A good reason to own guns in the home

[2GOLD 0]

Hold on Mike, people claim pot is not addictive?

You are kidding right?

 

I knew guys who went to work stoned just so they could make money to buy more weed to get stoned.

 

And god forbid if they tried to go a week without it. It may not be addictive like the major ones, but it damn sure is addictive.

[Guest MikeSC]

Hold on Mike, people claim pot is not addictive?

You are kidding right?

 

I knew guys who went to work stoned just so they could make money to buy more weed to get stoned.

 

And god forbid if they tried to go a week without it. It may not be addictive like the major ones, but it damn sure is addictive.

Tons of pot advocates make that claim.

 

It's psychologically addictive, which is every inch as bad as physical addiction.

-=Mike

[snuffbox 0]

Apology accepted. It's just that this has come up before.

yeah...and Im sure it didnt look good, the B is close to the M on the keyboard...but it happens to spell the name of an embarrassing childrend dino thingy. Meh, Ill try to pay attention to that, thanks for accepting the explanation.

[Guest JMA]

all apologies Marney...someone here said you worked for Bush. My mistake, bad info, sorry.

I believe Slapnuts! said that.

 

Just as a pre-emptive warning that "fanboy" is actually a "fangirl" who claims to work high up in the Bush administration and she is likely to make a fool of you if you call her out. Just a friendly warning!

 

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...istration&st=60

[snuffbox 0]

Hold on Mike, people claim pot is not addictive?

You are kidding right?

 

I knew guys who went to work stoned just so they could make money to buy more weed to get stoned.

 

And god forbid if they tried to go a week without it. It may not be addictive like the major ones, but it damn sure is addictive.

Tons of pot advocates make that claim.

 

It's psychologically addictive, which is every inch as bad as physical addiction.

-=Mike

your correct Mike, it is psychologically addictive, not physically.

 

But your wrong that theyre just as bad. Theyre not, physical is far far different and worse. With marijuana, its more like with cigarettes, youll have mood probs, and other mental issues if your not high but its different with the physical addiction.

 

Ex. - Heroin(or any opiate), if you need it and dont have it youll itch like crazy, vomit, experience horrible stomach pains like all the muscles are tearing, and possibly even die.

 

Its different...definitly. For further reading I suggest the writings of William S Burroughs.

[snuffbox 0]

all apologies Marney...someone here said you worked for Bush. My mistake, bad info, sorry.

I believe Slapnuts! said that.

 

Just as a pre-emptive warning that "fanboy" is actually a "fangirl" who claims to work high up in the Bush administration and she is likely to make a fool of you if you call her out. Just a friendly warning!

 

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...istration&st=60

Yep...that was it. I dont feel Ive been made a fool of though, until I forgot to spell Marney, that was a bit emarrassing.

[Slayer 0]

all apologies Marney...someone here said you worked for Bush. My mistake, bad info, sorry.

I believe Slapnuts! said that.

 

Just as a pre-emptive warning that "fanboy" is actually a "fangirl" who claims to work high up in the Bush administration and she is likely to make a fool of you if you call her out. Just a friendly warning!

 

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...istration&st=60

Yep...that was it. I dont feel Ive been made a fool of though, until I forgot to spell Marney, that was a bit emarrassing.

I'm sure that Barney is very forgiving

[spiny norman 0]

Angelslayer, just to respond to what you said earlier about Martin Bryant:

 

I haven't met a single person who thinks he was set up. I think everyone generally accepts that he is guilty.

 

That said, this whole "Well, water kills people, and beds kill people" argument is amongst some of the more stupid arguments I've ever heard. There is a difference between a bed, which has the purpose to sleep on, to a gun, which has the purpose to kill with. Like a bomb. Hey, water kills people too, why aren't bombs legal?

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Ex. - Heroin(or any opiate), if you need it and dont have it youll itch like crazy, vomit, experience horrible stomach pains like all the muscles are tearing, and possibly even die.

 

I don't think anyone will argue that heroin isn't worse than pot. It is just a matter of where to draw the line.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Wasn't the water kills people meant to be a joke?

[Slayer 0]

Wasn't the water kills people meant to be a joke?

OMG That's not funny d00d~!

[snuffbox 0]

Wasn't the water kills people meant to be a joke?

Im sure it was...I dont think anyone here used it seriously. My point about was that I actually know people who use it in seriousness when this issue comes up.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Of course parents should look after their guns better and educate their children more, but the reality is that they don't. I'm for gun control (not an outright ban, but tighter controls) strictly for my own safety. Don't blame us for this. Blame those parents that ruined it for you. Maybe if the NRA put more pressure on them instead of the anti-gun activists, the anti-gun crowd would peter out a bit.

 

I am all for firearms as long as people use and look after them responsibly. But since increasingly large numbers aren't responsible, they shouldn't be allowed to have them. Simple as that.

[NoCalMike 0]

I don't think there is anything that would get me to place a gun in my house as a permanent situation in the household, but quite frankly I could care less if someone else wants to own a gun. It is legal to do, so there isn't much room for argument and I suppose it becomes an argument over taste and personal choice, so the arguments on either side are moot I guess. However stuff like assault rifles, ye BAN them outright.

[Firestarter 0]

Wasn't the water kills people meant to be a joke?

Im sure it was...I dont think anyone here used it seriously. My point about was that I actually know people who use it in seriousness when this issue comes up.

It's a serious argument and a valid counterpoint. Far more people die as a result of car accidents in the United States than from any kind of gun-related violence, and there are fewer cars than guns in the United States. That means that cars are indisputably more dangerous than guns. It doesn't matter that they're designed for travelling and guns are designed for killing; guns would kill a whole lot more people if they were cars. Has anyone called for a ban on cars? Why not?

 

That said, this whole "Well, water kills people, and beds kill people" argument is amongst some of the more stupid arguments I've ever heard. There is a difference between a bed, which has the purpose to sleep on, to a gun, which has the purpose to kill with. Like a bomb. Hey, water kills people too, why aren't bombs legal?

Knives are legal. Knives were originally designed to kill - we don't have any problems with knives being in houses which also contain children. That's because knives are tools. When a tool is used for a reprehensible purpose, we don't ban the tool and we don't try to punish the tool. We punish the criminal.

Well, guns are also tools. They are designed to kill, just as knives were designed to kill. And there are valid reasons to kill a person - in self-defense, for example, or in defense of others. That's why police officers carry them.

Why not bombs, you ask? This is a classic case of sloppy thinking - not that I expect much better from you. Bombs are designed to wage war, destroy buildings, and/or kill a large number of people in proximity. There is no valid reason for any one individual private citizen to require such a device. Congress takes the decision to wage war, destroying property is a criminal offense, and killing large numbers of people in proximity isn't something that normal people do in self-defense, unless their name happens to be Schwarzenegger and they're in a movie.

 

So much for that. Next.

[Styles 0]

Oh, so we're trying to pass the blame to me, eh? Sorry for the "bad intel" I will form a commitee immediately to look into the matter and where I went wrong...ehem. Marney's always been kind of vague with her status in the government, and her obvious political leanings threw me off I guess. What I meant by made a fool of, is she tends to strike like a pitbull at times in this folder but you got off easy. And...um....I have no problems with law abiding citizens owning guns but I think mandatory background checks and licensing is a good idea just to protect the innocent. As for guns in a home with children, it's the parent's responsibilty to take neccesarry safety precautions just like anything else...

[Firestarter 0]

Marney's always been kind of vague with her status in the government, and her obvious political leanings threw me off I guess.

Even so, you said that I had a position in the administration, which was once quite true (I moved on from that job some months ago). To equate that with being employed by the President, however, is ridiculously ignorant. The President doesn't employ the Secretary of Defense, the White House Press Secretary, or the Attorney-General either, or anyone else in his administration; he's their boss. There's a difference. You were correct, or at least once correct, and snuffbox got it wrong. End of story.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I always presumed Marney was just Ayn Rand hiding out after faking her death.

 

wait.. ewwww.... that just put a damper on those sex fantasies.

 

(justkidding)

[Firestarter 0]

I always presumed Marney was just Ayn Rand hiding out after faking her death.

 

wait.. ewwww.... that just put a damper on those sex fantasies.

 

(justkidding)

What, you mean you really do have a thing for Ayn Rand?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I whack it to "Virtues of Selfishness"

 

No.. not really..

[Styles 0]

Marney's always been kind of vague with her status in the government, and her obvious political leanings threw me off I guess.

Even so, you said that I had a position in the administration, which was once quite true (I moved on from that job some months ago). To equate that with being employed by the President, however, is ridiculously ignorant. The President doesn't employ the Secretary of Defense, the White House Press Secretary, or the Attorney-General either, or anyone else in his administration; he's their boss. There's a difference. You were correct, or at least once correct, and snuffbox got it wrong. End of story.

Ah, ok. I could have sworn you mentioned having a position in the administration at one time. Even if that is now incorrect, it wasn't me taking snipes like "works for King George"

[Firestarter 0]

I could have sworn you mentioned having a position in the administration at one time

I did. I had been seconded to the office of Dr Condoleezza Rice, Assistant to the President on National Security Affairs.

 

Even if that is now incorrect

Just outdated. I'm now with the USAF.

 

it wasn't me taking snipes like "works for King George"

I know.

[Downhome 0]

Wasn't the water kills people meant to be a joke?

Im sure it was...I dont think anyone here used it seriously. My point about was that I actually know people who use it in seriousness when this issue comes up.

I wasn't joking at all.

 

When more kids are killed each year by drowning in a bathtub or a freaking plastic bucket than they are by firearms, what does that say exactly? Why can't you actualy respond to what I said way back in this thread, instead of just taking it as a joke, as if I couldn't possibly be serious.

 

It's a serious point.

 

If more kids are killed by drowning in those two items than they are by firearms, are you for either banning tubs/buckets or putting strict regulations on them as well?

[Downhome 0]

Marney, I know little of your history here, so let me ask you something. I can't remember ever seeing you post in any of the folders with a wrestling topic, so just how did someone of your status make your way to a wrestling message board? How did you find your way here?

[Vyce 0]

I don't think there is anything that would get me to place a gun in my house as a permanent situation in the household,

 

It's easy. Just get mugged / burglarized a couple times.

 

I suppose part of my snide dismissal of the anti-gun movement stems from living in the D.C. area. D.C. has some pretty strong anti-gun laws......and a lot of good it's done us. We had a rather "nice" little school shooting just the other day.

[Firestarter 0]

How did you find your way here?

 

Tom knows lots of interesting people.

[Downhome 0]

How did you find your way here?

 

Tom knows lots of interesting people.

Ah Tom...fair enough.

[NoCalMike 0]

I don't think there is anything that would get me to place a gun in my house as a permanent situation in the household,

 

It's easy. Just get mugged / burglarized a couple times.

 

I suppose part of my snide dismissal of the anti-gun movement stems from living in the D.C. area. D.C. has some pretty strong anti-gun laws......and a lot of good it's done us. We had a rather "nice" little school shooting just the other day.

my parents have been robbed at gun point and it didn't make them decide to have a gun in their shop or at home. I guess it is just the person.

[tommytomlin 0]

We don't ban bathtubs, buckets and faucets because we need water to drink, wash, eat and bathe in.

 

Last time I checked, 'semi-automatic' wasn't on my weekly shopping list, nor did I use it to wash soap off my body.

[Downhome 0]

We don't ban bathtubs, buckets and faucets because we need water to drink, wash, eat and bathe in.

 

Last time I checked, 'semi-automatic' wasn't on my weekly shopping list, nor did I use it to wash soap off my body.

So finding alternatives to a bathtub in a home with children, and plastic buckets near children, isn't worth the lives of the children? You could very easily do something where you had strict regulations on such items, or banned them as they currently are when they are near kids.

 

We don't do that, because it would be...fucking stupid.

 

I don't see too much of a difference, have it be a bath of water or a gun, when used correctly, when everything is in order, when you teach your children what the deal is, it can and IS all done very safely.