Rush's inconsistancies for MGM

[The patriot]

Steve M

You cant stop anyone from doing wrong. Plain and simple.

I dont think everyone's rights should be trampled because there are bad people out there.

Youre only ALLOWED TO drive 65 mph. Does this mean we need to have everyone turn in their automobiles and get Yugo's instead? I think not.

If Mr Maddog does something wrong, he should be dealt with in a court of law. Maybe if Mr Maddog is a really bad man that has no hope for changing, he should be put to death.

It's a tough question Steve. I just dont think every person should lose their rights because there are bad people out there.

Thats not what a right is. You shouldnt have to ask for a right, or have it licensed or regulated. If you do... . it's no longer a right.



PS Rights are "GOD GIVEN"... . not granted by the government.....

Eric

 

[rrausch]

There are already PLENTY of gun laws on the "books" but the Gov. (at least under Clinton) never enforced them. When felons violate federal gun laws in the commission of a crime, they are almost NEVER prosecuted by the feds. Hopefully this is changing under Pres. Bush. I believe Clinton/Gore wanted MORE gun violence so they could build resentment against gun owners in order to try to ban all hand guns, and semi-automatic rifles.



It is a sad fact of human nature that in countries where guns have been confiscated, violent crime went UP. In U. S. States where "Right to Carry" laws have been enacted, violent crime has gone down.

 

[NETim]

Guns

The problem is, the weapon lies between the ears, not in the hands. Pretty darn difficult to regulate that.



Charles Manson poses a far greater threat to society with a slingshot than I do with a Browning 50.



According to law, no one, but NO ONE should be able to purchase cocaine or heroin, but somehow people manage to get that stuff. That darn "law of supply and demand" at work again. If there's a demand, there WILL be a supply.



Now here's where the libs and conservatives really part ways. The libs blame the weapon and society while those on the right place the blame on the perpetrator.



The libs want more laws and regs (and usually more money from the taxpayer) as a fix. The conservative types want justice, swift and certain. Hold the maddogs accountable for their actions.



Of course, personal accountability is an anathema to those on the left, usually because somehow it's billed as "unfair. "



Libs view the average Joe on the street as some kind of ignorant, backward slob totally incapable of governing their lives in a fit manner. Since in their view everything good and great is derived from the government, why not have government regulate Joe's life since he or she is such a pathetic being?



And of course it will work because at all times, all ways, "someone else" is paying for it and that's just pretty darn OK.



That's why I've veered to the right. Rush just articulates it better than I. I'm fully capable of independent, rational thought. I am no clone, regardless of my views.



There's just too many people that believe there's such a thing as a free lunch.



Tim

 

[The patriot]

Maybe if a law was passed, saying, whenever a new law is written, the old laws have to be audited, and 2 old laws pertaining to the new law has to be taken off the books.

Eric

 

[DMcClellan]

I whole heartedly agree that the intent of the 2nd amendment was not to allow some thug to run rampid with a automatic weapon, or any other weapon as far as that goes. But it was definitely put there to protect our freedom, from other governments as well as our own. Unfortunately freedom comes at a cost. This thug is just something that must be delt with, but not by restricting everyone else.

 

[Steve M]

MGM,

I don't know what's come over you but, you ought'a chill alittle. I'm not in favor of more gun laws. I definately don't want the government to take guns from law abiding people. I never said that. I asked a hypothetical question and I beleave it to be a valid question. How do we protect ourselves from these out of control idiots *before* they kill someone. If the answer is "I don't know", I'll accept that. I don't know iether. I realize that guns don't kill people. Guns make it easier for bad people to kill people in a quick, tireless way without even getting thier hands dirty or having to face their victim. How do we keep guns out of the wrong hands. If the answer is "I don't know", I'll accept that too. If you re-read my posts, you'll read that I'll support the NRA at the polls. If Mr. Maddog loses his cool in my presence, it might be a good idea to hide or play dead to save my ownass. But to suggest that I throw my revolver in the trash can and give up? I'll stick to plan A if I'm ever in that situation. Even military personel take cover in enemy territory if they're out-gunned. To suggest taking the guns from the military to lessen the danger to them would be ludicrous. Why would you even think that I would suggest something like that of our citizens.

 

[DRR-24V]

SteveM Type People !

You right thinking type people are NEVER going to convince a guy like this of anything. Why even try?

 

[Steve St.Laurent]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "

- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.



'Nuff said

 

[Power Wagon]

Originally posted by Steve M

All sounds well and good and I still stand by my above post. The local thug with Mad-Dog running through his veins wants to carry his street sweeper on the seat of his big body Benz just for protection. How do you protect his rights under the second amendment and provide safety for yourself and family *before* he commits a crime and you're burrying your son? To say he can't carry an assault weapon but I can carry my revolver would be infringing on his rights as a citizen of the US as protected by the second amendment. It would also be discriminatory. So how do you keep some sort of order without infringing on someones right to keep and bear arms? There's alot of nuts in this world and my revolver isn't a match against a nutcase with an automatic assault weapon. So where do you draw the line and how? This senario is not what the second amendment was intended for.

No, of course the 2nd amendment wasn't intended for that. That's what local governments are for.



Well, Steve M, the way we fix the guy with the "bad" gun, is we make it illegal to have guns, therefore, we can take away yours and everyone else's who obeys the law, having fantastic statistics on "reduced guns in society" so that the "feel good" types can brag and boast, and since he's bent on breaking the law, he'll still have his. That way, when he goes on a shooting rampage, he's assured that nobody shoots back. His life, after all, must be protected at all costs - including his ability to take yours while you are defenseless.



After all, what kind of civilized society believes the citizen's life is worth anything? Every citizen dead is just one less burden on the state.



Or maybe we should get back to reality, instead of harping on worse than useless gun control.



No, Steve M, we treat him like everyone else. You break the law, we prosecute you and put your hiney in jail for a while - a LONG time if you're a danger to normal people.



But, back to your mythological "street sweeper" (sheesh, I really can't believe someone who tries to pass himself off as "intelligent" would actually use such a stupid term, but hey, there's no accounting for what nonsense people will parrot). Nobody (statistically speaking) uses these to commit crimes. If today, we could somehow snap our fingers, and every "machine gun" type of weapon would magically vanish, the murder statistics would not change in any measurable way. The number of crimes committed with these weapons, and the deaths they cause is low single digits percentage wise. If memory serves, it's around 1. In other words, practically meaningless. Just taking away that KIND of gun from the law-abiding will not magically transform an evil SOB bent on killing into a paragon of virtue.



So, instead of fighting a stupid constitutional battle to get rid of some particular type of gun, we should and could re-focus our law enforcement on the local level from harrassing the good guys and instead, pursuing the bad guys.



The mythological "guy" in his "Benz" with his automatic gun and 50 rounds in the clip is not a law-abiding, pillar of the neighborhood type. Before he goes and tries to annihalate a rival gang, he's already been a criminal for some time. and if we'd taken care of him when he started his life of crime, this whole scenario would be something you'd not even dream up.



But, instead of chasing real criminals who do real crimes and hurt real people, our police are occupied with "gun buy-backs" and trying to determine if 3 thugs who killed some guy from a bar "hated" him while killing him. Like I care. Have a trial, and if they did it, line 'em up and shoot them. Problem solved. But gun buys or exchanges make wonderful statistics that politicians crow about and police departments use to justify larger budgets... and apparently people like you applaud loudly. Of course, while you're applauding, do be on the lookout for the bad guy they were NOT chasing while they were doing it...

 

[Sled Puller]

The only way we have in a free society to combat bad guys, is to leave the the law-abiding citizens alone, and let them keep their right to defend themselves.



And then when something bad happens, do something with the bad guys!



Can someone post the repeat offenders statistics?



The NRA three strike program is probably 2 too many. You can never make society idiot proof. You have to live with some danger.

That is just the way things are. :{

 

[Steve M]

Mark,

Where did I say anything about a "bad gun" or removing any gun from society? Copy it and paste it here. You're putting words in the post that aren't mine again. They're yours.

You also must have missed my last post. I specifically said

"Even military personel take cover in enemy territory if they're out-gunned. To suggest taking the guns from the military to lessen the danger to them would be ludicrous. Why would you even think that I would suggest something like that of our citizens. "

Where did I say anything to indicate I wanted more gun control? I specifically said,

"I'm not in favor of more gun laws. I definately don't want the government to take guns from law abiding people. I never said that. I asked a hypothetical question and I beleave it to be a valid question. How do we protect ourselves from these out of control idiots *before* they kill someone. If the answer is "I don't know", I'll accept that. I don't know iether. "

I realize you live out in the middle of nowhere but the term "street sweeper" is what the inner city thugs call an automatic assault weapon. My reference to the benz and weapon was to depict a certain type of character. And you're back in school to broaden your education. I can see why. Your narrow mindedness is showing as usual. Where did I indicate I wanted any type of weapon to "vanish"? Copy and paste.

And Mark said,

"and if we'd taken care of him when he started his life of crime, this whole scenario would be something you'd not even dream up. "

I don't dream this stuff up. Not too long ago a 5yr old girl was killed inside her house by a stray bullet from a drive by. And your right. If the thug were taken off the streets when he started his life of crime, there's a good chance that would have never happened. So where does it begin? It must be frustrating as allhell for law enforcement to arrest these thugs and watch our criminal justice system slap them on the wrist and turn them loose again.

You're last paragraph almost made sense until you started in on how I must be in favor of gun buy backs. Where did you read this about me? Copy and Paste.

MGM, Thanks for your honest opinion. I've come to the same conclusion. I have high hopes that our present administration will get tough on crime and leave law abiding gun owners alone.

Speaking of gun laws, if what I read in the paper this morning is any indication of 2004, Gore might be up for the Democratic presidential candidate again. Since the small margin of swing voters will have forgot about Clinton's antics by then, this could be a problem for Republicans again. You'll likely not beleave me but I'd like to see John Ashcroft go against him. There's too much uneasiness about the Bush family from the left. I may be wrong but that's the way I see it today.

Why are you crying? The way things are isn't too bad... At least we don't live in caves with bugs and goat meat on the menu. And our wives aren't so scarey we have to cover them up.

DRR-24v, Who flew over and sht you in the mix?

 

[DRR-24V]

SteveM

Like you Lefty's say, I am just expressing myself.

 

[Steve St.Laurent]

I'll again mention what Ben Franklin said in 1759 - "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " The answer to your question of "How do we protect ourselves from these out of control idiots *before* they kill someone. " is that we can't. What we can do is make it so unpalatable to commit their crimes that they won't do so any more, ie - you commit a crime with a gun and a law abiding citizen will shoot you dead - period! "Make my day" laws do this very well - no laws that restrict gun ownership in any way do so. Some sacrifices have to be made by us as they were by our predecessors to make our system work. My heart will be absolutely ripped out of my chest if anything ever happens to my daughter or wife because of gun violence. Will that make me want to restrict gun ownership in any way - no it won't. I'd hunt down the perpetrators and take care of it. If that would mean that I will spend the rest of my days in jail because of it then that would be a price I'd be willing to pay for the safety of others (and to take my revenge). JMHO



-Steve

 

[The patriot]

Steve M On Sept 11th several men flew jets into several buildings, and crashed one in a rural field.

These guys used BOX CUTTERS to do this, and doing so, essentially got guided missiles for the price of a plane ticket.

My point is... . when will you feel safe enough?

When will we get our population safe enough so that we will not have to outlaw more material items. Will it end with automobiles, shovels, spoons, or butter knifes?



Bring the SOB to court (and to hell with endless appeals) and fry them if they were deemed that they did wrong by their peers.



Eric

 

[Power Wagon]

Originally posted by Steve M

Mark,

Where did I say anything about a "bad gun" or removing any gun from society? Copy it and paste it here. You're putting words in the post that aren't mine again. They're yours.



</b><i>

No, actually, the words you used were from the gun control freaks. If you're going to use their words and their meanings, then one generally assumes you accept their logic, as well.



<b></i>



You also must have missed my last post. I specifically said

"Even military personel take cover in enemy territory if they're out-gunned. To suggest taking the guns from the military to lessen the danger to them would be ludicrous. Why would you even think that I would suggest something like that of our citizens. "

Where did I say anything to indicate I wanted more gun control? I specifically said,

"I'm not in favor of more gun laws. I definately don't want the government to take guns from law abiding people. I never said that. I asked a hypothetical question and I beleave it to be a valid question. How do we protect ourselves from these out of control idiots *before* they kill someone. If the answer is "I don't know", I'll accept that. I don't know iether. "



</b><i>



You asked a question with a false premise... that being, we can "prevent" people from doing bad stuff by focusing on the tools they use to commit bad deeds. If you're not focusing on the "bad" gun vs the "good" gun you wish to carry, then that's not an issue, and you won't bring it up.



But, we can't "prevent" crime... not really. We can convince people not to do it, but as a matter of practical application, we can't "prevent" crime. As to how we stop drive-by shootings... What I said before stands. Everyday common law-abiding citizens don't commit drive by shootings. The people who do them have been breaking the law for some time already... and that's our only hope... that we get the miscreant before he pumps 100 rounds into an urban area.



<b></i>



I realize you live out in the middle of nowhere but the term "street sweeper" is what the inner city thugs call an automatic assault weapon. My reference to the benz and weapon was to depict a certain type of character. And you're back in school to broaden your education. I can see why. Your narrow mindedness is showing as usual. Where did I indicate I wanted any type of weapon to "vanish"? Copy and paste.



</b><i>



Because someone else slaughters the language, is no reason for you to do it. Use the proper terms, not the emotional language of the opposition.



You didn't specifically say you wanted his gun to go away... but you said you wanted to prevent him from doing what he's gonna do in your scenario... . and I tried to make the point that focusing on that is wrong, from every standpoint. Your example is a symptom, not an ailment, and we shouldn't focus on it... . but since you did, I responded with the only possible answer for the way you framed the question.



<b></i>



And Mark said,

"and if we'd taken care of him when he started his life of crime, this whole scenario would be something you'd not even dream up. "

I don't dream this stuff up. Not too long ago a 5yr old girl was killed inside her house by a stray bullet from a drive by. And your right. If the thug were taken off the streets when he started his life of crime, there's a good chance that would have never happened. So where does it begin? It must be frustrating as allhell for law enforcement to arrest these thugs and watch our criminal justice system slap them on the wrist and turn them loose again.

You're last paragraph almost made sense until you started in on how I must be in favor of gun buy backs. Where did you read this about me? Copy and Paste.



</b><i>



Are you favor of guy buys or exchanges? Again, you framed your post in the language of the gun control people. If you don't have that point of view, don't speak that way.



<b></i>

 

[Steve M]

Mark,

I'm sorry I didn't use proper English and caused you to missinterpret what I was trying to convey. I was asking for the opinions of others on the subject. I was not in any way promoting gun control, buy backs, exchanges or any other form of gun removal tactics. You jump to conclusions based on what you percieve as leftist dialect while I was trying to form a type of character. You are obviously not the type of person I can carry on a conversation with. You jump to conclusions that aren't there. I will try to be very bland, straight to the point and simple the next time. Well, maybe not. That sounds kinda (oops) KIND OF boring for a conversation. Assume nothing. Listen.

Steve St. Laurent,

I agree with your sentiment 100%. Thank you for an objective response. I would surely do the same if my family were the victim of a bad person. (Person Mark, not gun) I was curious of others opinion about it all.

Eric, I realize what happened on 9-11 wasn't gun related. It would have been no different if they had used guns or their bare hands. Yes it was preventible. Clinton could have nipped it in the bud several times without infringing on our freedoms. The red flags were waving in his face for eight years. I suppose he was busy with affirmative action and some PC.

 

[Champane Flight]

Outgunned?

Outgunned or outmanned? It doesen't matter what weapon you carry, you can win. We were outgunned in the revolutionary war, we won. The NVA and Vietcong were way outgunned, they won..... We were knocked down in WW2 and came back to win. it really dosen't matter what caliber, type, or weapon you have. It is all how you use it! Myself, I would rather have a . 22 LR bolt action than an AK47 full auto in a guerilla situation (Most in fact). You have to have a brain to go along with the weapon.



In the days of the old west certain law men disarmed the public in town. Did it cut down on gunplay? Maybe. Did it cut down on crime? No. Gun control laws simply disarm everyone except the criminal. And give law enforcment a known advantage to abuse.



Our criminal justice system is another problem all together. Example: We had a young man killed in a armed robbery on a Sub shop last year. The man who killed him said " I tripped and the gun went off. " Now clearly the man was going into a store armed, with intention to rob it. He meant to kill, if he was holding a gun. Somehow people just don't understand, "If you point a weapon at someone you are meaning to kill them!!!!!!!"For some this is a big game. "If we take the guns away, then they can't do it by accident?" Is that it?



I wouldn't say that only liberals or Democrats have this train of thought either. Our fine Republican governer within the first two weeks of his term passed gun show legislation. The brady bill was sponsered by the republicans. Both partys are guilty of tripping for the vote fantastic.

 

[LarryB]

Originally posted by Steve M

DRR-24v, Who flew over and sht you in the mix?

OOoooo..... My... ... . Tickle, tickle..... LOL