Topix Chitown Regulars

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#77473 Dec 20, 2012
squishymama wrote:
<quoted text>
I've thought about that. But we're no longer living in 1776, where you had to load your gun with a musket ball, gunpower and a long stick. I don't really have an answer except to know there has to be a better way.
And I'll have to take your word on what types of guns were used. I have stopped reading most stuff about this; it hits way too close to home for me since I have a 1st grader.
The government who may oppress you also is no longer using a musket ball, gunpowder, and a long stick. That's the whole point of his argument. If you understand why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Constitution, you would know it was included to prevent tyranny and level the playing field at least somewhat.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#77474 Dec 20, 2012
I honestly can understand folks who think we should all be wards of the state from not appreciating the second amendment.

They keep saying, but our government could never be tyrannical, meanwhile they constantly urge more and more government and never ending expansion of entitlement programs and handouts, more and more transfer of wealth from those who have earned it to those who haven't, and perversion of the constitution in such a way that the states would have never agreed to join the union had they known how it would have been distorted over time.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#77475 Dec 20, 2012
squishymama wrote:
It's our concern now, after what happened last Friday.
I still don't think that it is. Just because one nutball got his hands on an assault weapon, doesn't mean that all who own assault weapons are nutballs.
squishymama wrote:
The only reason someone would want an assault weapon is to assult people.
That's not true. Maybe someone enjoys shooting up watermelons or squirrels. And if society ends, I might have to ward off a hoard of people trying to steel my food. Or I might have to fight back against the government when it turns into a dictatorship.
squishymama wrote:
Call me as many names as you like, but I believe with all my being that a civilian should not be able to have access to a gun (or ammo clips) that have the capability of firing hundreds of bullets in a matter of minutes.
There are many people who disagree with you. And I still see no difference between one clip that holds 30 rounds or three clips that hold ten. It only takes a second or two to swap out a clip.

Should people be mandated to owning only one gun with one clip capable of holding only one round?

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#77476 Dec 20, 2012
I read online a post that said something like, "When we're talking about new gun laws/restrictions, a good litmus test should be,'would this law have prevented what happened at that school?'"

Interesting way to think about it.

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

#77477 Dec 20, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The government who may oppress you also is no longer using a musket ball, gunpowder, and a long stick. That's the whole point of his argument. If you understand why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Constitution, you would know it was included to prevent tyranny and level the playing field at least somewhat.
I understand perfectly. What I'm not seeing is any tyranny by the government. I know, I know, you have to be prepared just in case...

What I am seeing is a whole country becoming scared of their neighbors because one never knows when your neighbor is going to start shooting. I'm seeing our schools becoming jails. I'm seeing people afraid to confront a stranger on the street for bad behavior because they might have a gun.(This, btw, did really happen to a friend of mine. He told some guy to put his cheetos wrapper in the garbage instead of the street; dude put a gun in his face and said "Make me.")

I'm just a mom that wants her kids to be safe from this kind of BS.

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

#77478 Dec 20, 2012
edogxxx wrote:
That's not true. Maybe someone enjoys shooting up watermelons or squirrels. And if society ends, I might have to ward off a hoard of people trying to steel my food. Or I might have to fight back against the government when it turns into a dictatorship.
If the government turns into a dictorship, your one little gun, no matter how many bullets it shoots at one time, ain't gonna help much. They will have more.
edogxxx wrote:
There are many people who disagree with you. And I still see no difference between one clip that holds 30 rounds or three clips that hold ten. It only takes a second or two to swap out a clip.
Should people be mandated to owning only one gun with one clip capable of holding only one round?
I'm sorry, I just feel like if you're going to kill someone, it shouldn't be so f*cking easy.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#77479 Dec 20, 2012
I just realized... my coworker is a fiscal liberal but a social conservative. I think that's the rarest of the four possible combinations of those aspects.
PEllen

Chicago, IL

#77480 Dec 20, 2012
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
I read online a post that said something like, "When we're talking about new gun laws/restrictions, a good litmus test should be,'would this law have prevented what happened at that school?'"
Interesting way to think about it.
No law, no restriction no rule, not even Big Brother can prevent a person who is intelligent and focuse from getting a weapon and doing violence. Laws are on paper and bad guys and crazies don't pay attention. You need only look for the the guys who violate protection orders, like the Colorado man who got out of jail for domestic violence, got a gun and shot the girlfriend and 2 others before killing himself. That was Monday. Restrictions won't work.
The weapon must be actually unavailable. You don't read about homicides by bazooka because there aren't many around.

An equally unpopular view would be to revisit Least Restrictive Environment rules for mentally ill. We as a society used to get the crazies off the street- there were abuses and now they are out getting guns and shooting people.

The news websites are noting the memorials for 26 people, 20 kids and 6 teachers. Noticably absent from the memorials is Nancy Lanza who, knowing just how unbalanced her son was, taught him to shoot.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#77481 Dec 20, 2012
squishymama wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand perfectly. What I'm not seeing is any tyranny by the government. I know, I know, you have to be prepared just in case...
What I am seeing is a whole country becoming scared of their neighbors because one never knows when your neighbor is going to start shooting.
I'm seeing our schools becoming jails. I'm seeing people afraid to confront a stranger on the street for bad behavior because they might have a gun.(This, btw, did really happen to a friend of mine. He told some guy to put his cheetos wrapper in the garbage instead of the street; dude put a gun in his face and said "Make me.")
I'm just a mom that wants her kids to be safe from this kind of BS.
I’m not scared of my neighbors, and I still believe in the decency of the vast majority of folks.

I wouldn’t mind at all if our schools were more secure. I don’t look at that as being a jail. I look at that as being a very soft target, and if someone wants to hurt us, to our nation’s bone, it’s probably one of the best ways to do so. I haven’t felt this bad about a national tragedy since 9-11, myself. I don’t know why anyone can just walk into my kids’ school.

IN terms of the litter bug … do you really think a guy that unstable is going to respect gun laws? Chicago has had the most strict gun laws in the nation for years ... the only thing that has led to is the criminals being well armed and law abiding citizens not being armed.

“Where is Tonka?”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#77482 Dec 20, 2012
No, lets not asshat! How about you just admit that your trying to run a script. Its time for you do stop doing that thing that I find so very annoying about you, or are you unwilling to play by your own rules?
Sam I Am wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh, the ol' Mutt backtrack. Sadly, you don't do it as well as he does. But then again, he's got a little more practice.
So let's go to the next step. What reasonable purpose is there for ordinary citizens to have assault weapons? Why aren't handguns and rifles enough? Are you going hunting with an AK? Do you keep an AK in the nightstand by your bed for home safety? Do AKs fit in the conceal carry parameters?

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

#77483 Dec 20, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I’m not scared of my neighbors, and I still believe in the decency of the vast majority of folks.
I wouldn’t mind at all if our schools were more secure. I don’t look at that as being a jail. I look at that as being a very soft target, and if someone wants to hurt us, to our nation’s bone, it’s probably one of the best ways to do so. I haven’t felt this bad about a national tragedy since 9-11, myself. I don’t know why anyone can just walk into my kids’ school.
IN terms of the litter bug … do you really think a guy that unstable is going to respect gun laws? Chicago has had the most strict gun laws in the nation for years ... the only thing that has led to is the criminals being well armed and law abiding citizens not being armed.
I wish I could find the piece I heard on NPR the other day (I did look, btw) where they were talking about Switzerland. Every able-bodied man is part of their militia and is required to keep a gun, ready to use, in their house. Yet there is little violence there, so it must have something to do with their culture. The professor interviewed had some interesting things to say, which I can't remember now since I heard it with one ear while I was working.

So I guess I'm trying to say that there is something in our culture that fosters violence and lack of respect for human life. And that's something that can't be legislated.

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#77484 Dec 20, 2012
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
I read online a post that said something like, "When we're talking about new gun laws/restrictions, a good litmus test should be,'would this law have prevented what happened at that school?'"
Interesting way to think about it.
Well, that could be one thought. I think a better litmus test would be -- does this make gun ownership safer for the general population (for both those that own guns and those that do not).

“Where is Tonka?”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#77485 Dec 20, 2012
I texted a girl I see occasionally, I said that since the world might end tomorrow, we should spend the night together.

She texted back....It's already tomorrow in Australia and the world is still here.

On to the next girl in the Rolodex...

Since: Mar 09

Miami, FL

#77486 Dec 20, 2012
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
I just realized... my coworker is a fiscal liberal but a social conservative. I think that's the rarest of the four possible combinations of those aspects.
That's what A's asshat ex-boyfriend is. I thought it was strange too, I'd never known anyone with that combo of beliefs before.

“Where is Tonka?”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#77487 Dec 20, 2012
Honest people owning guns is no threat to anybody but a criminal.
How can you think any other way? What is "safer"? Its just a word you are throwing around that has no meaning. Guns are dangerous, so are arrows and chainsaws, but handled properly, they are "safe".

Toj wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that could be one thought. I think a better litmus test would be -- does this make gun ownership safer for the general population (for both those that own guns and those that do not).

“Where is Tonka?”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#77488 Dec 20, 2012
Unless that someone busts into your house and wants to harm your family that is...
squishymama wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry, I just feel like if you're going to kill someone, it shouldn't be so f*cking easy.

“Where is Tonka?”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#77489 Dec 20, 2012
And can you think of a single law that could be drawn up that would do that?

To me, that is just more warm fuzzy legislation.
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
I read online a post that said something like, "When we're talking about new gun laws/restrictions, a good litmus test should be,'would this law have prevented what happened at that school?'"
Interesting way to think about it.
PEllen

Chicago, IL

#77490 Dec 20, 2012
You weren't paying attention this morning, were you?

A famous Viking explorer returned home from a pillaging voyage and found his name missing from the town register. His wife insisted on complaining to Erik HeadCounterrson , the local civic official, who apologized profusely saying, "I must have taken Leif off my census."

(Ain't it the truth?)
PEllen

Chicago, IL

#77491 Dec 20, 2012
RACE wrote:
I texted a girl I see occasionally, I said that since the world might end tomorrow, we should spend the night together.
She texted back....It's already tomorrow in Australia and the world is still here.
On to the next girl in the Rolodex...
What is thing you call Rolodex?

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

#77492 Dec 20, 2012
Just for you, PEllen.

There were two hitmen, Artie and Dominick, that had worked together for years. And every day, Dominick would complain about his wife. Finally, Artie got sick of hearing the b!tching and offered to take care of Dominick's wife for $1, since they were such good friends and all.

The next day, Dominick came in with his wife's itinerary for the day and a key to his house. While Dominick's wife was out at the grocery store, Artie let himself into the house and hid in the closet. When Dominick's wife got home, Artie jumped out of the closet and chocked her. He looked up to see the cleaning lady watching him in horror. Artie chased her around the house and finally caught her and chocked her near the front door. He looked up to see the mailman peeking in the window and he'd seen the whole thing. So Artie chases the mailman down the driveway, catches him and chokes him. Just then, a police car comes down the street and Artie is arrested.

The headline in the paper the next day read "Artie Chokes 3 for $1 at Dominick's."

(For those of you not in the greater chicagoland area, Dominick's is a grocery store.)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min positronium 1,458,269
Why does Chicago want to harbor illegal criminals 13 min ThomasA 17
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr Jacques Ottawa 231,014
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 5 hr SweLL GirL 9,843
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 7 hr Into The Night 62,314
News Chicago's resistance 10 hr Lickz8951 3
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 11 hr YIM 7,942

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages