WTF?? The NRA is sending me literature?? WTF!!

[JonnyDuke]

The difference is that your choice directly affects the lives of other people. If I choose to gorge myself on Big Macs and chocolate
cake--that's my problem and my problem only. Your gun *could* potentially be my problem. I don't care what you all say about responsible
gun owners. I'm sure many (if not most) are cool about it. But how am I supposed to be sure of that? A lot of nuts legally own guns too, and
their possession of such in the same room could lead to my being shot inadvertantly. More guns statistically equals more potential
outcomes where I could end up shot.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Except that your untimely death would have an impact on your family, but for whatever reason people are more accepting of a death from poor health or a bad diet, even if it could have been changed in time to save the person.

Accidents are accidents... more children drown in swimming pools than die from accidental shootings. But ultimately they are still dead. Should one be mourned more than the other?

 

[luv2chill]

Originally posted by: JonnyDuke
"I repeat, I'm not trying to take away your guns from you. So WTF is the problem?"

That's fine, I really don't have a problem with that...I was just trying to give information and opinion that may someday change your mind.

You're not telling me anything I haven't heard a million times before from any other gun activist... I don't form opinions lightly... I like to find out about both sides before choosing one. I've heard all of the supposed "benefits" of owning firearms and have come to the conclusion that I will not carry one. Nothing irrational or unfounded (as AmusedOne would apparently dispute). It's my personal choice. I don't expect anyone to play the fiddle if I'm shot and killed by a crack-fiend. No tears. Death is a part of life. To quote a very good song-- "I am not frightened of dying. Any time will do".

I do appreciate the civility with which you have carried yourself. I respect the fact that you have your opinion on the matter as well. But rest assured that I have done the research, covered my bases before deciding against gun ownership. I know it must be difficult to imagine that someone could make the informed decision AGAINST carrying a gun, but in this case it's true.

l2c

 

[luv2chill]

Except that your untimely death would have an impact on your family, but for whatever reason people are more accepting of a death from poor health or a bad diet, even if it could have been changed in time to save the person.

On the surface, it seems like the same thing, but it really isn't. My death from heart attack, gunshot wounds, or cancer does not affect whether my family lives or dies (directly, anyway). I was not referring to simple effect. Of course my death will have an emotional, possibly a monetary effect on my loved ones. But it doesn't kill them. See what I'm saying? Your carrying a gun and shooting a person standing in front of me such that the bullet exits his body and enters mine will harm me or potentially kill me. That's what I was talking about. Death is death, and it will certainly affect other people. But my killing myself with Big Macs and your killing me with a gun are two VERY different things.

Accidents are accidents... more children drown in swimming pools than die from accidental shootings. But ultimately they are still dead. Should one be mourned more than the other?

I wonder how many homes have swimming pools versus how many homes have guns. I'm not portending to know the answer to that question... just curious. But I'm not just talking about irresponsible gun-owners without gun safes and trigger locks. I'm talking about things like ricocheting bullets in public places, crazy assholes with road rage, etc. These are risks... granted they are low risks, but while we're talking about low risks let's talk about the risk of being killed by a criminal whilst out for an evening stroll or asleep in your bed. Let's not get started talking about low risk.

l2c

 

[Maggotry]

I guess my whole point here is this: I feel very comfortable with my gun and I'm prepared (both mind and body) to use it. I will not roll over for the criminals. I do not like the politically correct message to bow down to the criminals. "Just give them what they want. Don't fight them". I just can't accept that frame of mind. It doesn't work for me. Yeah, you gotta die sometime. There are things I can do to help delay that time: avoid massive quantities of cheeseburgers, don't smoke, don't drive drunk, and be prepared to defend myself.

Here's my web link. Again, from what I remember, MI doesn't have to be a heart attack. It literally just means "death of heart muscle".

 

[chickendinner]

I would have thrown it away as well.

 

[luv2chill]

Originally posted by: Maggotry
I guess my whole point here is this: I feel very comfortable with my gun and I'm prepared (both mind and body) to use it. I will not roll over for the criminals. I do not like the politically correct message to bow down to the criminals. "Just give them what they want. Don't fight them". I just can't accept that frame of mind. It doesn't work for me. Yeah, you gotta die sometime. There are things I can do to help delay that time: avoid massive quantities of cheeseburgers, don't smoke, don't drive drunk, and be prepared to defend myself.

Fine... you've drawn your line. I will draw mine. I don't ever plan to be affected by your decision to carry a gun, so pack it and revel in your freedom to do so. As for delaying death, I agree to a point. But I also find truth in the saying "Eat, drink, and be merry". There is such uncertainty surrounding when each of us will die that you can't live your life worrying about it.

Here's my web link. Again, from what I remember, MI doesn't have to be a heart attack. It literally just means "death of heart muscle".

I'm not the kind of guy that needs to be right to feel good about myself. But a heart attack is the same thing as death of heart muscle = myocardial infarction. Your Yahoo link refers to a heart attack without saying the words. You can disagree if you want...

goodnight

l2c

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: Maggotry

Originally posted by: Adul
yes I mean the ones who are clueless, irresponsible, ignorant, stupid, etc...

Which means all of them

 

[LordMaul]

I rather them take my sh!t than to start firing bullets at each other.

But...but....Haven't you ever watched the movies?! Tat's what you're SUPPOSED to do!!!

I wish there could be studies that could reveal how many lives were saved because someone kept a gun in their nightstand---my guess is it is pathetically low.

So guns are useless unless they save LOTS of lives, rather than just a few?

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: LordMaul

I rather them take my sh!t than to start firing bullets at each other.

But...but....Haven't you ever watched the movies?! Tat's what you're SUPPOSED to do!!!

I wish there could be studies that could reveal how many lives were saved because someone kept a gun in their nightstand---my guess is it is pathetically low.

So guns are useless unless they save LOTS of lives, rather than just a few?

And how many lives are lost because guns are so easily available? It's too late for the US to turn that back anyway, people won't give up their guns anymore.

 

[jlee]

I'm suprised this hasn't been brought up yet..but even if guns were banned, I seriously doubt it would decrease gun-related crime. If anything, I believe it would drastically increase.

As the saying goes..if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Banning concealed carry will prevent law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms, but it won't bother the criminals. Think about it - if you're going to break laws by shooting someone you shouldn't, are you going to care whether you're supposed to carry a gun or not?

Let me put it this way - if you were going to break into a house..would you rather try Johnnie's home, or the home of an anti-gun person?

I have no problem with people who choose not to own a gun..that's their personal decision. When they try making my decisions for me, then I have a problem with them.

 

[BooneRebel]

And how many lives are lost because guns are so easily available? It's too late for the US to turn that back anyway, people won't give up their guns anymore.

Why should people give up their guns? Name five (5) countries in history that have outlawed civilian ownership of firearms. Now list any that did not immediately follow with dictatorship and civil uprising.

 

[Tominator]

I know where this sh!t is going; ripped up in the garbage can

Ignorance is bliss!


If you value your right to have a gun and dismiss what the NRA is doing you are as bad as the gun grabbers themselves.....in fact, much worse!:disgust:

 

[kami]

NFS4, you belong up here in canada Not only will you never get that stuff in the mail, but you'll have no use for a gun...ever.

 

[Maggotry]

Originally posted by: kami
you'll have no use for a gun...ever.

Why? Canada is completely devoid of crime? Amazing.

 

[Maggotry]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: Maggotry

Originally posted by: Adul
yes I mean the ones who are clueless, irresponsible, ignorant, stupid, etc...

Which means all of them

Ahhh! You got me there, genius!

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: Maggotry

Originally posted by: Adul
yes I mean the ones who are clueless, irresponsible, ignorant, stupid, etc...

Which means all of them

Another insightful arguement from the Europeans against guns

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: kami
NFS4, you belong up here in canada Not only will you never get that stuff in the mail, but you'll have no use for a gun...ever.

If I was in Canada, I'd definitely have a use for a gun. There is some nice hunting to be done in America Jr.

 

[Mookow]

And how many lives are lost because guns are so easily available? It's too late for the US to turn that back anyway, people won't give up their guns anymore.

Oh, yes, lets all move to England, where they banned guns, and essentially banned self-defense, and now have the second highest victimization rates in the world.

BTW, #1 in highest victimization rates is either Finland or the Netherlands, I forget which.

 

[Nefrodite]

last i checked most gun owners aren't part of a well regulated militia the nra conveniently skips the parts it doesn't like. arms = guns only? why cant i defend myself against the gov with a tank if i can afford it? machine guns, grenades, mines etc. all "arms".

 

[Tominator]

Nefrodite

You are ignorant of the facts. I do NOT mean that like it sounds!

I and many others have absolutely destroyed that notion in many threads. Please read the Federalists Papers and it will change your mind.

Like many others, you've been taken in by those that intend to rewrite history and therefore the intent of the Constitutin and Bill of Rights. Please, open your eyes...and your mind.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Nefrodite
last i checked most gun owners aren't part of a well regulated militia the nra conveniently skips the parts it doesn't like. arms = guns only? why cant i defend myself against the gov with a tank if i can afford it? machine guns, grenades, mines etc. all "arms".

Your confusing ordnance with arms. When the bill of rights was written arms meant small arms like muskets and pistols. This is the same logic my beloved ACLU tries to use but it does'nt wash when considering the language of the time.

 

[glenn1]

Rather than getting pissed off at the NRA or creating a huge flamewar over the issue of firearms, why don't you simply request your name get removed from the mass marketing mailing lists (including the NRA)?

information on reducing junk mail being sent to you


Mail-reduction tips. You can remove yourself from most national mailing lists by contacting the Direct Marketing Association's (DMA) Mail Preference Service MPS). You must re-register after five years.

Mail Preference Service, P.O. Box 9008, Farmingdale, NY 11735-9008.
You may also sign up online at the DMA?s website for a $5 fee, www.dmaconsumers.org/consumerassistance.html.
The MPS will put you into the "delete" file which is sent to subscribing organizations several times a year. You should see a reduction in catalogs, magazine offers, credit card solicitations, sweepstakes and other national advertising mail within three to four months.

When you buy something from a mail order catalog, your transaction is likely to be reported to Abacus which compiles a cooperative data base of catalog and publishing companies? customers. Your name is then sold to other mail order companies who contact you with their catalogs and offers. This explains why you are likely to receive several unsolicited catalogs after ordering from a mail order company. To opt-out of the Abacus database, write to Abacus, P.O. Box 1478, Broomfield, CO 80038 or call (800) 518-4453. Include full name and current address (and previous address if you have recently moved).

 

[Nefrodite]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: Nefrodite
last i checked most gun owners aren't part of a well regulated militia the nra conveniently skips the parts it doesn't like. arms = guns only? why cant i defend myself against the gov with a tank if i can afford it? machine guns, grenades, mines etc. all "arms".

Your confusing ordnance with arms. When the bill of rights was written arms meant small arms like muskets and pistols. This is the same logic my beloved ACLU tries to use but it does'nt wash when considering the language of the time.

you have to take it in context. or else arms would also mean that we could only own those exact weapons they had when it was written.

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: Nefrodite

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: Nefrodite
last i checked most gun owners aren't part of a well regulated militia the nra conveniently skips the parts it doesn't like. arms = guns only? why cant i defend myself against the gov with a tank if i can afford it? machine guns, grenades, mines etc. all "arms".

Your confusing ordnance with arms. When the bill of rights was written arms meant small arms like muskets and pistols. This is the same logic my beloved ACLU tries to use but it does'nt wash when considering the language of the time.

you have to take it in context. or else arms would also mean that we could only own those exact weapons they had when it was written.

Ignorance at it's finest...but I tried....

 

[bcterps]

If everyone that hates guns so much just got off their asses and JOINED THE NRA, couldn't they take control of it and shape public policy? But ignorance is bliss I guess.

--Ben