If fathersson knows the truth, then why continuing the discussion with him? He believes he knows it all. Nothing will ever change his mind. That's what he calls it reason.

Normally I wouldn't even address this kind of post BUT......



Nothing smarter then that to say on the subject?

Boy, you must be looking for attention,

oh yeah.... with that kind of post.
either that or your just out to start trouble


TRY this for a reply:

Hey Danito,

take your B.B. Gun and you pot shots out to the back yard

You don't belong on the gun range that is for sure.!

I'm not trying to start trouble. Seriously. You're the one who said, you know "the truth". I know where I heard that before.




Whatever the B.B. Gun joke means - my English is not good enough to understand it. Sorry.

What you're saying about me and the gun range is probably true. I was on a gun range for way too much time.

OK, I will bite- What is this "you know "the truth".
That seems to be bothering you so much? It must be something in your country- Do explain please...

Do you think it is fair to say that gun deaths are a random and rare incident, but kidnapping for instance is not? And how would you protect your kid from being kidnapped with a gun in the first place? Do you watch them 24/7 with a rifle? That's unrealistic to think that you are always at home and guns would stop burglary. Here, burglaries happen when no one is at home. I suppose that's the universal logic that someone who has decided to rob a house would wait for a moment when no one is around.

And for places like Arizona, perhaps different sets of rules might put people back in advantage.

I think this extreme left and right sides on this issue would work to your disadvantage in the long run. These shootings, has swayed the public opinion in favor of background checks, whether it has a huge impact except making waiting periods longer or not. Do you think public opinion wouldn't go any further when the next massacre happens? Why not work together and come to a compromise that actually works?

I wasn't anymore. But it seems you are now.

BTW, I was meaning to ask, how self defense work in Germany? What if you kill someone in the process?

It's a very complex legal matter. I'm trying to desrcibe the situation shortly. (I'm not sure about the translation of all the legal terms.) It is legal to defend yourself according to the danger of the situation. Let's say, two men want to steal my money on the street at night. One is trying to hold me the one punches me. And let's say, I know karate. I have the right to defend myself so far, that they are not able to continue their attack. This may include breaking the attackers arm. BUT it would be illegal to continue hitting them if they're already defenseless.

The means of defense have to be appropriate. Let's say, someone is sitting on my cherry tree stealing my cherries, I'd go to jail if I shoot him.

I thought it's obvious: People who claim that they (and only they) know the truth actually aren't ready to discuss because they're not ready to change their minds.
I've seen this mind set in political and in religious fanatics. It has something to do with my country, because I grew up in East Germany where political discussion was supressed by a party who knew "the truth".
But it's not limited to my personal experience.

So Germany has the "reasonable force" rule as UK has. Thanks.

Well it may be "obvious" to you in your mind, but it wasn't to me. I was begining to think you were a whack of some kind. thanks for explaining the mystery.

The point has been made here befrore. Most people just have emotions on this subject and form their opinion with little or no real knowledge on what is what as we have mention before...
It seems like we have many who enjoy potshots and their statements prove they don't know what they are talking about. For those with "skin in the game" feel this isn't "just a kick it around" subject with WHY WHY WHY anymore.

We all see the person with no real answers attacking post style and not coming back with facts when answers to the questions are given to them.

Isn't that alot of fun to deal with.

So there isn't anything so far that would change gun owner minds so far. And as far as I can see, not that we aren't listening and interacting on the subject! We aren't the ones with the closed mind here, we just keep fielding the same lame concerns and whining from some people.

Good points. In particular read the Stevens dissent in Heller as well as the Scalia majority opinion. Heller was the first Supreme Court decision to address the Second Amendment in considerable detail, and is fascinating not only for what it addresses, but also for what it doesn't.

A misconception about the Second Amendment, which has been frequently advanced by the NRA leadership, but has no basis in reality, is that it was inserted to protect American citizens from possible tyranny and dictatorship from its own government. This is part of what conservative Chief Justice Burger had in mind when he said that the gun lobby's preaching on Second Amendment rights is one of the biggest frauds perpetuated on the American people. Scalia even distanced himself from this fallacy.

At the time of its ratification the United States did not have, nor did they want to have a standing army. It was considered that from time to time it may be necessary to defend itself from Indians and foreign invaders, or to put down insurrections. That was the necessity of a militia. We did not need an armed citizenry to defend itself from a tyrannical or dictatorial American government as the document itself, which these brilliant men created, served the purpose.

Nice article by Lupica today. He made it a point to mention that most responsible gun owners aren't affiliated with the NRA, which was nice. I copied and pasted the article from the Daily News. But you should really click the link at the bottom to see the pictures of these little kids with guns at that rally yesterday if you want to get the full effect. It's really kinda disturbing.

Lupica: Sarah Palin's appearance at the National Rifle Association convention is perfect for phony 'patriots'

Palin, who showed up with a T-shirt that read 'Women Hunt,' certainly appealed to the mean, dumb, angry crowd she found in Houston.

Mike Lupica, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Sarah Palin showed up at the NRA convention the other day, which was merely perfect. She belonged there as much as anybody in the hall just because from the start, from the time John McCain picked her out of the chorus, Palin has most appealed to mean, dumb, angry crowds exactly like the one she found in Houston.

Palin should have worn a prom dress, but on this occasion wore a T-shirt that read “Women Hunt.” In her case, that means hunting for attention.

Or relevance.

This was the day before Wayne LaPierre, the mouth breather who is the National Rifle Association’s executive vice president, got up and gave a speech of his own, one that included this line:

“How many Bostonians wished they had a gun two weeks ago?”

LaPierre is nothing more than a cheap, dangerous demagogue, constantly trying to act as if he and an association that represents an amazingly small percentage of gun owners in this country are the ones who represent the heart and soul of America, when all they are doing is fronting for the big gun companies who help fund the NRA. LaPierre isn’t a patriot, he’s a pimp.

A Daily News investigation put the spotlight on the NRA’s industry benefactors. Here are some patriots in the NRA’s so-called “Ring of Freedom” donors:

• Beretta USA Corp (listed in the $1 million to $4.9 million donation category).

• Springfield-Armory Inc. (also $1 million to $4.9 million).

• Benelli USA Corp. ($500,000 to $999,999 ).

• Sturm Ruger ($500,000 to $999,999).

So now Sarah Palin, the real cheerleader in the room in Houston, desperate to remain famous, becomes as much a face of the NRA as she has ever been. She does it by sounding as mean and dumb and angry as anybody in her audience, calling parents of children lost at Sandy Hook Elementary School “backdrops” for anti-gun rallies. And then, just because unintended self-parody is another of her specialties — like a great basketball player’s go-to move — she accuses the majority of Americans who want better gun control of exploiting tragedy.

In the process she becomes a warmup act to LaPierre politicizing the tragedy of the Boston Marathon the way he did when he called that press conference after Newtown and begged for more guns in schools, and on the street. It must have made Beretta and Springfield-Armory and all the rest of the gun companies practically moist with excitement.

“They use tragedy to . . . shame us into compromising our freedom!” LaPierre screams in Houston, and it is just more of the NRA’s great lie about how better background checks and a ban on the kind of assault rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill 26 people in an elementary school are an assault on freedom.

These are contemptible people. And if you are Sarah Palin — a woman hunting attention — and you sign on with them to hear the roar of another crowd, you are no better than they are.

The leaders of the NRA don’t speak for responsible gun owners in America, and never have. They don’t even speak to the spirit of the Second Amendment, written about a thousand years ago for single-shot muskets. They just continue to pound away at the same insane theme: Gun control is the beginning of the government coming to take their guns. As Gov. Cuomo has said, the image you get is some guy with a rifle in an attic window, watching as tanks come up his driveway.

LaPierre spoke over the weekend about “frightened citizens (of Boston) sheltered in place with no means to defend themselves.”

No, the frightened people are frightened little men like Wayne LaPierre, and the gun nuts cheering him on, all who think they become more American — and more manly — because they own guns. Not as manly as Sarah Palin, of course. But close enough.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...7#ixzz2SWf48Ao9

It could again be mentioned that you never see NRA members sticking up gas stations

wow pizzaboy, thank you for posting that great insightful, and above all else, unbiased article! its a good thing that the author didn't resort to any name calling or very broad generalizations to help further along his quite one sided hit piece.

I never said it was unbiased. Lupica is a lefty from the '60s. No doubt about that. But I liked that he was sure to point out that most responsible gun owners are NOT affiliated with the NRA.

If you didn't find the pictures of those kids posing with guns disturbing, then I don't know what to tell you. Agree to disagree and all that.

But Sarah Palin was a useless twat five years ago, and she's a useless twat today. How's that for name calling?

Really? Never? An NRA member has never used a gun to perpetrate a crime? Can you cite a source for that? I'd like to learn more.

i don't understand that logic at all. are you somehow implying, or agreeing with the idea that gun owners who are affiliated with the nra are irresponsible? if thats the way you feel then perhaps you should provide some facts that back up why you think that way, besides the whole "crazy wayne" copout. the nra is the public whipping boy for the sole reason that they are the most visible, and certain folks think they have an ace up their sleave when they let us know that the gun manufactures donate money to them. no shit, they are a lobbyist organization, but the 5 million members and growing also support them financially.

i've pointed this out before, they do alot of good and are one of the main proponents of gun safety classes that are a big part of most of the liberal gun control crowds "reasonable restrictions" arguments. this isn't directed at you, but if people really dislike the nra so much, then donate money to some of the lobbyist groups with an opposing viewpoint. if you are not prepared to do that, than do the rest of us a favor and just shut the hell up! put your money where your mouth is or move on.

as far as the kids holding guns, i can't for the life of me see the problem with kids handling unloaded weapons in a controlled situation with proper supervision. if we want people to grow up knowing how to handle firearms responsibly, then they should be taught and educated at an early age. thats not even taking into consideration the whole "families sharing common interests and having a good time together" line or reasoning. with all of those death machines floating around, how many people were shot and killed there this past weekend?

considering the hard-on that the liberal media has for the nra, they would certainly go out of their way to link the 2 together, yet we never seem to really hear much along those lines. remember the whole dorner situation? for some reason, the media didn't spend too much time with reagrds to his liberal beliefs and hero worshiping of obama, why was that? do you think the script might have been a bit different is he was as adamant of a tea party supporter, or god forbid, an nra member?

I could care less about what he wrote. I just laughed thru most of it. I nearly pissed my pants when he writes like he was breaking a big story like watergate on who was giving big bucks out.

Just like the casket companies donate to the National Funeral Directers big shows.

But, on a real note PIZZABOY-- did you have to go that low and use a cheap word (twice) like that about Palin?
I thought better of you my friend.

Hell, remember when Michael Jackson held his so called kid over the railing that time....Boy did the press and everyone else make a stink then ....

You're right. I never should have used the word useless twice. Sorry.

Hell, if he was robbing gas stations, then he sure as hell doesn't have the dues money for the NRA now would he....

rimshot

OK funny little johnny....

I have to give that one to you.

First just want to say i'm a gun guy and though not a member of the NRA i do support most (85% - 90%) of their policies.

I have to admit when i first saw those photo's of the kids i couldn't believe it. What genius thought of NRA Kids day? Especially now with all the heat from the school killings. Not too smart in my opinion.

Not sure if it matters to anyone but those weapons the kids are holding i'm almost positive are all air guns not firearms. Only one i'm not sure about is the chubby kid with the assault rifle.


On another subject, the repubs want hearings on the bullet sales to Homeland Security. They are openly accusing Obama of trying to make ammo impossible to buy. Seems like every day they are ordering more millions of rounds. More then the army orders per soldier.

I know Dapper Don said thats the typical way the gov makes purchases and he might be completely right, but there are many who say these orders are far from normal. Stay tuned, hopefully we'll soon learn whats going on.

Remember when someone was talking about gay marriage to a little girl on TV and you made a stink about it then. As I said, depends which side of the argument you are on.

Don't worry Five, They didn't run this story under the news section. It was right near the Comics.
He was to lazy to even include how many members the NRA really had in his "article" and I use that term with a snicker.
Maybe he is looking to get a job writing for Bill Mahar on the comedy channel-

"LaPierre isn’t a patriot, he’s a pimp."


and he never could out fight SONNY either. But it wasn't till Pizzaboys post that I now know it was Palin all along!

The fact that Sarah Palin is still relevant to the NRA membership only confirms everything I have thought about them all along.

Wayne La Pierre is a terrorist.

here is a great article that i came across addressing some of the many gun control issues, as well as the reasons why honest discussions are difficult. now even though its on the pro-gun side, unlike the hit piece posted by pizzaboy the author of this article actually backs up his reasoning with facts and sources, not purely emotion, personal attacks, and outdated silly sterotypes. its a long read, but worth imo no matter which side of the debate you are on...

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_1c144792-b36d-11e2-8ac6-001a4bcf887a.html

Why do you keep addressing me on this issue? You don't agree with the article, fine. Who gives a fuck? I didn't agree with it a hundred percent either. But you're just as bad as the fucking lefties when people don't agree with you. You go right into attack mode.

Re the article you posted: He makes some nice points. But he goes on a diatribe about why gun owners don't trust anti-gun people. So let me ask you this: Where does that put me? I mean, I own guns, two handguns and a hunting rifle. I've been licensed in both New York and Florida for almost as long as you've been alive. But just because I'm willing to listen to the argument for background check proposals and I think it's silly for a guy living in Scarsdale to own a military type weapon (notice I was careful not to label it an assault weapon), you automatically throw me into the column with the peaceniks and '60s leftovers.

Well, I'm not of that mind, son. I never have been. But again, your problem is that you're no more open to an honest discussion than that idiot Senator from California. Being that I'm not "all in" on the issue, you've taken the position that "if he ain't with us a hundred percent, he's against us." But that's what I get for being a political centrist. I get it from both sides.