The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I WONT GIVE UP MY GUNS UNTIL EVERY CRIMINAL DOES...and we all know that wont happen. That is one right that the LIBERALS will never take away from me. AND I AM ALL FOR GUN CONTROL!!! I USE BOTH HANDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

skins#1fan wrote:I WONT GIVE UP MY GUNS UNTIL EVERY CRIMINAL DOES...and we all know that wont happen. That is one right that the LIBERALS will never take away from me. AND I AM ALL FOR GUN CONTROL!!! I USE BOTH HANDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is an example of someone who should probably not own a gun. It's rash, written in caps, and makes the assumption that "liberals" are trying to take away gun rights.

I would venture to guess a very, very small percentage of the American population is for the abolishment of gun ownership in this country.

Why are some gun owners just paranoid that people disaprove of or are trying to take away their right to own firearms? No one really is.

I don't fret about what other people think of my gun ownership because if I get into a discussion with someone about my guns I can explain to them why I own them, will probably buy more and am fit to own them in the first place...

Quit worrying about the boogyman stealing your guns away.

Skinsfan55 wrote:I would venture to guess a very, very small percentage of the American population is for the abolishment of gun ownership in this country.

Just a question. On the bill of rights, the left is hysterically extreme on the amendments they like that if we don't take it to the ultimate beyond the pale level they have been reduced to nothing. A few examples.

- First Amendment justifies burning the flag, extreme pornography, etc.

- All abortions must be allowed at all times with even sucking out the brains of viable full term babies not prohibited as long as they have not come out of the womb yet.

- Parents are not even notified much less consulted for abortions performed on their children.

- Throwing out evidence and tossing out cases based on narrow readings of the law, like Miranda reading that everyone knows already because of television

- Right to counsel and a trial extends to prisoners who were terrorists captured in foreign countries, not even in the US

- The government cannot monitor phone calls to foreign countries without a warrant. A practice they describe as "domestic spying" when the NSA monitors foreign calls.

But with guns your phrasing sounds like as long as they are not completely banned that is OK. What do you think? Does that make sense? And BTW, my point is on extremeness of views, don't assume my positions on the above issues because they vary. Just they are all extreme.

I tend to be extreme all the time, my point is on how the left is extreme on their views and when it comes to right views they suddenly want to know why the right can't be "reasonable."

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Skinsfan55 wrote:I would venture to guess a very, very small percentage of the American population is for the abolishment of gun ownership in this country.

Just a question. On the bill of rights, the left is hysterically extreme on the amendments they like that if we don't take it to the ultimate beyond the pale level they have been reduced to nothing. A few examples.

- First Amendment justifies burning the flag, extreme pornography, etc.

it does!

KazooSkinsFan wrote:[
- All abortions must be allowed at all times with even sucking out the brains of viable full term babies not prohibited as long as they have not come out of the womb yet.

i dont know who believes this

KazooSkinsFan wrote:[
- Parents are not even notified much less consulted for abortions performed on their children.
.

right to privacy doesnt extend to minors?
(abortion by the way has nothing to do with the bill of rights but right to privacy does)

KazooSkinsFan wrote:- Throwing out evidence and tossing out cases based on narrow readings of the law, like Miranda reading that everyone knows already because of television.

miranda is one of the most important set of rights and to be arrested without having at least a review of what you have the right to do and not do is essential for an informed electorate or a protected citizenry (the rule of law is more important than putting one guy away who might actually be guilty... once the rule of law is lost, chaos is next)

KazooSkinsFan wrote:[
- Right to counsel and a trial extends to prisoners who were terrorists captured in foreign countries, not even in the US
this doesnt happen. .

the real issue that liberals take to heart is throwing the geneva convention to the road side. but as far as what you wrote i think it should be, just so we set an example .. we say we are all about human rights and we shun countries (that dont have our cash, ie china) that practice human rights abuses yet we wont extend what we think is right to others that are not under our protection? it sets a bad example. its not what liberals want but it is somthing that we should have a discussion about

KazooSkinsFan wrote:- The government cannot monitor phone calls to foreign countries without a warrant. A practice they describe as "domestic spying" when the NSA monitors foreign calls..

if i am in the US and make a phone call where ever it goes i am a US citizen and will not be searched without cause.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
But with guns your phrasing sounds like as long as they are not completely banned that is OK. What do you think? Does that make sense? And BTW, my point is on extremeness of views, don't assume my positions on the above issues because they vary. Just they are all extreme.
.

requiring a trigger safe or a waiting period for hand guns is extream? sounds like a safe way to allow sales of weapons of war.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I tend to be extreme all the time, my point is on how the left is extreme on their views and when it comes to right views they suddenly want to know why the right can't be "reasonable."

what you wrote is so one sided man.. im not aliberal but you gotta take a step back and look at "extream things" the republicans do (like sending our boys to a useless war where nothing in accomplished) then re think your argument. then rejoin the conversation



also, what skins fan wrote isnt crazy and did not warrent anything other than, "you know i think your right". Such a tiny population wants to ban guns its not even a variable.

what you should have responded to is the fact that skins fan said you should not worry that people want to take your guns away.. you should always worry. if you dont then someone will.

TincoSkin wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Skinsfan55 wrote:I would venture to guess a very, very small percentage of the American population is for the abolishment of gun ownership in this country.

Just a question. On the bill of rights, the left is hysterically extreme on the amendments they like that if we don't take it to the ultimate beyond the pale level they have been reduced to nothing. A few examples.

- First Amendment justifies burning the flag, extreme pornography, etc.

it does!

KazooSkinsFan wrote:[
- All abortions must be allowed at all times with even sucking out the brains of viable full term babies not prohibited as long as they have not come out of the womb yet.

i dont know who believes this

KazooSkinsFan wrote:[
- Parents are not even notified much less consulted for abortions performed on their children.
.

right to privacy doesnt extend to minors?
(abortion by the way has nothing to do with the bill of rights but right to privacy does)

KazooSkinsFan wrote:- Throwing out evidence and tossing out cases based on narrow readings of the law, like Miranda reading that everyone knows already because of television.

miranda is one of the most important set of rights and to be arrested without having at least a review of what you have the right to do and not do is essential for an informed electorate or a protected citizenry (the rule of law is more important than putting one guy away who might actually be guilty... once the rule of law is lost, chaos is next)

KazooSkinsFan wrote:[
- Right to counsel and a trial extends to prisoners who were terrorists captured in foreign countries, not even in the US
this doesnt happen. .

the real issue that liberals take to heart is throwing the geneva convention to the road side. but as far as what you wrote i think it should be, just so we set an example .. we say we are all about human rights and we shun countries (that dont have our cash, ie china) that practice human rights abuses yet we wont extend what we think is right to others that are not under our protection? it sets a bad example. its not what liberals want but it is somthing that we should have a discussion about

KazooSkinsFan wrote:- The government cannot monitor phone calls to foreign countries without a warrant. A practice they describe as "domestic spying" when the NSA monitors foreign calls..

if i am in the US and make a phone call where ever it goes i am a US citizen and will not be searched without cause.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
But with guns your phrasing sounds like as long as they are not completely banned that is OK. What do you think? Does that make sense? And BTW, my point is on extremeness of views, don't assume my positions on the above issues because they vary. Just they are all extreme.
.

requiring a trigger safe or a waiting period for hand guns is extream? sounds like a safe way to allow sales of weapons of war.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I tend to be extreme all the time, my point is on how the left is extreme on their views and when it comes to right views they suddenly want to know why the right can't be "reasonable."

what you wrote is so one sided man.. im not aliberal but you gotta take a step back and look at "extream things" the republicans do (like sending our boys to a useless war where nothing in accomplished) then re think your argument. then rejoin the conversation



also, what skins fan wrote isnt crazy and did not warrent anything other than, "you know i think your right". Such a tiny population wants to ban guns its not even a variable.

This is one long ass post in response for one that never answered my question. "I tend to be extreme all the time, my point is on how the left is extreme on their views and when it comes to right views they suddenly want to know why the right can't be 'reasonable.'"

I have differing views on all those issues, as I said I tend to be extreme all the time, sometimes to the right (e.g., States rights, economic freedom) and sometimes left (legalize drugs, prostitution, etc.). I'm always for the small government side.

But my point was the post said guns are not being completely outlawed implying so we're cool with the second amendment and yet the left is never moderate on the amendments they emphasize.

Parsing and responding to position by position answers my post not at all.

putting a safetey on a gun in no way violates the amendment. so it is a strict interpretation. you can have em but you gotta be safe. in waht way is that reading the amendment wrong, or moderate. read the amendment again man.. then read the other ones. then think about everything you wrote.

TincoSkin wrote:putting a safetey on a gun in no way violates the amendment. so it is a strict interpretation. you can have em but you gotta be safe. in waht way is that reading the amendment wrong, or moderate. read the amendment again man.. then read the other ones. then think about everything you wrote.

I give up, you aren't going to address my question. No problem, amigo, you don't have to.

Hint: My point wasn't on guns, it was on the left asking for reasonableness in amendments they don't care about (like the 2nd and 10th) and stating the slightest limitation on even extremely exaggerated positions on the ones they emphasize are equivalent to eliminating them (like the 1st and 5th).

See, this is why we should all carry big wooden bats...several of them.

TincoSkin wrote:putting a safetey on a gun in no way violates the amendment. so it is a strict interpretation. you can have em but you gotta be safe. in waht way is that reading the amendment wrong, or moderate. read the amendment again man.. then read the other ones. then think about everything you wrote.

The biggest "safety" a gun owner can have is KNOWING HOW TO HANDLE HIS GUN. Just like air bags don't prevent accidents but they lower the death rate.

Cappster wrote:

TincoSkin wrote:putting a safetey on a gun in no way violates the amendment. so it is a strict interpretation. you can have em but you gotta be safe. in waht way is that reading the amendment wrong, or moderate. read the amendment again man.. then read the other ones. then think about everything you wrote.

The biggest "safety" a gun owner can have is KNOWING HOW TO HANDLE HIS GUN. Just like air bags don't prevent accidents but they lower the death rate.

Personal accountability and responsibility over government mandates to protect people from themselves that never really work? What kind of liberal are you?

Can you imagine the liberal tort system clogged with the "safety" devices the inept government mandated to supposed to protect people from learning how to handle and operate guns safely and responsibly?

I loves my guns.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPBHtjZmSpw