the great bar debate..
 

so i went to the local pub with a friend of mine who supports kerry. we go there to find that some liberal dem's (mid 20 year old group) rented a room to watch the debate last night. i am a registered dem who is thinking of voting bush. so.. after making a few comments to my friend during the debate we were asked to leave by a female who said she worked hard to get this event together. we didn't even make a loud comment and were kicked out by a lobbyist. amazing. at the bar, in a separate room, we were again approached by these "liberals" who tried to brainwash us with "Kerry, Kerry, Kerry". when asked what Clinton did for us there was no reply. why is kerry better than bush - no response again. ignorance is bliss. i can't even go to a bar without political discussion. quite a sobering experience it was. lost my damn buzz. :crazy:

My dad once told me, "Son when you go into a bar and there are a group of people you truly don't know, whatever you do don't talk politics or religion. Because in a bar son, people are drinking and getting rowdy and no matter what you say in regards to one of those topics, you'll start a fight. If someone else is stupid enough to talk about either, just walk away, ignore it or leave the bar."

Words to live by and I have.

Well, the thing is that they rented the place out. If they only want people with similar views there it's their right. What they should have done is say "wait till the debate is over and I'll try to convince you to join us"

If they rented it out and you were there, then you were a GUEST in whatever part they rented and as such should have respect enough to the host who probably paid some bucks to have a gathering, sounds like you went there looking to stir shit up so you could bitch about their reactions.

If you had paid for a party and someone walked in on you and started (whether it was loud or not) criticizing something you were celebrating would you not be upset and ask them to leave. Sounds to me, either you should have listened to Papa Pan or accepted the fact that you pissed them off and started the shit that you want to complain about.

You already said you had a buzz on, the vast majority of people talk louder when they have a buzz, that's a fact.

That's why I don't drink alcohol anymore, and carry a large handgun.

Not long ago, I was verbally assaulted by a highly agitated Kerry supporter who saw my "Kerry '04: Because Treason is Patriotic!" sticker. He got all up in my face, and seemed like he was about to physically attack me. When I told him "Don't make me kill you" while reaching under my shirt for my handgun, he left quickly.

/too goddamned old to get into fistfights with assholes

Sounds like a Bush rally to me, except that you didn't have to sign a loyalty oath to get in. Seriously, you have to SIGN A LOYALTY OATH to attend some Bush rallies and they are none to friendly to dissenters. Let's keep this in mind before we tar the Democrats with the intolerance label.

Good thing you didn't overreact.

Both of you are good reasons for gun control.

rukkyg, people shouldn't invade other people's personal space. It's impolite. And an armed society is a polite society.

kadath, I agree. He shouldn't have acted so aggressively towards me.

I thought it was a federal crime to enter ANY establishment that serves alcohol with a firearm illegal. I know here in Ohio EVERY BAR AND RESTAURANT has a sign stating it is.

Yeah, because you'll get murdered if you fuck up! Does anyone really want to live in a society where everyone is armed? Who wants to live under the constant fear of gun violence? I don't have a problem with gun ownership, but the idea that ubiquitos firearms will make us all safer is a little hard to swallow.

Yeah when we had that great guns for all experiment called the Wild West that was a huge success :rolleyes: . But it's one way to help the economy we can just go around and shoot everyone weaker and less than we are.

Hey, there's an idea, we'll just carry guns and kill off the homeless then when arrested, since we're all pro-capital punishment we'll get executed so ... there will be far fewer people using our resources so those of us that survive will get better jobs and better pay and nicer houses and nicer cars and we'll have jets until the homeless start shooting back and crime skyrockets and since we have better guns than the cops because federal funding isn't there and states and cities can only afford the bare minimum......

Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 through 1917, 1.5 MILLION Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 through 1953, 20 MILLION political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 through 1945, 13 MILLION Jews, Gypsies, HOMOSEXUALS, the mentally ill, and other "mongrolized" people, were rounded up and exterminated.
"The most FOOLISH mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall."

Adolph Hitler, edict of 18 March, 1938

China established gun control in 1935. From 1949 through ???, 20 MILLION political dissidents and others, unable to defend themselves, have been rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 through 1977, 1 MILLION "educated people", unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 through 1981, 100,000 native Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 through 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

I researched and double checked these statements against multiple sources.

"Only a coward supports gun control, you know how to stop car jacking? Shoot the carjacker. If someone is going to kill me for my Buick, I'm gonna shoot until I'm out of ammo, and then I'll call 911."

Ted Nugent, People Magazine, 1994

If you support gun control, only criminals who would break the laws anyway to get a firearm will have them, and of course the government. I cannot see how people support intense gun regulations. This nation itself was forged on civillian gun ownership. With laws in congress such as the Patriot Act in place taking away more and more rights, allowing virtually anyone to be held indefinitly. Political change, conflict, and so forth are a matter of history, from the beggining of man running around in conflicting tribes and there is no reason to think it will ever stop, and its those that survive decide the future. Americans fought the British and survived. And have decided the future, while it may not be in our lifetime one day the people of this country will be forced to survive again, war and conflict inward and out are an inevitablity, a fact of history, and a fact of the future. By ensuring that our Bill of Rights is not being tread upon now we are ensuring the rights of future generations to survive, and decide a right and just future for their time. As more and more acts are made treading on the liberties of the American people the foundation of this country is being chizzled away.

Where will you draw the line?

Why is it if I don't support every single personowning a gun I am in favor of gun control? SOME people truly don't deserve them.

Why is it if I favor the ban of some weapons I am for gun control? I don't want criminals armed better than the police, legally.

Why is it if I am against conceal and carry I am for gun control? I truly don't want people carrying a weapon and not knowing. I believe it is my right to see if the guy next to me is carrying a gun. We tried allowing everyone carrying a gun... it was called the Wild West and a lot of innocent people died.

Perhaps there are gun laws for a reason. Perhaps our forefathers learned things through trial and error.

It's bullshit. You tell me about how when countries take away guns yet you demand I and the country see things your way or we're commies and yada yada yada.

Aw well, you NRA people are so brainwashed that any law that protects me as a citizen yet may affect you carrying a gun in a city, is evil and a plot to take your guns away.

Yeah Ted Nugent, host of VH1's how to hunt a human is a damn good spokesman for your cause.

Funny, you people sit there and complain about Bruce and the Dixie Chicks and their sharing political views YET when you find someone who agrees with you you use them as quotes and make them NRA president.

an armed society is a polite society is the kind of slogan i often hear at a bar.
you know the stage of drunkenness--head weaving a little because of some otherwise undetectable wind currents, slurred speech, glassy eyes.

it seems to often come from some flinstone wearied by previously staving off of a gang of "liberals" who "tried to brainwash him"...
the kinda guy who might well have a gun in his knapsack.

i sure feel better knowing that his version of politesse can be enforced by spraying bullets around a tavern, should it come down to it.

nothing goes together better than alcohol and a gun.

the only better combination is alcohol and a presidential debate.

Gee, I thought I explicitly stated that I don't drink... Guns and booze don't mix, any more than booze and cars mix. We don't disallow all people from driving because some asshats drink and drive, do we? We instead punish the drunken driver. BTW, which kills more people annually, mixing guns and booze, or mixing cars and booze? Hint: It's not guns and booze.

Because if you support those things, which are by definition gun control, people will call you on it. BTW, the "Wild West" stereotype was largely a myth. There's been scholarly research done on it, based upon the existing records of the territories, and crime was generally much lower then than now. Why? Because if they'd hang your ass, you'd be much less likely to commit a crime than if they'd put you on probation. Silly how that works...


Read up on the history of gun control. Start with the Dred Scott decision, where Chief Justice Taney stated that blacks could not be citizens, because if they were citizens, they'd be able to travel freely and own guns.

Gun control has ALWAYS been about disarming minorities.

We don't like being stripped of our civil liberties. And gun control advocates are not communists, they're fascists.

It's amazing....when you (self-admittedly) try to strip our rights away from us, we say "Hey, you bastard, leave our rights alone!" Go figure. I will not give up my freedoms so that you can FEEL more secure. And concealed carry has been shown to carry a correlation with decreased violent crime.

Ummm, I think you need to review the differences between "murder" and "justifiable homicide".

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought.

Justifiable homidice is the legal killing of a human being by another human being.

One is legal. One is illegal. If you, as you so eloquently put it, "fuck up" so badly as to get legally shot, your "fuck up" put the other person's life in jeopardy. That's not a fuck up, that's criminal, and the person you're "fucking up" has a right to live, even if it means they have to kill you to do it.

There are around 2.5 MILLION defensive gun uses in this country annually. Most of the time, a shot isn't fired, much less somebody dies. If you live in fear of being shot by people with CCW permits, maybe you should stop breaking the fucking law. Pretty goddamned simple, if you ask me.

Since when has CCW been a FEDERAL issue?

I HATE talking with people who don't know BASIC shit...

Why stop at guns, though? We should experiment until we find the right combinations and levels of legal armament distibution to ensure maximum politeness. I propose the legalized distribution of plastic explosives to anyone above the age of 18. Dynamite? Yes. It could also be reasoned from the above examples that china, guatamala, cambodia and uganda all had prohibitions on the ownership of explosives by the average citizen, and look what happened to them. When you outlaw explosives, only outlaws will have explosives.

I think we should also allow land mines to be placed in our front yard. That will keep trespassers out. When you outlaw land mines only criminals will have land mines.

Who said anything about being "legally" shot? Doesn't it stand to reason that if the number of citizens with CCW permits dramatically increased so to would the chance of those permits being abused? Just because someone has a CCW permit doesn't mean that they are trustworthy. Not to mention that shooting someone may not always be the most reasonable reaction to "impoliteness."

See above. Possession of a CCW permit does not equal lawfullness. As I mentioned before, I am not opposed to gun ownership but the premise that more guns equals more safety seems flawed to me.

hmm
 

I'm amazed how the topic went from bar debates to gun usage and ownership. It's pretty cool I guess but I'm glad none of the libs at the bar debate had guns - they would've used them since it's legal to carry semi automatics these days.
me

Actually, there have been figures released by various governmental sources that keep track of things like that. Guess what the results were? People with CCW permits were far less likely to be involved in ANY kind of criminality than the general populace at large. Why? Because criminals tend to not want to go through the hassle to get CCW permits, since the permitting process generally involves interaction with the police, interaction with the courts, being fingerprinted, et cetera.

Possession of a valid CCW permit is an excellent indicator of a LACK of criminality for the holder.

More guns does not necessarily equal less crime. More guns in the hands of law abiding people DOES correlate to a decrease in violent crime. Somewhat strangely, the more ccw permits there are, the more NON-violent crime there tends to be, since criminals will switch from attacking people to attacking property, because property doesn't shoot back. That is, IMHO, a GOOD trade-off, since it results in far fewer people actually being hurt or victimized.

perhaps my initial post was unclear.

the idea "an armed society is a polite society" seems to me insane. the most ridiculous argument in favor of guns i have ever seen.


and whinging about running into drunken kerry supporters in a bar seems just ridiculous. for myself, i would in general prefer drunken kerry supporters to sober bush supporters, but that i just a personal quirk, i supppose.

so i put the two together.
there.
i feel better now.

This is all probably true. I was referring to the idea that we arm more of the population, not criticising holders of CCWs today.

I smell a THREADJACKING! Back to the subject at hand....

I personally cannot understand the Kerry supporter mentality. I have never seen people want to alienate possible voters AWAY from their candidate. These actions make me wonder at the hidden agenda of Kerry supporters. Their belief that Kerry can give us health care without raising taxes makes me wonder if they are any good at math or history. It did not work for Clinton now did it?

I assure you that I will take this thought into the voting booth.

Mused76, sorry about your buzz. You can get another one.

I see your rights are far more important than my rights. If I disagree and speak out I am whatever nasty filthy adjective you want to call me, but if I were to call you names then you'd cry I was disrespecting you. Sounds like a bully's behavior to me, and I thought this country was supposed to be an equal and fair country not one of bullying and bashing.

This statement is too disturbing for words.

:lol:

Which rights am I advocating taking from you? Please cite the part of the Bill of Rights that says you have a right to not be afraid of things that are very unlikely to happen. Balance this against what the Second Amendment says: It's a right, it belongs to the people, it's to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms (which covers more than guns), and it shall not be infringed even a little bit, and even if it makes you personally uncomfortable.

That's pretty goddamned simple...

What's disturbing about it? The rabid kerry supporter invading my personal space in an attempt to intimidate or possibly attack me, or my unwillingness to meekly submit to a physical attack by the douchebag? If this guy had done to my wife what he did to me, she'd have shot him in a heartbeat, and would have undoubtedly walked on any charges that the CA was stupid enough to bring.

It is generally unwise to go around poking sleeping grizzly bears with sharp sticks, which is basically what this guy was doing, ESPECIALLY over something as mundane as politics.

Everybody has a right to their political opinion. But trying to force their opinion on others by threat of violence? Please.

BTW, I've noticed that the gun control advocates here have not said word 1 about the racist nature of what they're pushing...why is that?

BEcause I am not a total gun control advocate I believe as with everything there should be restrictions on guns and 2 I am not a racist and racism and gun control do not go hand in hand.... On the contrary I know more white supremacists (Aryans and KKK) that are NRA members and pro gun in every way, they believe any control on their gun by the government is against the Constitution. Almost every racist black man I have known has been a gun advocate so, based on what I have seen a majority of racists are pro-gun by a very, very, very, heavy majority (this in no way says all pro-gun people are racists).

But Daswig is the one who brought up racism.

Actually you are trying to take away my right to freedom of speech by bullying me, calling me names and threatening me because I choose not to have the same views as you.

So yes you are seriously trying infringing upon my rights of political speech and debate by your hostility.

Your thoughts on plastic explosive distribution are astute, but I think you're leaving out a major compontent: the pacifying effect of flamethrowers. Certainly under your plan of widespread explosive ownership, which I assume includes napalm rationing, the prospects for an endlessly peaceful society are apparent, but certainly without a flamethrower/household ratio of 1:1 there would be civil unrest, even crime.

I will personally not rest easily until each infant's crib is equipped with ninja throwing stars.

Was there the threat of viloence? Was the guy threatening or merely animated? You haven't really stated anything besides that the guy got up "in your face." Going from that to "don't make me kill you" sounds like a bit of an overreaction. Is there anything that we don't know?

Gee, for not being a racist, you seem to know a lot of racists. Let me ask you this. Does the Klan want African-Americans to be able to get guns? And post-Reconstruction, which demographic was disarmed and why? Hint: When the Klan went out to lynch some poor african-american dude, did they want him unarmed, or armed with an automatic rifle? If you don't think that gun control laws are UNIFORMLY both racist and classist, then you probably don't have a problem with literacy tests for voting, either.


How do you figure? Dude, this is the INTERNET. How can you bully somebody in cyberspace??? The ONLY way I could POSSIBLY be a threat to you is if you tracked me down and started shit with me in person, which ain't gonna happen. Otherwise, you're out of range, by several states. Unless that was YOU who accosted me over my "Kerry '04: Because Treason is Patriotic!" sign...

You have a right to say most anything you want. You do NOT have a right to say whatever you want, and not have people call "bullshit" on you. I think you need to do some serious reading on the legal limitations in place on the First Amendment...especially the part about "fighting words" and "words likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace".

"an armed society is a polite society"..yeah right...:rolleyes:
I'll take my unarmed society over an armed one in a heartbeat...
To live a life so fear-filled that you feel the need to carry a weapon. I think that's rather sad.

When he reached the point that his face was within an inch of my face, I felt that an assault was imminent, either through a deliberate act on his part, or accidentally because of the way he was moving his hands. He was also demanding that I surrender my sign to him, which in this jurisdiction qualifies as attempted strongarm robbery, which is a felony. His behavior wasn't merely animated, it was aggressive and criminal. For the use of lethal force in self-defense to legally apply, there is a three pronged test, and his conduct satisfied all three prongs and then some. I gave him an opportunity to back off, and he did. If he hadn't, he'd either be dead or in jail now.

Do you own a fire extinguisher? If you do, is it because you live in fear of fire?

Do you have collision insurance, and carry your insurance card with you? If you do, is it because you live in fear of a car accident?

You never need a gun until you need it really badly. At that point, it's too late to go and get one.