Isn't this just typical....

Founder of Anti-Gun Group Pleads No Contest to Weapons Charges
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323727,00.html

LOS ANGELES — A former gang member who founded an anti-violence group called No Guns has pleaded no contest to federal weapons charges.

Hector "Big Weasel" Marroquin, 51, and co-defendant Sylvia Arrellano, 25, entered pleas Thursday for three counts of manufacture, distribution and transport for sale of an unlawful assault weapon.

Arrellano also pleaded no contest to machine gun conversion and possessing a silencer and acknowledged that the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang.

She was given until Tuesday to surrender for sentencing and would likely be sentenced to four years in prison, prosecutors said.

Marroquin attorney Patrick Smith did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment Thursday. No phone listing was available for Arrellano.

Marroquin was arrested in June at his Downey home following a nine-month investigation into weapons sales by the 18th Street gang, to which he once belonged.

Arrellano was arrested at a Cudahy home as a result of the same investigation

Marroquin founded No Guns in 1996, ostensibly to reduce gang and gun violence. The group received $1.5 million from the city as a subcontractor on anti-gang efforts but its contract was canceled last year after authorities learned that Marroquin had hired relatives, including his son, Hector "Little Weasel" Marroquin.

The son is an acknowledged 18th Street gang member who pleaded no contest in June 2007 to home-invasion robbery and was sentenced to nine years in state prison.
___________________


Kind of reminds me of that idiot chick who was the president of the "Million Mom March" group (who were rabid anti-gun zealots), who later was convicted of murdering somebody with an illegal handgun. The hypocrisy is so thick, one can cut it with a knife, it seems. Another problem here is that you have a SERIOUS, violent felon...in possession of an unregistered machine gun and silencer. Possession of ONE of these items is worth 20 years in federal prison. This guy had the GUN + SILENCER...and was a convicted felon/gang member. We need to be asking our district attorneys and our federal prosecutors why this guy is "likely to serve four years", when he needs to be pulling close to 50 years? Failure to incarcerate human debris of this sort is why our streets are so dangerous.


Post edited by TX_Lord Skeletor at 1/20/2008 11:29:57 PM

sorry, it's shitty but definitely not typical by any stretch of your imagination.

Yes, this is pretty typical thread for you, skeletor. You generally post about one bad apple, and then make a blanket accusation about hypocrisy, in an attempt to use the actions of one solitary person to discredit a large group or political movement.

Yet you howl bloody murder when people use the bad actions of individuals in groups you like to tarnish an entire group or political movement you favor.

Very typical.

Get a life.


Post edited by cimat1984 at 1/19/2008 12:22:09 PM


VOTE GREEN PARTY FOR REAL POLITICAL REPRESENTATION! http://www.gp.org

"likely to serve four years"



ban guns forever......ban people who have a history of abusing them for about four years.

I see no cause and effect here.

Originally posted by: TX_Lord Skeletor
Founder of Anti-Gun Group Pleads No Contest to Weapons Charges
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323727,00.html

LOS ANGELES — A former gang member who founded an anti-violence group called No Guns has pleaded no contest to federal weapons charges.

Hector "Big Weasel" Marroquin, 51, and co-defendant Sylvia Arrellano, 25, entered pleas Thursday for three counts of manufacture, distribution and transport for sale of an unlawful assault weapon.

Arrellano also pleaded no contest to machine gun conversion and possessing a silencer and acknowledged that the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang.

She was given until Tuesday to surrender for sentencing and would likely be sentenced to four years in prison, prosecutors said.

Marroquin attorney Patrick Smith did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment Thursday. No phone listing was available for Arrellano.

Marroquin was arrested in June at his Downey home following a nine-month investigation into weapons sales by the 18th Street gang, to which he once belonged.

Arrellano was arrested at a Cudahy home as a result of the same investigation

Marroquin founded No Guns in 1996, ostensibly to reduce gang and gun violence. The group received $1.5 million from the city as a subcontractor on anti-gang efforts but its contract was canceled last year after authorities learned that Marroquin had hired relatives, including his son, Hector "Little Weasel" Marroquin.

The son is an acknowledged 18th Street gang member who pleaded no contest in June 2007 to home-invasion robbery and was sentenced to nine years in state prison.
___________________


Kind of reminds me of that idiot chick who was the president of the "Million Mom March" group (who were rabid anti-gun zealots), who later was convicted of murdering somebody. The hypocrisy is so thick, one can cut it with a knife, it seems. Another problem here is that you have a SERIOUS, violent felon...in possession of an unregistered machine gun and silencer. Possession of ONE of these items is worth 20 years in federal prison. This guy had the GUN + SILENCER...and was a convicted felon/gang member. We need to be asking our district attorneys and our federal prosecutors why this guy is "likely to serve four years", when he needs to be pulling close to 50 years? Failure to incarcerate human debris of this sort is why our streets are so dangerous.

Sad. Some bleeding heart will say they are just misunderstood.

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: TX_Lord Skeletor
Founder of Anti-Gun Group Pleads No Contest to Weapons Charges
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323727,00.html

LOS ANGELES — A former gang member who founded an anti-violence group called No Guns has pleaded no contest to federal weapons charges.

Hector "Big Weasel" Marroquin, 51, and co-defendant Sylvia Arrellano, 25, entered pleas Thursday for three counts of manufacture, distribution and transport for sale of an unlawful assault weapon.

Arrellano also pleaded no contest to machine gun conversion and possessing a silencer and acknowledged that the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang.

She was given until Tuesday to surrender for sentencing and would likely be sentenced to four years in prison, prosecutors said.

Marroquin attorney Patrick Smith did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment Thursday. No phone listing was available for Arrellano.

Marroquin was arrested in June at his Downey home following a nine-month investigation into weapons sales by the 18th Street gang, to which he once belonged.

Arrellano was arrested at a Cudahy home as a result of the same investigation

Marroquin founded No Guns in 1996, ostensibly to reduce gang and gun violence. The group received $1.5 million from the city as a subcontractor on anti-gang efforts but its contract was canceled last year after authorities learned that Marroquin had hired relatives, including his son, Hector "Little Weasel" Marroquin.

The son is an acknowledged 18th Street gang member who pleaded no contest in June 2007 to home-invasion robbery and was sentenced to nine years in state prison.
___________________


Kind of reminds me of that idiot chick who was the president of the "Million Mom March" group (who were rabid anti-gun zealots), who later was convicted of murdering somebody. The hypocrisy is so thick, one can cut it with a knife, it seems. Another problem here is that you have a SERIOUS, violent felon...in possession of an unregistered machine gun and silencer. Possession of ONE of these items is worth 20 years in federal prison. This guy had the GUN + SILENCER...and was a convicted felon/gang member. We need to be asking our district attorneys and our federal prosecutors why this guy is "likely to serve four years", when he needs to be pulling close to 50 years? Failure to incarcerate human debris of this sort is why our streets are so dangerous.

Sad. Some bleeding heart will say they are just misunderstood.

Yeah..."I'm misunderstood"---I hate it when people are "misunderstood"--especially when they have illegal machineguns and silencers. Ain't it a bitch?

Reminds me of when that anti-gay activist Congressman got busted for gay sex in an airport bathroom. You are correct, hypocrites suck.

Originally posted by: cimat1984
Yes, this is pretty typical thread for you, skeletor. You generally post about one bad apple, and then make a blanket accusation about hypocrisy, in an attempt to use the actions of one solitary person to discredit a large group or political movement.

Yet you howl bloody murder when people use the bad actions of individuals in groups you like to tarnish an entire group or political movement you favor.

Very typical.

Get a life

Haha amen to that.

you could bring up that preacher Ted Haggert or whatever his name was if we're trying to use one person to misrepresent a whole people to propel political propoganda.

...its an LA gang member named Big Weasel...come on. Thats what we expect.

Originally posted by: TX_Lord Skeletor

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: TX_Lord Skeletor
Founder of Anti-Gun Group Pleads No Contest to Weapons Charges
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323727,00.html

LOS ANGELES — A former gang member who founded an anti-violence group called No Guns has pleaded no contest to federal weapons charges.

Hector "Big Weasel" Marroquin, 51, and co-defendant Sylvia Arrellano, 25, entered pleas Thursday for three counts of manufacture, distribution and transport for sale of an unlawful assault weapon.

Arrellano also pleaded no contest to machine gun conversion and possessing a silencer and acknowledged that the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang.

She was given until Tuesday to surrender for sentencing and would likely be sentenced to four years in prison, prosecutors said.

Marroquin attorney Patrick Smith did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment Thursday. No phone listing was available for Arrellano.

Marroquin was arrested in June at his Downey home following a nine-month investigation into weapons sales by the 18th Street gang, to which he once belonged.

Arrellano was arrested at a Cudahy home as a result of the same investigation

Marroquin founded No Guns in 1996, ostensibly to reduce gang and gun violence. The group received $1.5 million from the city as a subcontractor on anti-gang efforts but its contract was canceled last year after authorities learned that Marroquin had hired relatives, including his son, Hector "Little Weasel" Marroquin.

The son is an acknowledged 18th Street gang member who pleaded no contest in June 2007 to home-invasion robbery and was sentenced to nine years in state prison.
___________________


Kind of reminds me of that idiot chick who was the president of the "Million Mom March" group (who were rabid anti-gun zealots), who later was convicted of murdering somebody. The hypocrisy is so thick, one can cut it with a knife, it seems. Another problem here is that you have a SERIOUS, violent felon...in possession of an unregistered machine gun and silencer. Possession of ONE of these items is worth 20 years in federal prison. This guy had the GUN + SILENCER...and was a convicted felon/gang member. We need to be asking our district attorneys and our federal prosecutors why this guy is "likely to serve four years", when he needs to be pulling close to 50 years? Failure to incarcerate human debris of this sort is why our streets are so dangerous.

Sad. Some bleeding heart will say they are just misunderstood.

Yeah..."I'm misunderstood"---I hate it when people are "misunderstood"--especially when they have illegal machineguns and silencers. Ain't it a bitch?

How's life on fantasy island? Say hi to Mr. Rourke and Tatoo for me!

Smiles everyone! Smiles!



VOTE GREEN PARTY FOR REAL POLITICAL REPRESENTATION! http://www.gp.org

Originally posted by: DieselFuel!
Reminds me of when that anti-gay activist Congressman got busted for gay sex in an airport bathroom. You are correct, hypocrites suck.

If you use an example of one to prove a conservative point, it doesn't count. If you use and example of one to prove a liberal point, truth to power.
___________________________________________
I was depressed last night so I called Lifeline. Got a call center in Pakistan. I told them I was suicidal. They got all excited and asked if I could drive a truck.

Originally posted by: Stryk

Originally posted by: DieselFuel!
Reminds me of when that anti-gay activist Congressman got busted for gay sex in an airport bathroom. You are correct, hypocrites suck.

If you use an example of one to prove a conservative point, it doesn't count. If you use and example of one to prove a liberal point, truth to power.

If you say so. My point was that all hypocrites suck regardless of party, but if you really need to stick to party lines like that, so be it.
Post edited by DieselFuel! at 1/21/2008 10:23:54 AM

The real irony are anti-gun celebrities who don't need to carry guns because their body guards do. And I'm sure they would support an exception that allows 'trained' guards to still carry them.
___________________________________________
I was depressed last night so I called Lifeline. Got a call center in Pakistan. I told them I was suicidal. They got all excited and asked if I could drive a truck.

Originally posted by: DieselFuel!

Originally posted by: Stryk

Originally posted by: DieselFuel!
Reminds me of when that anti-gay activist Congressman got busted for gay sex in an airport bathroom. You are correct, hypocrites suck.

If you use an example of one to prove a conservative point, it doesn't count. If you use and example of one to

If you say so. My point was that all hypocrites suck regardless of party, but if you really need to stick to party lines like that, so be it.

They may happen in both parties but they are not treated the same way especially by people on your side of the fence here.
___________________________________________
I was depressed last night so I called Lifeline. Got a call center in Pakistan. I told them I was suicidal. They got all excited and asked if I could drive a truck.

Originally posted by: Stryk
The real irony are anti-gun celebrities who don't need to carry guns because their body guards do. And I'm sure they would support an exception that allows 'trained' guards to still carry them.

The really real irony is that 99.9% of celebreties body guards don't need guns.

They just get armed body guards as an ego-stroke.



VOTE GREEN PARTY FOR REAL POLITICAL REPRESENTATION! http://www.gp.org

Originally posted by: Stryk

Originally posted by: DieselFuel!

Originally posted by: Stryk

Originally posted by: DieselFuel!
Reminds me of when that anti-gay activist Congressman got busted for gay sex in an airport bathroom. You are correct, hypocrites suck.

If you use an example of one to prove a conservative point, it doesn't count. If you use and example of one to

If you say so. My point was that all hypocrites suck regardless of party, but if you really need to stick to party lines like that, so be it.

They may happen in both parties but they are not treated the same way especially by people on your side of the fence here.

I disagree 100%, but whatever you have to tell yourself.

The truth is I call out Democrats. liberals, etc all the time, as do many decidedly non-Republicans on this board. For some reason when these threads roll around, however, you never seem to remember. Hmmmm..

I've come to the conclusion that the majority of anti-gun people are evil.

They're not anti-gun because they think guns are bad, it's because they want people to be defenseless against a tyrannical government... how often do these people talk about taking guns away from the military?

If someone was truly anti-gun, wouldn't they talk about disarming both civilians and militaries? Why are they alright with the government taking guns from the people, but keeping the guns for the very armies they command? Have we not learned from history about what an armed military can do to its unarmed civilians? Tiananmen Square, anyone? What about the British killing Indian civilians (some women and children) in response to the protests against the Rowlatt Acts in 1919?

Now, I'm not particularly a fan of guns, and I don't own any, and I even used to be anti-gun before I realized how foolish it was for the aforementioned reason. It's just that I really don't understand how anyone can be anti-gun and pro-liberty at the same time. As long as the government commands a military, civilians MUST have the option to arm themselves.

I don't condone violence, and I don't think I would ever resort to violence, even if I were being oppressed.. but it's not my right, and certainly not the government's right to tell people what to do when it comes to ownership.

Anyhow, I'd love to see a day when everyone voluntarily disarms, including governments... but the government has to do it first, not the people. It's about setting an example, and it's about avoiding another Tiananmen Square type of situation.

Besides, I trust the average civilian with weapons a hell of a lot more than I would ever trust the government with them.

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity
I've come to the conclusion that the majority of anti-gun people are evil.

They're not anti-gun because they think guns are bad, it's because they want people to be defenseless against a tyrannical government... how often do these people talk about taking guns away from the military?

First and foremost, many people who get labelled 'anti-gun' are not. I think handguns serve no good purpose and we should be ultra-careful who we let have them, I think assault weapons in the hands of most citizens is pointless and dangerous, but nobody has ever heard me once clamoring for people's hunting weapons be outlawed.

Second, and more importantly:


The day the military opens up sale to the general public of Apaches, F22's, and all the otehr gismos, an armed populace might serve it's original purpose...

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity
I've come to the conclusion that the majority of anti-gun people are evil.

They're not anti-gun because they think guns are bad, it's because they want people to be defenseless against a tyrannical government... how often do these people talk about taking guns away from the military?

If someone was truly anti-gun, wouldn't they talk about disarming both civilians and militaries? Why are they alright with the government taking guns from the people, but keeping the guns for the very armies they command? Have we not learned from history about what an armed military can do to its unarmed civilians? Tiananmen Square, anyone? What about the British killing Indian civilians (some women and children) in response to the protests against the Rowlatt Acts in 1919?

Now, I'm not particularly a fan of guns, and I don't own any, and I even used to be anti-gun before I realized how foolish it was for the aforementioned reason. It's just that I really don't understand how anyone can be anti-gun and pro-liberty at the same time. As long as the government commands a military, civilians MUST have the option to arm themselves.

I don't condone violence, and I don't think I would ever resort to violence, even if I were being oppressed.. but it's not my right, and certainly not the government's right to tell people what to do when it comes to ownership.

Anyhow, I'd love to see a day when everyone voluntarily disarms, including governments... but the government has to do it first, not the people. It's about setting an example, and it's about avoiding another Tiananmen Square type of situation.

Besides, I trust the average civilian with weapons a hell of a lot more than I would ever trust the government with them.

I have no problem with law-abiding citizens owning guns. However, the right is not unlimited. Begin turgid debate on what an "assault rifle" is or is not in 3...2...1....



VOTE GREEN PARTY FOR REAL POLITICAL REPRESENTATION! http://www.gp.org

Originally posted by: cimat1984

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity
I've come to the conclusion that the majority of anti-gun people are evil.

They're not anti-gun because they think guns are bad, it's because they want people to be defenseless against a tyrannical government... how often do these people talk about taking guns away from the military?

If someone was truly anti-gun, wouldn't they talk about disarming both civilians and militaries? Why are they alright with the government taking guns from the people, but keeping the guns for the very armies they command? Have we not learned from history about what an armed military can do to its unarmed civilians? Tiananmen Square, anyone? What about the British killing Indian civilians (some women and children) in response to the protests against the Rowlatt Acts in 1919?

Now, I'm not particularly a fan of guns, and I don't own any, and I even used to be anti-gun before I realized how foolish it was for the aforementioned reason. It's just that I really don't understand how anyone can be anti-gun and pro-liberty at the same time. As long as the government commands a military, civilians MUST have the option to arm themselves.

I don't condone violence, and I don't think I would ever resort to violence, even if I were being oppressed.. but it's not my right, and certainly not the government's right to tell people what to do when it comes to ownership.

Anyhow, I'd love to see a day when everyone voluntarily disarms, including governments... but the government has to do it first, not the people. It's about setting an example, and it's about avoiding another Tiananmen Square type of situation.

Besides, I trust the average civilian with weapons a hell of a lot more than I would ever trust the government with them.

I have no problem with law-abiding citizens owning guns. However, the right is not unlimited. Begin turgid debate on what an "assault rifle" is or is not in 3...2...1....

Problem is, anti-gun laws only work against those who abide by laws. It didn't stop that guy from shooting people at that mall in Omaha... but it did stop the law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. It's not right in my opinion.

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity


Problem is, anti-gun laws only work against those who abide by laws. It didn't stop that guy from shooting people at that mall in Omaha... but it did stop the law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. It's not right in my opinion.

The VT shooter, with a history of mental problems, bought his guns legally.
Post edited by DieselFuel! at 1/21/2008 4:43:55 PM

Originally posted by: DieselFuel!

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity


Problem is, anti-gun laws only work against those who abide by laws. It didn't stop that guy from shooting people at that mall in Omaha... but it did stop the law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. It's not right in my opinion.

The VT shooter, with a history of mental problems, bought his guns legally.

I'm talking about gun-free zones mostly. Good people follow the law with regard to that, but they get killed as a result because there are people who don't follow laws. Abolish gun-free zones, and allow law-abiding citizens to carry weapons, and these situations could be avoided.

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity

Originally posted by: DieselFuel!

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity


Problem is, anti-gun laws only work against those who abide by laws. It didn't stop that guy from shooting people at that mall in Omaha... but it did stop the law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. It's not right in my opinion.

The VT shooter, with a history of mental problems, bought his guns legally.

I'm talking about gun-free zones mostly. Good people follow the law with regard to that, but they get killed as a result because there are people who don't follow laws. Abolish gun-free zones, and allow law-abiding citizens to carry weapons, and these situations could be avoided.

What gun-free zones?



VOTE GREEN PARTY FOR REAL POLITICAL REPRESENTATION! http://www.gp.org

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity

Originally posted by: DieselFuel!

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity


Problem is, anti-gun laws only work against those who abide by laws. It didn't stop that guy from shooting people at that mall in Omaha... but it did stop the law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. It's not right in my opinion.

The VT shooter, with a history of mental problems, bought his guns legally.

I'm talking about gun-free zones mostly. Good people follow the law with regard to that, but they get killed as a result because there are people who don't follow laws. Abolish gun-free zones, and allow law-abiding citizens to carry weapons, and these situations could be avoided.

So your opinion is that, in order to lessen gun deaths, we give more people guns?

Lets apply your logic to other problems. Obesity is an epidemic in today's youth. So, in order to fix that, I say we give children more sweets.

Sounds like epic failure to me.
______________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by: SammySoc
Men of little minds always find solace in portraying themselves as victims.

Originally posted by: SammySoc

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity

Originally posted by: DieselFuel!

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity


Problem is, anti-gun laws only work against those who abide by laws. It didn't stop that guy from shooting people at that mall in Omaha... but it did stop the law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. It's not right in my opinion.

The VT shooter, with a history of mental problems, bought his guns legally.

I'm talking about gun-free zones mostly. Good people follow the law with regard to that, but they get killed as a result because there are people who don't follow laws. Abolish gun-free zones, and allow law-abiding citizens to carry weapons, and these situations could be avoided.

So your opinion is that, in order to lessen gun deaths, we give more people guns?

Lets apply your logic to other problems. Obesity is an epidemic in today's youth. So, in order to fix that, I say we give children more sweets.

Sounds like epic failure to me.

No, my solution didn't say to give anyone guns. My solution is to tell the government to fuck off, and let people choose whether or not they want guns.

As for Obesity, again, it's not the government's place to tell someone how to live their damn lives. They certainly shouldn't ban sweets... it's called free will, and if someone wants to eat themselves to death, that's their right. It is not government's role to get involved in someone's personal life.

Originally posted by: SammySoc

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity

Originally posted by: DieselFuel!

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity


Problem is, anti-gun laws only work against those who abide by laws. It didn't stop that guy from shooting people at that mall in Omaha... but it did stop the law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. It's not right in my opinion.

The VT shooter, with a history of mental problems, bought his guns legally.

I'm talking about gun-free zones mostly. Good people follow the law with regard to that, but they get killed as a result because there are people who don't follow laws. Abolish gun-free zones, and allow law-abiding citizens to carry weapons, and these situations could be avoided.

So your opinion is that, in order to lessen gun deaths, we give more people guns?

Lets apply your logic to other problems. Obesity is an epidemic in today's youth. So, in order to fix that, I say we give children more sweets.

Sounds like epic failure to me.

thats funny stuff, how about instead of giving more people guns we just allow qualified law abiding gun owners to carry guns anywhere and defend themselvesand quite possibly others too?



"It is the tragedy of the world that no one knows what he doesn't know - and the less a man knows, the more sure he is he knows everything."

Joyce Cary

Originally posted by: SammySoc

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity

Originally posted by: DieselFuel!

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity


Problem is, anti-gun laws only work against those who abide by laws. It didn't stop that guy from shooting people at that mall in Omaha... but it did stop the law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. It's not right in my opinion.

The VT shooter, with a history of mental problems, bought his guns legally.

I'm talking about gun-free zones mostly. Good people follow the law with regard to that, but they get killed as a result because there are people who don't follow laws. Abolish gun-free zones, and allow law-abiding citizens to carry weapons, and these situations could be avoided.

So your opinion is that, in order to lessen gun deaths, we give more people guns?

Lets apply your logic to other problems. Obesity is an epidemic in today's youth. So, in order to fix that, I say we give children more sweets.

Sounds like epic failure to me.

I've heard in some cases that making sweets available to children doesn't always lead to obesity while hiding sweets gives the child a incentive to hide their own cravings.

Im sure that is not the case all the time. Some kids love sweets and will eat themselves to death.

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity
No, my solution didn't say to give anyone guns. My solution is to tell the government to fuck off, and let people choose whether or not they want guns.

Tell the government to fuck off? Oh you're such a rebel.

So it is your assertion, that more people having guns will = less gun deaths?

Originally posted by: Killet
thats funny stuff, how about instead of giving more people guns we just allow qualified law abiding gun owners to carry guns anywhere and defend themselvesand quite possibly others too?

Mission Accomplished Night Rider.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry

Currently, 48 US states allow some form of concealed carry

______________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by: SammySoc
Men of little minds always find solace in portraying themselves as victims.

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity

Originally posted by: SammySoc

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity

Originally posted by: DieselFuel!

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity


Problem is, anti-gun laws only work against those who abide by laws. It didn't stop that guy from shooting people at that mall in Omaha... but it did stop the law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. It's not right in my opinion.

The VT shooter, with a history of mental problems, bought his guns legally.

I'm talking about gun-free zones mostly. Good people follow the law with regard to that, but they get killed as a result because there are people who don't follow laws. Abolish gun-free zones, and allow law-abiding citizens to carry weapons, and these situations could be avoided.

So your opinion is that, in order to lessen gun deaths, we give more people guns?

Lets apply your logic to other problems. Obesity is an epidemic in today's youth. So, in order to fix that, I say we give children more sweets.

Sounds like epic failure to me.

No, my solution didn't say to give anyone guns. My solution is to tell the government to fuck off, and let people choose whether or not they want guns.

As for Obesity, again, it's not the government's place to tell someone how to live their damn lives. They certainly shouldn't ban sweets... it's called free will, and if someone wants to eat themselves to death, that's their right. It is not government's role to get involved in someone's personal life.

Well, I suggest you support state legislative and congressional candidates that favor loose gun control laws. But, be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.



VOTE GREEN PARTY FOR REAL POLITICAL REPRESENTATION! http://www.gp.org

Originally posted by: SammySoc

Tell the government to fuck off? Oh you're such a rebel.

So it is your assertion, that more people having guns will = less gun deaths?

First: Thanks. Second: Absolutely.

It's logical. I assume you want to ban guns, but that only keeps law-abiding citizens from obtaining them. People will still get killed by people with illegal guns, and they won't be able to defend themselves. If you want to limit gun-violence, carry a gun. Maybe you'll save a life someday. You're living in a fantasy world if you think gun laws would keep anyone from obtaining them and using them against the innocent. You're also living in a fantasy world if you think the government is the solution to this problem or any problem. Look at how well prohibition worked, and look at how well the war on drugs has been working. You really believe that the government can fix this by simply banning guns?

You talk about gun deaths, and you're obviously afraid of people having guns, but what about the government? When has the government ever shown any responsibility with their power and their weapons? Not in WWII when we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not in Vietnam, not in Iraq... and not anywhere as far as I'm concerned. You expect people of this nation to be responsible with weapons, but you ignore the government's mistakes and evil deeds. Maybe when the government becomes responsible, and sets an example for the people, the people will follow.

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity

Originally posted by: SammySoc

Tell the government to fuck off? Oh you're such a rebel.

So it is your assertion, that more people having guns will = less gun deaths?

First: Thanks. Second: Absolutely.

It's logical. I assume you want to ban guns, but that only keeps law-abiding citizens from obtaining them. People will still get killed by people with illegal guns, and they won't be able to defend themselves. If you want to limit gun-violence, carry a gun. Maybe you'll save a life someday. You're living in a fantasy world if you think gun laws would keep anyone from obtaining them and using them against the innocent. You're also living in a fantasy world if you think the government is the solution to this problem or any problem. Look at how well prohibition worked, and look at how well the war on drugs has been working. You really believe that the government can fix this by simply banning guns?

You talk about gun deaths, and you're obviously afraid of people having guns, but what about the government? When has the government ever shown any responsibility with their power and their weapons? Not in WWII when we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not in Vietnam, not in Iraq... and not anywhere as far as I'm concerned. You expect people of this nation to be responsible with weapons, but you ignore the government's mistakes and evil deeds. Maybe when the government becomes responsible, and sets an example for the people, the people will follow.

And yet I have reached the ripe old age of 35, and have never felt the need to carry a gun....



VOTE GREEN PARTY FOR REAL POLITICAL REPRESENTATION! http://www.gp.org

Originally posted by: cimat1984

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity

Originally posted by: SammySoc

Tell the government to fuck off? Oh you're such a rebel.

So it is your assertion, that more people having guns will = less gun deaths?

First: Thanks. Second: Absolutely.

It's logical. I assume you want to ban guns, but that only keeps law-abiding citizens from obtaining them. People will still get killed by people with illegal guns, and they won't be able to defend themselves. If you want to limit gun-violence, carry a gun. Maybe you'll save a life someday. You're living in a fantasy world if you think gun laws would keep anyone from obtaining them and using them against the innocent. You're also living in a fantasy world if you think the government is the solution to this problem or any problem. Look at how well prohibition worked, and look at how well the war on drugs has been working. You really believe that the government can fix this by simply banning guns?

You talk about gun deaths, and you're obviously afraid of people having guns, but what about the government? When has the government ever shown any responsibility with their power and their weapons? Not in WWII when we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not in Vietnam, not in Iraq... and not anywhere as far as I'm concerned. You expect people of this nation to be responsible with weapons, but you ignore the government's mistakes and evil deeds. Maybe when the government becomes responsible, and sets an example for the people, the people will follow.

And yet I have reached the ripe old age of 35, and have never felt the need to carry a gun....

Just as I'm sure you have never been brutally ass raped....robbed at knife/gun point...or nearly bludgeoned to death by an assailant.

This still doesn't imply that this shit doesn’t happen…..even if you are 35 years old.

Personally, I’d rather carry a gun until I was 120 years old, never needing it one second, than needing it and not having one.

Post edited by Mockery at 1/21/2008 5:34:32 PM

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity

Originally posted by: SammySoc

Tell the government to fuck off? Oh you're such a rebel.

So it is your assertion, that more people having guns will = less gun deaths?

First: Thanks. Second: Absolutely.

It's logical.

It is also logical that with everyone carrying guns, real criminals will SHOOT first and worry if you had a gun LATER.

Thats when we start needing Robocop
Post edited by -Swo0p at 1/21/2008 5:47:24 PM

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: cimat1984

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity

Originally posted by: SammySoc

Tell the government to fuck off? Oh you're such a rebel.

So it is your assertion, that more people having guns will = less gun deaths?

First: Thanks. Second: Absolutely.

It's logical. I assume you want to ban guns, but that only keeps law-abiding citizens from obtaining them. People will still get killed by people with illegal guns, and they won't be able to defend themselves. If you want to limit gun-violence, carry a gun. Maybe you'll save a life someday. You're living in a fantasy world if you think gun laws would keep anyone from obtaining them and using them against the innocent. You're also living in a fantasy world if you think the government is the solution to this problem or any problem. Look at how well prohibition worked, and look at how well the war on drugs has been working. You really believe that the government can fix this by simply banning guns?

You talk about gun deaths, and you're obviously afraid of people having guns, but what about the government? When has the government ever shown any responsibility with their power and their weapons? Not in WWII when we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not in Vietnam, not in Iraq... and not anywhere as far as I'm concerned. You expect people of this nation to be responsible with weapons, but you ignore the government's mistakes and evil deeds. Maybe when the government becomes responsible, and sets an example for the people, the people will follow.

And yet I have reached the ripe old age of 35, and have never felt the need to carry a gun....

Just as I'm sure you have never been brutally ass raped....robbed at knife/gun point...or nearly bludgeoned to death by an assailant.

This still doesn't imply that this shit doesn’t happen…..even if you are 35 years old.

Personally, I’d rather carry a gun until I was 120 years old, never needing it one second, than needing it and not having one.

ok- first, don't try to pull the "you're naive" argument with me. I've seen shit and been in situations that have been, shall we say, very enlightening.

So, carry a gun until you're 120. Be my guest. I will do the opposite, and not carry a weapon. See you in 85 years-we'll compare notes.


Post edited by cimat1984 at 1/21/2008 5:40:38 PM


VOTE GREEN PARTY FOR REAL POLITICAL REPRESENTATION! http://www.gp.org

Originally posted by: -Swo0p

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity

Originally posted by: SammySoc

Tell the government to fuck off? Oh you're such a rebel.

So it is your assertion, that more people having guns will = less gun deaths?

First: Thanks. Second: Absolutely.

It's logical.

It is also logical that with everyone carrying guns, real criminals will SHOOT first and worry if you had a gun LATER.

Thats when we start needing Robocop

If everyone has a gun then your situation can only exist if there are more criminals in the area than citizens.

Hence the concept of backup.

Originally posted by: cimat1984


ok- first, don't try to pull the "you're naive" argument with me. I've seen shit and been in situations that have been, shall we say, very enlightening.

So, carry a gun until you're 120. Be my guest. I will do the opposite, and not carry a weapon. See you in 85 years-we'll compare notes.

Who knows….life is riddled with irony. You’ll probably live to be 150 years old, armed only with organic tofu.. and I’ll probably die next week from some bullet resistant, mutant alien, that habitually likes to probe humans to death.

wouldn't that be super quaint.


Post edited by Mockery at 1/21/2008 6:11:20 PM

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity

Originally posted by: SammySoc

Tell the government to fuck off? Oh you're such a rebel.

So it is your assertion, that more people having guns will = less gun deaths?

First: Thanks. Second: Absolutely.

It's logical.

No its not. More people with guns = more gun deaths. More cars on the road = more car deaths. More candy = more cavities. How do you not understand this?

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity
I assume you want to ban guns

Well then you assume wrong. I own guns, and am currently in the process of obtaining a CCW permit. I believe the laws in place are fine. Law abiding citzens DO have access to carrying concealed weapons in 48/50 states. So what you're arguing is ignorant of the current laws in place. There are plenty of outlets currently in place, that allow you to defend yourself.

I dont think we should ban all guns, but I also dont think we should make them accessible in large quantities to any ole asshole. To say that more guns will = less death, is quite simply, fucking retarded.
______________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by: SammySoc
Men of little minds always find solace in portraying themselves as victims.

Originally posted by: SammySoc

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity

Originally posted by: SammySoc

Tell the government to fuck off? Oh you're such a rebel.

So it is your assertion, that more people having guns will = less gun deaths?

First: Thanks. Second: Absolutely.

It's logical.

No its not. More people with guns = more gun deaths. More cars on the road = more car deaths. More candy = more cavities. How do you not understand this?

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity
I assume you want to ban guns

Well then you assume wrong. I own guns, and am currently in the process of obtaining a CCW permit. I believe the laws in place are fine. Law abiding citzens DO have access to carrying concealed weapons in 48/50 states. So what you're arguing is ignorant of the current laws in place. There are plenty of outlets currently in place, that allow you to defend yourself.

I dont think we should ban all guns, but I also dont think we should make them accessible in large quantities to any ole asshole. To say that more guns will = less death, is quite simply, fucking retarded.

Whatever, I explained why it would mean less deaths, and you chose to ignore it.

BTW, I eat candy all the time, and I've never had one cavity in my life... also, I'm 5'8" 140 pounds, and I'm in good shape. Just because something is available doesn't mean that it's going to lead to something negative.

Alcohol is available to buy, but I don't see everyone lying in the gutters drunk. I could drink any time I wanted, but I could count on one hand how many times I've taken a drink.

Your problem is you don't trust people to make decisions for themselves. You seem to think the government needs to hold our hands from cradle to grave, always telling us what's good and what's bad. I think that's a bad idea.

And again, I'm mostly referring to gun-free zones. There are places where you simply are not allowed to have a gun on you... and I'm pretty sure malls and universities are included in that. All I'm saying is that if someone had a gun in those situations, lives could be saved. If you think that's "retarded", then I'd love to see your definition of intelligence.

Also, you say that guns shouldn't be made accessible to "any ole asshole" ... what does this mean? Would you ban me from having a gun because of my opinion? And who's place is it to say who should and shouldn't have a gun? The government? What about all the examples I gave of government abusing their power and their weapons? Who is gong to make sure the assholes in government don't have access to nuclear weapons among other things? I'm sorry, but I don't trust the government to regulate anything. Again, laws against guns are as effective as laws against drugs.

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity

Originally posted by: DieselFuel!

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity


Problem is, anti-gun laws only work against those who abide by laws. It didn't stop that guy from shooting people at that mall in Omaha... but it did stop the law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. It's not right in my opinion.

The VT shooter, with a history of mental problems, bought his guns legally.

I'm talking about gun-free zones mostly. Good people follow the law with regard to that, but they get killed as a result because there are people who don't follow laws. Abolish gun-free zones, and allow law-abiding citizens to carry weapons, and these situations could be avoided.

you dont understand how tense a situation is when you have a one on one with kid who is packin heat and his pissed about his grade and an unarmed professor...guns really dont have a place on campus. then again, if we just all have 20/20 foresight then we would have asked god to destroy guns 150 years ago.
Post edited by .coreduo! at 1/21/2008 7:24:08 PM

Originally posted by: .coreduo!

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity

Originally posted by: DieselFuel!

Originally posted by: F***TheCommunity


Problem is, anti-gun laws only work against those who abide by laws. It didn't stop that guy from shooting people at that mall in Omaha... but it did stop the law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. It's not right in my opinion.

The VT shooter, with a history of mental problems, bought his guns legally.

I'm talking about gun-free zones mostly. Good people follow the law with regard to that, but they get killed as a result because there are people who don't follow laws. Abolish gun-free zones, and allow law-abiding citizens to carry weapons, and these situations could be avoided.

VT is a gun-free zone. what crackpipe are you smoking?

Was this directed at me? That's the point I was making... that gun-free zones like malls and universities are easy targets for mass murderers.

Post edited by F***TheCommunity at 1/21/2008 7:25:50 PM