Sheep Pasture 2

I hope you all had a pleasant holiday season.

Marshaul,
Wearing clothes and not wearing clothes are actions. A person chooses to wear clothes or to not wear clothes at some point in their life. To wear clothes you must affect them in some way. Basically the way I see it is that a choice becomes an action when it affects an object.

Nightmare,
It’s the “shall issue” part that I take issue with. I believe that the local police or sheriff should be allowed to deny CCLs as they do in New Jersey and New York. Both States have lower gun violence rates that Wisconsin. Perhaps they would then deny a CCL based on violent misdemeanors. You don’t want violent people to carry guns do you?

Maverick9,
This doesn’t change the fact that guns are dangerous. What more, that loaded glocks are dangerous.

JamesCanby,
A holstered gun can fire. Please see http://blog.al.com/tuscaloosa/2013/10/man_shot_after_holstered_gun_f.html
I cannot agree that being intimidated by a stranger with a loaded gun is my problem. Being intimidated by someone walking around with a gun impairs my right to live in a safe environment free from fear. The gun free safe properties are now the only places in Wisconsin there are to do so.


That said I’m feeling very bold today. Please be warned questions may be quite offensive to some. It involves the idea that carrying guns is generally more dangerous for society. After all Alaska allowed untrained and unlicensed individuals to carry guns any which way they choose, but leads the nation in gun deaths.

How would you feel if a son died trying to rape a woman with a gun? Would the idea of average people with minimal or no training carrying guns still seem like a good idea. Or would you rather that son still be alive?

>The_Liberal< said:

I cannot agree that being intimidated by a stranger with a loaded gun is my problem. Being intimidated by someone walking around with a gun impairs my right to live in a safe environment free from fear. The gun free safe properties are now the only places in Wisconsin there are to do so.

Click to expand...

KKK member: "I cannot agree that being intimidated by a strange black with immense physical strength is my problem. Being intimidated by someone black walking around with those kind of muscles impairs my right to live in a safe environment free from fear. The black-free safe properties are now the only places in the South where I am able to do so."

What makes your statement any more reasonable?

How would you feel if a son died trying to rape a woman with a gun?

Click to expand...

I presume you mean my son (any individual is someone's son)? One could not help but be devastated by such, but I hope that I would recognize his death was solely the result of his actions, and accept responsibility for my own role in that outcome rather than assign it to the victim of his actions, whose hand he forced.

(Then again, I might observe that someone with an attitude such as this is unlikely to raise rapists in the first place. )

Would the idea of average people with minimal or no training carrying guns still seem like a good idea. Or would you rather that son still be alive?

Click to expand...

False dilemma. What if she had carried a knife instead, and successfully "penetrated" him before he her? What if the son had not raped someone in the first place? etc etc etc

What if my "son" jumped off a tall building and died? Would the idea of average people with minimal or no training climbing tall buildings still seem like a good idea? Or would I rather my son still be alive?

Or might it be best to obviate such dilemmas by not jumping off buildings, or raping people (or raising kids who do these things) in the first place?





Ridiculous.

>The_Liberal< said:

I hope you all had a pleasant holiday season.

Maverick9,
This doesn’t change the fact that guns are dangerous. What more, that loaded glocks are dangerous.

Click to expand...

Your car is dangerous, more so than a firearm. Why? Consider that an idling car can burst into flames. But a handgun, loaded or not just sits there, safely. Your garbage disposal is dangerous if you stick your hand in it. Yet disposals all over the country just sit there waiting - they require a careless person.

I am glad to know that you now, with considerable assistance have learned -how- to load a glock, though I believe your story to be apocryphal.

>The_Liberal< said:

JamesCanby,
A holstered gun can fire. Please see http://blog.al.com/tuscaloosa/2013/10/man_shot_after_holstered_gun_f.html
I cannot agree that being intimidated by a stranger with a loaded gun is my problem. Being intimidated by someone walking around with a gun impairs my right to live in a safe environment free from fear. The gun free safe properties are now the only places in Wisconsin there are to do so.

Click to expand...

You obviously didn't read that article, or have poor reading comprehension, or your lack of knowledge or understanding of firearms let you think that "A holstered gun can fire."

Any tool, if handled carelessly or negligently, can become dangerous. In this situation, the man was carrying a small-caliber handgun in a holster that was not secured to his clothing. He was negligent and careless, otherwise the holster would not have fallen off of his body. There are millions of us who carry either openly or concealed every day and everywhere we go without incident, and yet you find one incident where some careless person did not secure his firearm in a responsible way, and you use that to broad-brush every firearm carrier. By your logic, automobiles should intimidate you because there have been incidents where idling cars have slipped into gear and caused damage or death.

A properly holstered firearm, properly secured to one's body simply will not go off all by itself. Modern firearms have typically passed drop tests during their design and prototyping to insure that simply dropping them will not cause discharge, and holsters are designed to secure the firearm in such a way that the trigger is inaccessible. It takes the action of a person pulling the trigger to cause a firearm to discharge.

And, yes, your intimidation and paranoia IS your own, personal problem. It is no different than what another poster said about being intimidated by people different from yourself. There are people who are intimidated by people dressed as clowns -- should dressing as a clown be prohibited because some people fear them? Some people have an irrational fear of snakes. Should snake owners be prohibited from carrying their pet snake where someone else can see it? Your level of intimidation and paranoia seems to go beyond reasonable levels and is not supported by reality. If you truly believe that there is a basis for your fears and you are not really just trolling this site to feed your own paranoia, I suggest that you seek professional help.

>The_Liberal< said:

I hope you all had a pleasant holiday season.

Marshaul,
Wearing clothes and not wearing clothes are actions. A person chooses to wear clothes or to not wear clothes at some point in their life. To wear clothes you must affect them in some way. Basically the way I see it is that a choice becomes an action when it affects an object.

wearing clotes or not wearing clothes may b actions. but how do you feel when not wearing clothes and wearing clothes? how do you feel when others are not wearing clothes

Nightmare,
It’s the “shall issue” part that I take issue with. I believe that the local police or sheriff should be allowed to deny CCLs as they do in New Jersey and New York. Both States have lower gun violence rates that Wisconsin. Perhaps they would then deny a CCL based on violent misdemeanors. You don’t want violent people to carry guns do you?

i have a problem with the "man" can decide who should have what. would you feel the same way if the IRS can decide who made what? are would you rather have set rules to go by. i know of people that were denied, just because. they were killed soon after. i do not want some bureaucrat deciding if i need something or not. if a person has done what is required of them then they deserve by law. BTW, by FBI stats. states like NJ and NY has 10 times the crime that WI has

Maverick9,
This doesn’t change the fact that guns are dangerous. What more, that loaded glocks are dangerous.

the actual facts are that pools are hundreds of times more dangerous then any guns. they will kill just by laying there. lawnmowers are far more dangerous too, then guns


JamesCanby,
A holstered gun can fire. Please see http://blog.al.com/tuscaloosa/2013/10/man_shot_after_holstered_gun_f.html
I cannot agree that being intimidated by a stranger with a loaded gun is my problem. Being intimidated by someone walking around with a gun impairs my right to live in a safe environment free from fear. The gun free safe properties are now the only places in Wisconsin there are to do so.

properly holstered guns do not go off. i know people that have missed handled chain saws. that is what causes problems. you are far more safe with someone with a holstered gun then you are standing on a street corner with car flying by you. BTW you do not have a right to a "safe environment"


That said I’m feeling very bold today. Please be warned questions may be quite offensive to some. It involves the idea that carrying guns is generally more dangerous for society. After all Alaska allowed untrained and unlicensed individuals to carry guns any which way they choose, but leads the nation in gun deaths.

Alaska leads the nation in suicides. doesn't mean that i will

How would you feel if a son died trying to rape a woman with a gun? Would the idea of average people with minimal or no training carrying guns still seem like a good idea. Or would you rather that son still be alive?

Click to expand...

man son would not rape anybody. if he did i would shoot him myself. but i would hope that my daughter would have the right to protect herself from your son

>The_Liberal< said:

I hope you all had a pleasant holiday season.

Marshaul,
Wearing clothes and not wearing clothes are actions. A person chooses to wear clothes or to not wear clothes at some point in their life. To wear clothes you must affect them in some way. Basically the way I see it is that a choice becomes an action when it affects an object.

Nightmare,
It’s the “shall issue” part that I take issue with. I believe that the local police or sheriff should be allowed to deny CCLs as they do in New Jersey and New York. Both States have lower gun violence rates that Wisconsin. Perhaps they would then deny a CCL based on violent misdemeanors. You don’t want violent people to carry guns do you?

Maverick9,
This doesn’t change the fact that guns are dangerous. What more, that loaded glocks are dangerous.

JamesCanby,
A holstered gun can fire. Please see http://blog.al.com/tuscaloosa/2013/10/man_shot_after_holstered_gun_f.html
I cannot agree that being intimidated by a stranger with a loaded gun is my problem. Being intimidated by someone walking around with a gun impairs my right to live in a safe environment free from fear. The gun free safe properties are now the only places in Wisconsin there are to do so.


That said I’m feeling very bold today. Please be warned questions may be quite offensive to some. It involves the idea that carrying guns is generally more dangerous for society. After all Alaska allowed untrained and unlicensed individuals to carry guns any which way they choose, but leads the nation in gun deaths.

How would you feel if a son died trying to rape a woman with a gun? Would the idea of average people with minimal or no training carrying guns still seem like a good idea. Or would you rather that son still be alive?

Click to expand...

IMO, anyone with an ounce of decency would rather any man that tried to rape a woman would be killed. And obviously every man is somebody's son. Personally I have no son, and I can guarantee that if I did he would be as incapable of raping a woman as I am.

Your posts are not "bold" they are inflammatory, rude, misguided, and idiotic. Along with JC, I suggest you seek competent professional help for your obvious emotional issues.

Confused

>The_Liberal< said:

I hope you all had a pleasant holiday season.

Marshaul,
Wearing clothes and not wearing clothes are actions. A person chooses to wear clothes or to not wear clothes at some point in their life. To wear clothes you must affect them in some way. Basically the way I see it is that a choice becomes an action when it affects an object.

Nightmare,
It’s the “shall issue” part that I take issue with. I believe that the local police or sheriff should be allowed to deny CCLs as they do in New Jersey and New York. Both States have lower gun violence rates that Wisconsin. Perhaps they would then deny a CCL based on violent misdemeanors. You don’t want violent people to carry guns do you?

Maverick9,
This doesn’t change the fact that guns are dangerous. What more, that loaded glocks are dangerous.

JamesCanby,
A holstered gun can fire. Please see http://blog.al.com/tuscaloosa/2013/10/man_shot_after_holstered_gun_f.html
I cannot agree that being intimidated by a stranger with a loaded gun is my problem. Being intimidated by someone walking around with a gun impairs my right to live in a safe environment free from fear. The gun free safe properties are now the only places in Wisconsin there are to do so.


That said I’m feeling very bold today. Please be warned questions may be quite offensive to some. It involves the idea that carrying guns is generally more dangerous for society. After all Alaska allowed untrained and unlicensed individuals to carry guns any which way they choose, but leads the nation in gun deaths.

How would you feel if a son died trying to rape a woman with a gun? Would the idea of average people with minimal or no training carrying guns still seem like a good idea. Or would you rather that son still be alive?

Click to expand...

I am confused as to why the OP is titled: "Sheep Pasture 2".
I am trying to understand your connotation of "Sheep Pasture 2".
Can you explain how you arrived at this thread title?

I am also trying to understand why you believe the bolded section of your post is a right.
Can you articulate why you believe this to be a right?
My contention is you do not have a "right to live in a safe enviorment free from fear".

~Whitney

Whitney said:

I am also trying to understand why you believe the bolded section of your post is a right.
Can you articulate why you believe this to be a right?
My contention is you do not have a "right to live in a safe enviorment free from fear".

~Whitney

Click to expand...

Indeed, this kind of "right" is typical of the modern "liberal" thinking. It's nonsense as in order to fulfill such a "right" society must trample upon numerous true rights of other people.

marshaul said:

I'm curious if the OP has any reason to suspect that Zimmerman loaded his gun after seeing Trayvon, as opposed to having had it loaded the whole time (as is common practice).

Click to expand...

Television and movies, ya know the bad guy or the good guy rack their gun or spin their cylinder. Another example of a progressive with twisted sense of reality. Why they keep coming here is what puzzles me.

New idea for AR-15 ban.

Thank you for entertaining my presence here. I'm glad you're keeping an open mind.

marshaul said:

What makes your statement any more reasonable?

Click to expand...

Because muscles are integrated in to one's body. A gun is a foreign object. Why not remove the gun and limit the energy a criminal can exert be limited to their physical strength and reach?

marshaul said:

...and successfully "penetrated" him before he her?

Click to expand...

It is the element of surprise. The victim doesn't know what's happening and the attacker has the upper hand.

Whitney said:

Can you explain how you arrived at this thread title?

Click to expand...

I started out in the Meet and greet thread. Tempers flared and some individual said "Do not feed the lib trolls, let them graze in their sheep pastures." So I learned how to make thread and made the original sheep pasture. Naturally I was met with hostility and even death threats by a few individuals. Then a user called Grapeshot locked the thread. Sheep Pasture 2 stands as an example of censorship and Grapeshot's disrespect for the 1st amendment.

All that said. I know you're all not fans of the idea of a gun ban, but with mass shootings involving a particular weapon there's gotta be some sort of change.

My idea would be to ban semi-automatic rifles that have a gas system and accept ammunition with less than 1,800 ft/lbs. of energy.

I can't imagine my idea for a ban would be well received, but how would you compared it to Sen. Dianne Feinstein's Assault Weapon Ban?

>The_Liberal< said:

Because muscles are integrated in to one's body. A gun is a foreign object. Why not remove the gun and limit the energy a criminal can exert be limited to their physical strength and reach?

Click to expand...

I wasn't speaking as to utilitarian (or any other) justifications for gun control. I was speaking as to the irrationality of your fear itself.

There's no rational reason to be afraid of the presence of a firearm. There are undoubtedly certain circumstances or individuals to which the attachment of a firearm would not engender fear in your person. (The thought, "police officers" might come to mind for many – although I am not among those. Or what about a historical curio on a wall? Or a gun used to save your life, hypothetically? Any of these could be used take your life, as well. Would they all immediately cause you to fear?)

This being the case, it's clear (as I would argue a priori) that firearms – being inanimate objects – do not cause fear any more than they cause murder. Certain individuals with firearms may, indeed, cause both fear and murder.

The fact that you have difficulty making contextual judgment calls, and therefore incline to view nearly all armed individuals as frightening, suggests far more about your own insecurity than it does about firearms or those who carry them.

>The_Liberal< said:

(snip) Then a user called Grapeshot locked the thread. Sheep Pasture 2 stands as an example of censorship and Grapeshot's disrespect for the 1st amendment. (snip)

Click to expand...

What we have here is your inability to understand that the 1st Amendment prevents government entities from limiting a citizen's right to free speech. It does not apply to a privately owned discussion board. The owners and their appointed Moderators, e.g., Grapeshot, have the right and freedom to determine what may be posted on their website.

Second, it is not censorship for an owner or moderator to regulate or delete comments that violate the Forum Rules, or to lock a thread when it becomes a circular argument where the the discussion has devolved into a repetitive schoolyard recitation of "is so" vs. "is not" ad nauseum.

You agreed to the Forum Rules when you registered. I suggest that you re-read them to be reminded that you are a guest on a privately-owned website and that there are rules that need to be followed. If you do not agree with the rules, find a forum where everyone agrees with your thoughts and where no one is "mean" to you.

>The_Liberal< said:

SNIP... I know you're all not fans of the idea of a gun ban, but with mass shootings involving a particular weapon there's gotta be some sort of change.

My idea would be to ban semi-automatic rifles that have a gas system and accept ammunition with less than 1,800 ft/lbs. of energy.

I can't imagine my idea for a ban would be well received, but how would you compared it to Sen. Dianne Feinstein's Assault Weapon Ban?

Click to expand...

That particular sporting rifle platform is ubiquitous in the shooting sports because it is popular, and it is popular because it WORKS (accuracy, modularity, ease of maintenance, etc.). It seems people forget the reason a particular firearm may have high demand for self defense is BECAUSE it is very good at doing its job, namely eradicating the thug(s)/violent criminal(s) threatening you or your loved ones.
I've said it before: antis vilify guns because they are good at flinging lead dowrange. Do they think that guns were originally made to fling flowers and rainbows and "evil mad scientist gun owners" just modified them to shoot solid pellets (bullets)?

As for the last part: whenever we try to compromise, the anti-Freedom crowd comes back to "compromise" again, and again, and again ad infinitum ("to infinity" or "fovever more"; I don't usually use Latin phrases, but this one is fun-sounding):

>The_Liberal< said:

I can't imagine my idea for a ban would be well received, but how would you compared it to Sen. Dianne Feinstein's Assault Weapon Ban?

Click to expand...

Your imagination is great, but what have you and your ilk done to actually concentrate on the criminal element that do not care about your gun ban? What type of people do believe that this ban would actually affect?

How do you think they (criminals) will receive your gun ban for the law abiding citizens?

Do you believe that they(criminals) obey the law and that they have concern for bans?

Do you believe that if the law abiding citizen have no means to defend themselves that criminals will not target them knowing they no longer have guns?

Are you willing to make an announcement that your home is free from guns and that you are the type of person that rely on 911 to ensure your family's safety?

LIBERAL, it is settled that the second amendment is in place, for individuals to defend us from the government, both philosophically and in reality

do you think we should have less power then the government

and being that the government gets its power from the people how can the government have more then the people

>The_Liberal< said:

Thank you for entertaining my presence here. I'm glad you're keeping an open mind.

Click to expand...

You are most welcome.

>The_Liberal< said:

Because muscles are integrated in to one's body. A gun is a foreign object. Why not remove the gun and limit the energy a criminal can exert be limited to their physical strength and reach?

Click to expand...

Baseball bat to the head, knife between the ribs, all from behind. Troll.

>The_Liberal< said:

It is the element of surprise. The victim doesn't know what's happening and the attacker has the upper hand.

Click to expand...

Don't need a gun.....see above. Troll.

>The_Liberal< said:

I started out in the Meet and greet thread. Tempers flared and some individual said "Do not feed the lib trolls, let them graze in their sheep pastures." So I learned how to make thread and made the original sheep pasture. Naturally I was met with hostility and even death threats by a few individuals. Then a user called Grapeshot locked the thread. Sheep Pasture 2 stands as an example of censorship and Grapeshot's disrespect for the 1st amendment.

Click to expand...

Liberals do not like private property and the attendant rules that go along with being on another citizen's property. Unless of course it is their private property. There's the door, so to speak.

>The_Liberal< said:

All that said. I know you're all not fans of the idea of a gun ban, but with mass shootings involving a particular weapon there's gotta be some sort of change.

Click to expand...

Has been addressed by others. Your liberal angst is evident. It is not about the gun, but control, it is always about control and working to have liberals in control.

>The_Liberal< said:

My idea would be to ban semi-automatic rifles that have a gas system and accept ammunition with less than 1,800 ft/lbs. of energy.

Click to expand...

Troll. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson_submachine_gun

>The_Liberal< said:

I can't imagine my idea for a ban would be well received, but how would you compared it to Sen. Dianne Feinstein's Assault Weapon Ban?

Click to expand...

She is a liberal and as such desires the same goal as you. She is in a position to affect changes that limit individual liberty. Folks like you, keep folks like her, in power. Thus, you work to limit liberty.

Did I mention that you are a troll?

>The_Liberal< said:

Thank you for entertaining my presence here. I'm glad you're keeping an open mind.


Because muscles are integrated in to one's body. A gun is a foreign object. Why not remove the gun and limit the energy a criminal can exert be limited to their physical strength and reach?



It is the element of surprise. The victim doesn't know what's happening and the attacker has the upper hand.



I started out in the Meet and greet thread. Tempers flared and some individual said "Do not feed the lib trolls, let them graze in their sheep pastures." So I learned how to make thread and made the original sheep pasture. Naturally I was met with hostility and even death threats by a few individuals. Then a user called Grapeshot locked the thread. Sheep Pasture 2 stands as an example of censorship and Grapeshot's disrespect for the 1st amendment.

All that said. I know you're all not fans of the idea of a gun ban, but with mass shootings involving a particular weapon there's gotta be some sort of change.

My idea would be to ban semi-automatic rifles that have a gas system and accept ammunition with less than 1,800 ft/lbs. of energy.

I can't imagine my idea for a ban would be well received, but how would you compared it to Sen. Dianne Feinstein's Assault Weapon Ban?

Click to expand...

A CIVILIZED ACT
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a firearm, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The firearm is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a gay couple on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The firearm removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the firearm as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all firearms were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the firearm makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without firearms involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the firearm makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The firearm is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a firearm, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The firearm at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a firearm is a civilized act. *AUTHOR UNKNOWN*

This video sums up pretty well why people need to be armed. Not just police/criminals and military. :what:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20RoAfflGCM

FreeInAZ said:

This video sums up pretty well why people need to be armed. Not just police/criminals and military. :what:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20RoAfflGCM

Click to expand...

This lady again?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

This guy again?Mr." Hooray for the police & government, they can do no wrong...ever..ever..ever...echoing away into the distance"

Carry on ...resident.