carousel.

You have to look at the underlying socioeconomic issues behind gun crime. Gang and drug violence, poverty, and Auburn fans are the genesis of a good share of many of the issues.

As far as availability goes, I'm not sure we can get that genie back in the bottle.

THE_WIZARD_ wrote:Hands need to be outlawed. But if you did that...Rat would never have sex again...

You consider using your hands having sex? You're a weird hombre

An Auburn fan just moved in next door for the next week. His car is covered with Auburn stickers. This is gonna be fun.

Jungle Rat wrote:

THE_WIZARD_ wrote:Hands need to be outlawed. But if you did that...Rat would never have sex again...

You consider using your hands having sex? You're a weird hombre

No...my point was you do. But I guess you kinda missed that...

Pretty sad when you have to explain it.

Yes I'm sorry you are so sad.

I miss the old Wiz. This one is boring.

And lamer than Talent

so typical of loud GOP folk:

Tampa business owners who criticized Obama's comments about business actually live off government work:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/ ... ve/1242207

its a chicken or an egg thing.

You have a large number of criminals with easy access to guns. You can look at ways to limit access to guns or you can create a an environment where guns aren't an issue.

I was thinking about this earlier where I used the example of gun control in the old west. Carrying a gun was a necessity for these people but when they went into the city limits they willingly handed them over to the local authority. I would assume they did this because they felt safe. Certainly if there was a chance of violence occurring within the city limits those laws would not stand, especially with just a local sheriff and maybe 1 or 2 deputies.

I guess my point is the argument telling law abiding citizens they need to have more hurdles or obstacles to gun ownership in an effort to curb the total number of guns or reduce the guns falling into criminals hands isn't going to hold up if there is a legitimate threat of gun violence already established. You're going to have to create an environment where the average citizen thinks they can go thru life without a gun for self defense.

The first step would be to greatly reduce the threat of gun violence (and that isn't by taking away or limiting the availability of guns by law abiding citizens). To me, it clearly falls on doing whatever is necessary to take the guns out criminals hands.

Similar to the argument about immigration. Deporting illegal aliens serves no purpose if our borders are not secure. First secure the borders so that we've effectively eliminated illegal immigration, then we can effectively talk about immigration reform in this country.

Speaking of freedom...

But this still doesn’t fully capture Kaspersky’s influence. Back in 2010, a researcher now working for Kaspersky discovered Stuxnet, the US-Israeli worm that wrecked nearly a thousand Iranian centrifuges and became the world’s first openly acknowledged cyberweapon. In May of this year, Kaspersky’s elite antihackers exposed a second weaponized computer program, which they dubbed Flame. It was subsequently revealed to be another US-Israeli operation aimed at Iran. In other words, Kaspersky Lab isn’t just an antivirus company; it’s also a leader in uncovering cyber-espionage.

Kaspersky has 300 million customers. His geek squad uncovers US cyberweapons. And he has deep ties to the KGB’s successors in Moscow.Serving at the pinnacle of such an organization would be a remarkably powerful position for any man. But Kaspersky’s rise is particularly notable—and to some, downright troubling—given his KGB-sponsored training, his tenure as a Soviet intelligence officer, his alliance with Vladimir Putin’s regime, and his deep and ongoing relationship with Russia’s Federal Security Service, or FSB.

What is mentioned is Kaspersky’s vision for the future of Internet security—which by Western standards can seem extreme. It includes requiring strictly monitored digital passports for some online activities and enabling government regulation of social networks to thwart protest movements. “It’s too much freedom there,” Kaspersky says, referring to sites like Facebook. “Freedom is good. But the bad guys—they can abuse this freedom to manipulate public opinion.”

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07 ... ersky/all/

eCat wrote:its a chicken or an egg thing.

You have a large number of criminals with easy access to guns. You can look at ways to limit access to guns or you can create a an environment where guns aren't an issue.

I was thinking about this earlier where I used the example of gun control in the old west. Carrying a gun was a necessity for these people but when they went into the city limits they willingly handed them over to the local authority. I would assume they did this because they felt safe. Certainly if there was a chance of violence occurring within the city limits those laws would not stand, especially with just a local sheriff and maybe 1 or 2 deputies.

I guess my point is the argument telling law abiding citizens they need to have more hurdles or obstacles to gun ownership in an effort to curb the total number of guns or reduce the guns falling into criminals hands isn't going to hold up if there is a legitimate threat of gun violence already established. You're going to have to create an environment where the average citizen thinks they can go thru life without a gun for self defense.

The first step would be to greatly reduce the threat of gun violence (and that isn't by taking away or limiting the availability of guns by law abiding citizens). To me, it clearly falls on doing whatever is necessary to take the guns out criminals hands.

Similar to the argument about immigration. Deporting illegal aliens serves no purpose if our borders are not secure. First secure the borders so that we've effectively eliminated illegal immigration, then we can effectively talk about immigration reform in this country.

I don't own a gun because I feel safe at my home and at work. I also gave up hunting years ago.

I help at a inner city ministry on Saturdays through my church. If I had to live in some of those neighborhoods, I'd definitely find a way to get a gun, legally or illegally. Police can not give these folks adequate protection whether the criminals in the neighborhood have guns or not. I don't think it is fair to deny these folks the opportunity o protect themselves.