Doughboy, Michael Moore's bodyguard gets caught packing heat

[booger711]

lol

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: kogase
In response to K1052:

1. You're still making an assumption. As I was talking about a literal aproach to the Constitution, you cannot do that.

2. I never said they did.

3. Restrictions? No. Requirements? Yes.

4. A "rash". So there haven't been millions of shooting deaths each year. There have been shooting deaths, though. And you may say "What's a few deaths?", but the fact of the matter is, a few deaths is everything to the people who die.

Almost NONE of which were by lawfully endowed citizens. Criminals create gun violence, not CPL holders. CPL holders STOP gun violence as has been proven again and again. You cannot suggest that firearms are more dangerous than alcohol, drugs, or driving....all of which cause far more problems but I don't see you soapboxing them. I'm not blaming you, you're very likely brainwashed by the same ignorant media hype that keeps the hopes of gun control advocates alive. Even the national scientific study into gun control was unable to suggest even one positive outcome from all the gun control measures enacted thus far....and it was funded and created by a purely anti-gun lobby. If they can't show how guns are bad, no one can.

I simply don't feel comfortable with a bunch of gung-ho rednecks out there packing heat. What if we were to include accidental injuries into the mix? We'd have considerably more reasons to require proper training before allowing a person to own a gun. People are required to take a course before getting a driver's license, you must be 21 to purchase alcohol, drugs (by which I assume you mean hard drugs) are illegal for the most part. I don't believe you should be able to walk into a store and walk out with a gun, with no training, simply because the second amendment gives you the right to own a gun. If you want to defend yourself or your family with a gun, if that is that important to you, then you should be prepared to learn how to do it properly.

As an aside, the training required for a driver's license is a joke. It's basically a token gesture towards the reasonably intelligent and sane.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: kogase
In response to K1052:

1. You're still making an assumption. As I was talking about a literal aproach to the Constitution, you cannot do that.

2. I never said they did.

3. Restrictions? No. Requirements? Yes.

4. A "rash". So there haven't been millions of shooting deaths each year. There have been shooting deaths, though. And you may say "What's a few deaths?", but the fact of the matter is, a few deaths is everything to the people who die.

Almost NONE of which were by lawfully endowed citizens. Criminals create gun violence, not CPL holders. CPL holders STOP gun violence as has been proven again and again. You cannot suggest that firearms are more dangerous than alcohol, drugs, or driving....all of which cause far more problems but I don't see you soapboxing them. I'm not blaming you, you're very likely brainwashed by the same ignorant media hype that keeps the hopes of gun control advocates alive. Even the national scientific study into gun control was unable to suggest even one positive outcome from all the gun control measures enacted thus far....and it was funded and created by a purely anti-gun lobby. If they can't show how guns are bad, no one can.

I simply don't feel comfortable with a bunch of gung-ho rednecks out there packing heat. What if we were to include accidental injuries into the mix? We'd have considerably more reasons to require proper training before allowing a person to own a gun. People are required to take a course before getting a driver's license, you must be 21 to purchase alcohol, drugs (by which I assume you mean hard drugs) are illegal for the most part. I don't believe you should be able to walk into a store and walk out with a gun, with no training, simply because the second amendment gives you the right to own a gun. If you want to defend yourself or your family with a gun, if that is that important to you, then you should be prepared to learn how to do it properly.

As an aside, the training required for a driver's license is a joke. It's basically a token gesture towards the reasonably intelligent and sane.

I don't care what you feel comfortable with to be honest. I don't feel comfortable with neo-conservatives in charge of the country. I don't feel comfortable with dangerous felons being released early. I don't feel comfortable with being forced to leave school at night unarmed and walk thru town to my home. You have no inherent rights to comfort at the expense of others however...what we have is a constitution which provides some basic rights and a methodology of due process to adapt them.

If we include accidental injuries into the mix for firearms we must then include them into everything else...cold medicine injuries at work, lack of sleep injuries due to exhaustion, etc. What you're going to find if you actually study federally approved statistics is that firearms represent an extremely small danger to society from ANY source other than intentional criminal use....which is a criminal issue and NOT a firearm issue.

You're missing the ENTIRE point of gun control, and that's why you don't get it. Gun control DOESN'T control the people causing the problems with guns: the criminals. The ONLY people that are required to abide gun control measures are lawful citizens who DON'T CAUSE PROBLEMS IN THE FIRST PLACE! I'll say that 3 or 4 ways in a row so that maybe, just maybe, it'll sink in. Crime is crime with or without a gun...in other words a robbery is a robbery even if you don't use a firearm. Gun control can't prevent a robbery. Gun control CAN and HAS prevented someone from defending themselves DURING a robbery however. Gun control ONLY affects/harms innocent people, and NEVER restricts or reduces criminal activity. Gun control actually ENCOURAGES lawless behavior as has been evidenced by increasing violent crime rates anywhere guns are banned, and decreasing crime rates anywhere gun ownership is opened (for the most part anyway, there are always exceptions). People generally feel they have a right to defend themselves...gun control inhibits that right. This forces otherwise law abiding citizens to break the law in order to stay safe. Then, invariably, some minor thing with them leads them to a firearms charge that ruins their lives. I'm reminded of Shawshank Redemption where Andy says, "I had to come to jail to learn to be a criminal". Same concept here.

Let's assume just for the sake of argument that I agree with you about initial firearms training. What does that really solve? Most accidents are NOT directly involving the persons who own the firearms. Those that are are either drug and alcohol related. It's fairly rare to see a gun owner have an actual 'accident'. Many if not most gun owners are fairly well versed in firearm safety anyway, what would a class actually do? Reduce owner related accidents by 5%? 25%? Maybe stop 1% of non owner accidents by convincing people to be careful with their guns and teach their families firearm safety? We can't regulate peoples lives, and every attempt to do so results in chaos and tragedy. Once someone leaves the class it's THEIR choice to follow common sense guidelines or not, and there's aboslutely nothing anyone can do about that. What good will punishing them really do? Will it bring back a dead child? At most it's a warning to others to be more responsible gun owners, but we have already seen many such warnings, with very little effect. If you read the statistics you'll find that per capita law enforcment officers have more accidents with guns than do concealed permit holders nationwide. Would you say police aren't trained? Aren't aware of gun safety issues? Of course they are, but it still happens. It's not that I have anything against a mandatory safety class, in fact I wholly support them. But the truth is that it would have very negligible affects on what happens in this country.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: kogase
In response to K1052:

1. You're still making an assumption. As I was talking about a literal aproach to the Constitution, you cannot do that.

2. I never said they did.

3. Restrictions? No. Requirements? Yes.

4. A "rash". So there haven't been millions of shooting deaths each year. There have been shooting deaths, though. And you may say "What's a few deaths?", but the fact of the matter is, a few deaths is everything to the people who die.

Almost NONE of which were by lawfully endowed citizens. Criminals create gun violence, not CPL holders. CPL holders STOP gun violence as has been proven again and again. You cannot suggest that firearms are more dangerous than alcohol, drugs, or driving....all of which cause far more problems but I don't see you soapboxing them. I'm not blaming you, you're very likely brainwashed by the same ignorant media hype that keeps the hopes of gun control advocates alive. Even the national scientific study into gun control was unable to suggest even one positive outcome from all the gun control measures enacted thus far....and it was funded and created by a purely anti-gun lobby. If they can't show how guns are bad, no one can.

I simply don't feel comfortable with a bunch of gung-ho rednecks out there packing heat. What if we were to include accidental injuries into the mix? We'd have considerably more reasons to require proper training before allowing a person to own a gun. People are required to take a course before getting a driver's license, you must be 21 to purchase alcohol, drugs (by which I assume you mean hard drugs) are illegal for the most part. I don't believe you should be able to walk into a store and walk out with a gun, with no training, simply because the second amendment gives you the right to own a gun. If you want to defend yourself or your family with a gun, if that is that important to you, then you should be prepared to learn how to do it properly.

As an aside, the training required for a driver's license is a joke. It's basically a token gesture towards the reasonably intelligent and sane.

I don't care what you feel comfortable with to be honest. I don't feel comfortable with neo-conservatives in charge of the country. I don't feel comfortable with dangerous felons being released early. I don't feel comfortable with being forced to leave school at night unarmed and walk thru town to my home. You have no inherent rights to comfort at the expense of others however...what we have is a constitution which provides some basic rights and a methodology of due process to adapt them.

If we include accidental injuries into the mix for firearms we must then include them into everything else...cold medicine injuries at work, lack of sleep injuries due to exhaustion, etc. What you're going to find if you actually study federally approved statistics is that firearms represent an extremely small danger to society from ANY source other than intentional criminal use....which is a criminal issue and NOT a firearm issue.

You're missing the ENTIRE point of gun control, and that's why you don't get it. Gun control DOESN'T control the people causing the problems with guns: the criminals. The ONLY people that are required to abide gun control measures are lawful citizens who DON'T CAUSE PROBLEMS IN THE FIRST PLACE! I'll say that 3 or 4 ways in a row so that maybe, just maybe, it'll sink in. Crime is crime with or without a gun...in other words a robbery is a robbery even if you don't use a firearm. Gun control can't prevent a robbery. Gun control CAN and HAS prevented someone from defending themselves DURING a robbery however. Gun control ONLY affects/harms innocent people, and NEVER restricts or reduces criminal activity. Gun control actually ENCOURAGES lawless behavior as has been evidenced by increasing violent crime rates anywhere guns are banned, and decreasing crime rates anywhere gun ownership is opened (for the most part anyway, there are always exceptions). People generally feel they have a right to defend themselves...gun control inhibits that right. This forces otherwise law abiding citizens to break the law in order to stay safe. Then, invariably, some minor thing with them leads them to a firearms charge that ruins their lives. I'm reminded of Shawshank Redemption where Andy says, "I had to come to jail to learn to be a criminal". Same concept here.

Let's assume just for the sake of argument that I agree with you about initial firearms training. What does that really solve? Most accidents are NOT directly involving the persons who own the firearms. Those that are are either drug and alcohol related. It's fairly rare to see a gun owner have an actual 'accident'. Many if not most gun owners are fairly well versed in firearm safety anyway, what would a class actually do? Reduce owner related accidents by 5%? 25%? Maybe stop 1% of non owner accidents by convincing people to be careful with their guns and teach their families firearm safety? We can't regulate peoples lives, and every attempt to do so results in chaos and tragedy. Once someone leaves the class it's THEIR choice to follow common sense guidelines or not, and there's aboslutely nothing anyone can do about that. What good will punishing them really do? Will it bring back a dead child? At most it's a warning to others to be more responsible gun owners, but we have already seen many such warnings, with very little effect. If you read the statistics you'll find that per capita law enforcment officers have more accidents with guns than do concealed permit holders nationwide. Would you say police aren't trained? Aren't aware of gun safety issues? Of course they are, but it still happens. It's not that I have anything against a mandatory safety class, in fact I wholly support them. But the truth is that it would have very negligible affects on what happens in this country.

Okay. You have me convinced.

I grew up in upstate New York. Trudging through the snow to and from school in a bright orange fleece and watching mongoloid rednecks with the intelligence and capacity for reasoning of a standard grapefruit walking through my yard with shotguns. A kid down the street had a father who was a policeman. He answered a domestic disturbance call, knocked on the door... it opened, and his head was blown clean off by the person who called him there. These are the "lawfully endowed citizens" you're talking about, among others. These people should not have guns, to defend themselves, to hunt deer, to do anything. They should not have guns, period. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen anytime soon, and so I guess, with the things the way they are, you're right. In the context of the modern world, of the world in general, you have me convinced. But I still think it's all wrong. Makes me wish I could do something about it.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: kogase
In response to K1052:

1. You're still making an assumption. As I was talking about a literal aproach to the Constitution, you cannot do that.

2. I never said they did.

3. Restrictions? No. Requirements? Yes.

4. A "rash". So there haven't been millions of shooting deaths each year. There have been shooting deaths, though. And you may say "What's a few deaths?", but the fact of the matter is, a few deaths is everything to the people who die.

Almost NONE of which were by lawfully endowed citizens. Criminals create gun violence, not CPL holders. CPL holders STOP gun violence as has been proven again and again. You cannot suggest that firearms are more dangerous than alcohol, drugs, or driving....all of which cause far more problems but I don't see you soapboxing them. I'm not blaming you, you're very likely brainwashed by the same ignorant media hype that keeps the hopes of gun control advocates alive. Even the national scientific study into gun control was unable to suggest even one positive outcome from all the gun control measures enacted thus far....and it was funded and created by a purely anti-gun lobby. If they can't show how guns are bad, no one can.

I simply don't feel comfortable with a bunch of gung-ho rednecks out there packing heat. What if we were to include accidental injuries into the mix? We'd have considerably more reasons to require proper training before allowing a person to own a gun. People are required to take a course before getting a driver's license, you must be 21 to purchase alcohol, drugs (by which I assume you mean hard drugs) are illegal for the most part. I don't believe you should be able to walk into a store and walk out with a gun, with no training, simply because the second amendment gives you the right to own a gun. If you want to defend yourself or your family with a gun, if that is that important to you, then you should be prepared to learn how to do it properly.

As an aside, the training required for a driver's license is a joke. It's basically a token gesture towards the reasonably intelligent and sane.

I don't care what you feel comfortable with to be honest. I don't feel comfortable with neo-conservatives in charge of the country. I don't feel comfortable with dangerous felons being released early. I don't feel comfortable with being forced to leave school at night unarmed and walk thru town to my home. You have no inherent rights to comfort at the expense of others however...what we have is a constitution which provides some basic rights and a methodology of due process to adapt them.

If we include accidental injuries into the mix for firearms we must then include them into everything else...cold medicine injuries at work, lack of sleep injuries due to exhaustion, etc. What you're going to find if you actually study federally approved statistics is that firearms represent an extremely small danger to society from ANY source other than intentional criminal use....which is a criminal issue and NOT a firearm issue.

You're missing the ENTIRE point of gun control, and that's why you don't get it. Gun control DOESN'T control the people causing the problems with guns: the criminals. The ONLY people that are required to abide gun control measures are lawful citizens who DON'T CAUSE PROBLEMS IN THE FIRST PLACE! I'll say that 3 or 4 ways in a row so that maybe, just maybe, it'll sink in. Crime is crime with or without a gun...in other words a robbery is a robbery even if you don't use a firearm. Gun control can't prevent a robbery. Gun control CAN and HAS prevented someone from defending themselves DURING a robbery however. Gun control ONLY affects/harms innocent people, and NEVER restricts or reduces criminal activity. Gun control actually ENCOURAGES lawless behavior as has been evidenced by increasing violent crime rates anywhere guns are banned, and decreasing crime rates anywhere gun ownership is opened (for the most part anyway, there are always exceptions). People generally feel they have a right to defend themselves...gun control inhibits that right. This forces otherwise law abiding citizens to break the law in order to stay safe. Then, invariably, some minor thing with them leads them to a firearms charge that ruins their lives. I'm reminded of Shawshank Redemption where Andy says, "I had to come to jail to learn to be a criminal". Same concept here.

Let's assume just for the sake of argument that I agree with you about initial firearms training. What does that really solve? Most accidents are NOT directly involving the persons who own the firearms. Those that are are either drug and alcohol related. It's fairly rare to see a gun owner have an actual 'accident'. Many if not most gun owners are fairly well versed in firearm safety anyway, what would a class actually do? Reduce owner related accidents by 5%? 25%? Maybe stop 1% of non owner accidents by convincing people to be careful with their guns and teach their families firearm safety? We can't regulate peoples lives, and every attempt to do so results in chaos and tragedy. Once someone leaves the class it's THEIR choice to follow common sense guidelines or not, and there's aboslutely nothing anyone can do about that. What good will punishing them really do? Will it bring back a dead child? At most it's a warning to others to be more responsible gun owners, but we have already seen many such warnings, with very little effect. If you read the statistics you'll find that per capita law enforcment officers have more accidents with guns than do concealed permit holders nationwide. Would you say police aren't trained? Aren't aware of gun safety issues? Of course they are, but it still happens. It's not that I have anything against a mandatory safety class, in fact I wholly support them. But the truth is that it would have very negligible affects on what happens in this country.

Okay. You have me convinced.

I grew up in upstate New York. Trudging through the snow to and from school in a bright orange fleece and watching mongoloid rednecks with the intelligence and capacity for reasoning of a standard grapefruit walking through my yard with shotguns. A kid down the street had a father who was a policeman. He answered a domestic disturbance call, knocked on the door... it opened, and his head was blown clean off by the person who called him there. These are the "lawfully endowed citizens" you're talking about, among others. These people should not have guns, to defend themselves, to hunt deer, to do anything. They should not have guns, period. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen anytime soon, and so I guess, with the things the way they are, you're right. In the context of the modern world, of the world in general, you have me convinced. But I still think it's all wrong. Makes me wish I could do something about it.

Of that, I have no doubt. I'll let you in on a secret...I HATE guns. Not joking in the least, I despise them. They're the tool of cowards and fascists. If it weren't absolutely necessary for me to carry one in order to be safe, I'd take all my guns and lock them up (can't get rid of them in case we ever have to oppose the government) and forget about them.

I also don't think people need to hunt, UNLESS they can show that they receive a reasonable percentage of their food and/or necessities by hunting. There's simply no reason for it anymore. That doesn't mean I try to stop people from hunting, only that I don't personally agree with it. Killing is never a sport...ever. If you need to do it, if you need the meat or the hides, sure. But otherwise, no.

As for random slayings, it happens. If you removed all firearms from the planet it would still happen, just with knives or swords or bows. Again, it's not the weapons that do the killing, it's the people...and they kill because of failings within our society. My fathers father (who i never knew) was a policeman killed in the line of duty. I've known one sheriff's deputy who was shot (he lived fortunately). Neither of them, nor their families ever (before or after the shootings) thought there was anything wrong with private firearm ownership. There's just something wrong with people, and nothing can change that unfortunately. You can be totally sane, buy a gun, then go through a hellish year and suddenly snap...how can you test for that? It's simplicity in action to make a chemical weapon out of household items that can kill everything within a city block, how can that be banned?

You'll find that a majority of crimes, and thereby a majority of paranoia, come from repeat criminals...people who are honestly criminals and very likely to remain such. People who are going to commit a crime buy their guns illegally, or steal them. They're already breaking other laws by the time they shoot someone. Not that otherwise normal people don't snap, but the 'lawfully endowed' citizens I spoke of cause such a small percentage of the shootings as to be almost dismissable. I know that sounds cold, but there are over 300 million people in America alone...300 MILLION!!! If you look back thru time at other societies and look at their murder rates per capita, and compare them with today, how do you suppose they'd stack up? Hell Columbus and his followers managed to basically commit genocide (250,000+ dead) over just a few years, and that was just out of greed...it couldn't even be chalked up to a crime of passion. Given the enormous atrocities commited in the last 5000 years I just don't find myself choked up over the natural progression of social instability we experience in America, compared with our freedoms and quality of life.

No, there will always be violence, always. The trick is to improve our society to the point where there's less of it. All we can truly hope for is to reduce it to the bare minimum of accidents and random violence that are included as part of a society.

 

[dbuttcheek69]

OMG its FOX "news":
......

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
Lemme guess, he'll say he was just checking to see if airport security was still being taken seriously.

HAHAHA 😀

 

[Bacardi151]

the fact that he's anti gun doesnt mean he can't hire a body guard, which he SHOULD, seeing how many of you MM haters there are. and tell me a professional body guard that does NOT carry a gun? and i'll bet 3/4 of you guys are just about as fat as he is.

point being is that he is not the one carrying a gun. guns should only be for protection for those who can use it. not 16 year old kids to use it in school.