Started by Caruthers612, July 01, 2010, 11:34:40 PM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: West of the Rockies on May 15, 2013, 04:35:30 PM I'd be curious to know, Onan, what percentage of people in this country could be identified as porn addicts. I am not making some big judgment about porn here, by the way. But such addiction can affect marriage/relationships. I had two students last year whose marriages were in serious trouble when they found out their husbands were addicted to internet porn. Some of us have also no doubt seen some truly vile material online that utterly degrades the participants. Sure, these people perhaps are of age to perform in such work, but I suspect a lot of them have serious self-esteem issues, chemical dependencies, and so forth. I don't know if there is any evidence that exposure to such material (people having sex with animals, consuming fecal matter, suffering beatings during sex, etc.) has any quantifiable impact on viewers, but I think the question as to impact is worth exploring.
Quote from: Sardondi on May 15, 2013, 06:23:42 PMNot to contribute to a derail, but you raise an interesting question. Now I'm a conservative guy in a lot of ways. I'm still married to my first wife after 29 years. While I believe in as much individual freedom as possible, I think we're drowning in porn, and I don't think it's harmless. I believe it is terribly desensitizing, and for many people it substitutes a damaging fantasy for reality. Plus, arrested (rarely) pornmasters' appeals to the Constitution are incredibly cynical and offensive. All that being said, I am also leery of an ex-wife in high dudgeon who claims her husband's "porn addiction" destroyed their marriage. I think all too often that "addiction" is more likely to be a symptom than the disease, and is rather a convenient way to blame and embarrass the ex husband while painting oneself as a sinned-against victim. (You alluded to this, onan.)Now, they can have my digital gun when they pry my printer and CPU from my cold, dead fingers.
Quote from: onan on May 15, 2013, 06:35:00 PMI am setting up my printer now... just got the schematics for Angelina's boobies.
QuoteRe: Educate Me on Why You (or Others) Want All Guns All the Time
Quote from: Jackpine Savage on May 17, 2013, 02:42:55 AMcuz you. thats why
Quote from: FightTheFuture on May 14, 2013, 12:54:03 PMGeneral, there`s no bigger fan of the Kalashnikov than yours truly, but as a practical manner, I would recommend The Judge, from Taurus. It chambers both a .45 cal. magnum round, and a .410 shotgun shell. This weapon has devastating stopping power and can intimidate with it`s boisterous retort. Easy to handle, light weight, and fairly accurate. Additionally, I have never known one to jam, which is/can be, a frustrating problem with weapons like the Kalashnikov. [size=78%] [/size]
Quote from: General Johnson Jameson on May 15, 2013, 01:58:38 PMFor the record, I don't believe I've had a single jam with my AK. The Walther on the other hand will jam, quite often actually, unless I am using rounds from a specific manufacturer that puts a faint, wax coating on the brass. Huge difference.
Quote from: MV on May 17, 2013, 12:26:06 PMkuz i wunt tuh keel pipple.
Quote from: Phantastic SanShiSan on May 17, 2013, 10:08:27 AMKeep the P22 a greasy pig (with Break free/ballistiol, or Hi-Slip grease on the plastic-to-metal pieces), polish the feed ramp, polish the right side lip of your mags.
Quote from: General Johnson Jameson on May 17, 2013, 12:59:35 PMGlad to see you still pokin your head in here from time to time SanShiSan. Long time no speak.
Quote from: Jackpine Savage on May 18, 2013, 02:50:24 AMI find it disturbing that someone else is obsessed over what tools another citizen owns. Why don't they mind their own fuckin' business? It's not like it will accidentally go off and destroy the city. Get a life.
Quote from: onan on May 18, 2013, 04:01:43 AMThis is exactly why the people that want gun control continue. Guns do not destroy cities; but they can destroy lives. Guns maybe tools but they are at a different "standard" than your skill saw. It is time for all gun owners to become much more aware of the potential danger that every firearm presents. I see crazy every day. Sometimes crazy comes out of nowhere. I have seen perfectly normal people with no history, personal or family, become completely irrational and dangerous. The point there is, as much as many want to deny it, it can happen to anyone, anytime. I have not even touched on the mildly sociopathic that with very little motivation would kill someone if they had the chance. It is too easy to look just at one's own life situation and feel completely safe. Even that is a fool's paradise. But not looking at the big picture and making a statement that other's need to get a life tells me your life is way too limited.
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on May 18, 2013, 04:35:00 AM stop making sense.
Quote from: onan on May 18, 2013, 04:01:43 AMThis is exactly why the people that want gun control continue. Guns do not destroy cities; but they can destroy lives. Guns maybe tools but they are at a different "standard" than your skill saw. It is time for all gun owners to become much more aware of the potential danger that every firearm presents. I see crazy every day. Sometimes crazy comes out of nowhere. I have seen perfectly normal people with no history, personal or family, become completely irrational and dangerous. The point there is, as much as many want to deny it, it can happen to anyone, anytime.
Quote from: UFO Fill on May 18, 2013, 05:01:25 AMPerhaps your view is colored by the fact that you do see crazies every day. I went through a period when I saw criminals every day and found my view of society colored by that. I wonder if there are a significant number of non-crazy gun owners who are not aware of the potential danger of firearms. Some, perhaps we can colloquially refer to them as nuts rather than crazy, probably own guns for the potential danger to others.
Quote"I have as many guns as I need, but I don't have as many guns as I want."
Quote from: Jackpine Savage on May 18, 2013, 08:52:11 PMWhat we are really dealing with here isn't guns, we are dealing with two diametric outlooks on society, morality, and personal responsibility. The gun control argument is really just a symbol of that.
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on May 19, 2013, 02:10:33 AM... There is every possibility that back in the 1770's, they too had a less than firm grasp of what the future would hold (I'd say it's a dead cert). Who would have predicted in 1900 that the first powered flight and manned flight to the moon, and a space station would happen in the same century?...
Quote from: Paper*Boy on May 19, 2013, 03:12:32 AM The same can be said for the First Amendment. I don't beleive the Founders intended the right of the free press to apply to the technology of today. How could they? The technology we have today was unimaginable then. I don't see a Constitutional right to a free press using anything other than moveable-type Gutenberg style printing presses and town criers. The Founders couldn't have approved of the Media we have today using technology such as Cable TV news to propagandize and indoctrinate 300 million citizens overnight.
Quote from: Paper*Boy on May 19, 2013, 03:12:32 AM The same can be said for the First Amendment.
Quote from: Sardondi on May 19, 2013, 03:32:32 AMBesides, if the citizens feel there's something wrong with the Constitution, there is provision for repealing any or all of it. It's been used before and works perfectly well.
Quote from: Jackpine Savage on May 18, 2013, 08:45:38 PMAll sorts of things can destroy lives when in the hands of crazy and sociopathic. Some crazy can just jerk the wheel and mow down a few dozen off the sidewalk. There is actually very little risk of an expensive "assault rifle" ever being used to kill anyone. Statistically it's almost zero. You're more likely to be killed by lightning. They've just become the boogey man to take the place of a whole host of societal issues people would rather not talk about. I think the bulwark for freedom and personal liberty and security provided by firearms is a reward that far outweighs the risk. If you don't, that's fine, but personal weapons or tools that require intent to operate are not to blame for the crimes of the operator.
Quote from: onan on May 19, 2013, 05:23:53 AM 85% of Americans endorse the mandatory registration of handguns and 72% also want mandatory registration of rifles and shotguns.
Quote from: UFO Fill on May 19, 2013, 10:00:56 AMI don't believe I've seen this before. I've you've got a cite, I'd love to see it. I've seen that a large majority of Americans want background checks, but not registration.
Quote85% of Americans endorse the mandatory registration of handguns and 72% also want mandatory registration of longguns (rifles and shotguns).
QuoteThere is extensive public support for background checks of prospective gun purchasers, from licensed dealers, to gun shows, to all other private transactions. A poll conducted in August 2012 found that 96% of respondents support a background check on anyone attempting to purchase a gun in order to determine whether the prospective buyer has been convicted of a felony. That poll also found that 91% of respondents favor preventing certain people, such as convicted felons or people with mental illness, from owning guns.1Gun owners and NRA members also strongly support background checks for gun purchasers. A May 2012 poll of gun owners â€" including NRA members â€" found that:87% of NRA members agree that support for Second Amendment rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals; and74% of NRA members and 87% of non-NRA gun owners support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.2A poll conducted in April 2012 found that 91% of respondents support background checks for gun purchasers.3A February 2011 poll found that more than 83% of respondents in the five bellwether states of Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Virginia and Ohio, including more than 75% of gun owners, favor requiring all gun purchasers to pass a background check. Similarly, over 82% of poll respondents in these states, including more than 77% of gun owners, support requiring all sellers at gun shows to run background checks for all gun sales.4A January 2011 poll found that 89% favor requiring all firearm purchasers at gun shows to pass a criminal background check.5 This poll also found that 86% of respondents, including 81% of gun owners, favor requiring all gun buyers to pass a criminal background check, regardless of type of seller or venue.6A 2009 poll conducted for Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that NRA members (69%) and non-NRA member gun owners (85%) support requiring all sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns.7
QuoteGeneral Gun-Control MeasuresAs Table 1 indicates, majorities support 16 of 19 general measures to regulate guns:90% favor requiring that serial numbers on guns be tamper resistant; 82% support requiring a police permit before a gun can be purchased; A Support for a ban on manufacturing increases from 54% to 58% when the descriptor â€œoften known as Saturdaynight specialsâ€ is added. See Table 1 for full wordings. The difference is not statistically significant at the .05 level.For the meaning and use of the term â€œSaturday night special,â€ see ref. 66.81% want both a background check and a five-day waiting period before a handgun may bepurchased; 80% endorse the mandatory registration of handguns and 61% also want mandatory registrationof longguns (rifles and shotguns); 80% also endorse restricting handgun purchases to those 21 and older; 79% favor requiring background checks for sales between private individuals;73% believe that the sale of handgun ammunition should be regulated in the same way as thesale of handguns;70% agree that â€œthe government should do everything it can to keep handguns out of the handsof criminals, even if it means that it will be harder for law-abiding citizens to purchasehandguns;â€71% are willing to pay more taxes to increase police patrols to reduce gun injuries; 69% want imported guns that cannot be bought by citizens in their country of origin to beexcluded from the American market, and 55% favor banning the importation of all civilianfirearms; 67% want to ban the sale of all high-capacity gun magazines; 66% back the idea that all handgun owners should at least be licensed and trained in the use oftheir weapons;56% favor allowing concealed-carry permits only for those with special needs, such as privatedetectives; and 54-58% want a ban on the domestic manufacture of â€œsmall, easily concealed, and inexpensivehandguns.â€AA narrow plurality of 45% believe that laws allowing any adult who passes a criminal backgroundcheck and a gun-safety course to carry a concealed gun in public makes things less safe; 44% feelthat such permissive or shall-issue, concealed-carrying laws make things safer (9% answered neithermore nor less safe and 3% donâ€™t know/no answer).
Quote88% want to make gun-safety training mandatory before a gun may be purchased. 79% support requiring a police permit before a gun can be purchased. 78% favor requiring background checks for sales between private individuals. 77% endorse the mandatory registration of handguns and 70% want handgun owners to be required to re-register their weapons at regular intervals. 77% also agree that â€œthe government should do everything it can to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals, even if it means that it will be harder for law-abiding citizens to purchase handguns.â€ 74% want to require that all new handguns be personalized so they can only be fired by their legal owner. 73% favor both a background check and a five-day waiting period before a handgun may be purchased. 69% endorse limiting handgun purchases to one per month per buyer. 63% back the idea that all handgun owners should at least be licensed and trained in the use of their weapons. 52% favor allowing concealed-carry permits only for those with special needs such as private detectives.
Quote from: onan on May 19, 2013, 05:23:53 AM...And if the two ammendments used the same wording you would have a point.If words could I believe that is why this conversation is going on. 85% of Americans endorse the mandatory registration of handguns and 72% also want mandatory registration of rifles and shotguns....
Quote from: Sardondi on May 19, 2013, 10:41:12 AMI love these figures. I've seen these numbers tossed out by all the usual suspects. Michael Moore gives those figures the equivalent of religious faith. But they reek of the obscenely biased anti-gun organization's ass from which they were pulled. If those figures were remotely reliable, the issue would have been over decades ago. 85%!? The impetus would have been irresistible, and gun control would have been in place since the 60's. But that's not what happened. Because those figures are just one more bit of whatever-it-takes Alinskyian packaging.Oh, wait. I bet The Evil N.R.A.â,,¢ has thwarted the clearly expressed will of 5/6 of the American populace. It has used its massive, magical Rovian power to block the clearly expressed will of a huge majority of the American voters. Or so The Approved Narrative goes. Yep, one telephone call from the NRA outweighs 10,000 calls from their opponents, right? And on election day, when the vast numbers of voters are set to rise up in righteous fury and punish their representative for ignoring their will, The Evil N.R.A.â,,¢ uses its magical Rovian mind power to confuse them (after all they're stupid, and need a caring federal government to take care of them). And the voters instead reward those who voted not to further restrict firearm ownership. Oh, the humanity. Yes, the people expressed their will in telling their congressmen and senators what they wanted about more gun control. Congress was deluged with calls, letters and emails from voters desperate to have their will heard about this issue...except the voters were overwhelmingly opposed to any additional controls on legal firearm ownership. Isn't it funny how these congressmen and senators seem to know their districts a little better than the folks who throw around an 85% figure of those supposedly in favor of handgun registration? Here's the problem for those who say they want more gun control: a significant majority of Americans distrust the federal government (particularly in its iteration as the Obama Administration) far more than than they fear the lawful owners of firearms. They've learned that absolutely nothing this Administration says can be relied on. Nothing is the way the Administration tells it. There's always a catch, a gotcha, some fine print, even confiscatory provisions hidden deep in bloated, massive bills which no one on the Democrat side remembered to tell the people about. We've learned through hard experience that the Obama Administration is a three-card-monte dealer, and we've been shoving bills into its hands only to see them snatched up and given to cronies. One thing overlooked is that every control on firearms we already have was sold to us as the answer to "the firearm problem".* The bills' backers swore that theirs were rational compromises which would finally take care of the problem. Except, once again, and again, and again, they didn't...at least to the satisfaction of the people who are working to ban firearms ownership. Because at heart that's what this is all about for the vast majority of those who passionately care about so-called gun control: the Fabian assault on the Second Amendment and the ultimate outright banning of private ownership of firearms. The people have pretty clearly said they'd a lot rather take their chances with firearms owners than those who are running the nanny state. Change that and maybe you've got a chance. *Which might be the nut right there. For many backers of gun control bills, the "firearm problem" is private ownership of firearms, period. It's a case of intentional ambiguity.
Quote from: Sardondi on May 19, 2013, 10:41:12 AMThe people have pretty clearly said they'd a lot rather take their chances with firearms owners than those who are running the nanny state. Change that and maybe you've got a chance.