| |
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 4, 2006
|
|
It's nice to know that Freeman disapproves of legally owning a gun that could theoretically be used to break the law. Does he likewise disapprove of every other lawful instrument that has potentially illegal uses? Better round up all of those cars that can go over 75 MPH. And baseball bats, of course, since we recently had someone beaten to death with one of these Louisville Slugger death machines. Then ban booze, smokes, and "men's magazines" (potential possession by minors). While we're at it, I have heard rumors that there are some individuals who actually wager on the outcome of sporting events in jurisdictions where gambling is illegal! We must take immediate action to ban all such events, lest some poor soul destroy his family and career through illegal gambling. Thank goodness we have self-appointed protectors of the weak and stupid to save us from ourselves. Heaven forbid that we should have to make (and be responsible for) our own choices.
|
|
|
|
Level:Amateur
Since:May 5, 2008
|
|
What a idiotic argument. When was the last time that a bat was used to kill 32 innocent people? The people slaughtered at Virginia Tech, are they the weak and stupid, or are they the ones who should be held responsible for their choices? What was the choice ... going to school?
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:57
Level:Pro
Since:Jan 10, 2007
|
|
You sir, fail in your criticism of Reggie’s reply. True he could have added the materials of metal piping, nails, bee-bees, marbles, and cleaning supplies to his list; doing so only to enhance the shock value of destruction possible with common elements… or better yet he could have even mentioned airplanes. But, I think the point was not to name every possible item than can be used to cause harm. Rather, it is intended to point out that it is the fault of the criminal involved when others are harmed.
<o:p> </o:p>
You could be killed by a drunk driver on your way home to work, would you feel better for your family that your untimely death was not caused by gun violence. Life is a short, do the best you can with the time you have. You’ll probably never come across someone blindly looking to kill, but if you do, hope that someone else is there with a gun ready to shot them dead before that criminal exacts some Louisville Slugger vengeance on you.<o:p> </o:p>
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:78
Level:Pro
Since:Jan 23, 2007
|
|
How in the hell does VT have anything whatsoever to do with someone getting shot outside a night club? Gun ownership is a right protected by the US constitution. Self-defense is also a right. So if you don't like the fact that owning a gun is legal in ALL 50 STATES, then move somewhere else. Why don't you take your gun argument energy and put it behind banning the sale of Tobacco. That kills more people 1000 fold then any incident involving a gun.
|
|
|
|
|
Level:Amateur
Since:May 5, 2008
|
|
Oh give us all a break from your reactionary defense of all things guns. Freeman never says that guns should be banned. In fact he says that he "target shoots" and is ex-Army. He also tells morons like you to keep your guns. The point he is making is that athletes should be smarter about how the mere posession of a gun can complicate matters in situations when he has done nothing wrong. While no one outside a handful of people knows Harrison's guilt or innocence, the point Freeman is making has very little to do with the right to own guns, and everything to do with the logic of owning a gun if you're a public figure. Learn to read you moonshine swilling right wing punk.
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 4, 2006
|
|
You, illiterate tool, wrote:Freeman never says that guns should be banned.
If you had even a rudimentary grasp of English, you would have noticed that Freeman wrote: You call me an anti-gun media weenie. I see that and raise you Columbine (13 dead, 23 wounded), the University of Texas massacre (14 dead, 31 wounded), Virginia Tech (32 dead), Northern Illinois (five dead, 18 wounded), the Red Lake High School massacre (seven dead) and the Jonesboro school massacre (five dead, nine wounded).
That is an appeal for a gun ban, plain and simple. If you can't see that, you're even dumber than you sound. And that's saying something.
|
|
|
|
|
Level:Amateur
Since:May 5, 2008
|
|
That must be when you stopped reading and started writing your post. The next part reads:
"Just to name a few school shootings of innocent women and kids.
But I digress.
This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment or someone trying to pry the gun from your cold, dead hands. So cease with the phony, false choices.
Keep your firearms. I target shoot. I'm ex-Army (basic training at Ft. Sill in Oklahoma where I was the worst shooter of an M-16 probably in that base's history)."
The fact that you pick and choose which part of the article you pay attention to justifies me calling you a reactionary. His argument is not at all that you should not be allowed to have a firearm, he admits that he target shoots. The point is whether a gun actually makes famous athletes safer. He argues that it doesn't. Hell, a machete (a weapon used to murder myriads of Rwandans not too long ago) could not keep Sean Taylor safe.
In the end it's not a question of rights, or a question of safety, but a question of whether owning a gun causes problems in and of itself. For Harrison, if he was not the shooter, it did. For Steve McNair, it did a couple years ago when he got pulled over on suspicion of DUI and they found a concealed handgun in his vehicle. Freeman just makes the argument that carrying a gun gives the illusion of safety while putting yourself at legal risk.
Now to continue with the ad hominem attacks: you should read the whole article before making posts because you are the one that sounds stupid, not me.
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:5
Level:Amateur
Since:May 6, 2008
|
|
Go away with your tail between your legs, loser. cw smoked your head and now you're rambling on like an "illiterate tool". At least change your name or something.
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:14
Level:Amateur
Since:May 26, 2007
|
Yes, and all of those are exactly the same as owning a Kevlar-piercing submachine gun, because thugs and robbers always show up in full body armor.
Drop it, idiot -- you're sullying Reg Dunlop's good name.
|
|
|
|
|
Level:Amateur
Since:May 5, 2008
|
|
I am not sullying Mr. Dunlop's good name, he is. A one line post does not make an argument. I am not arguing against the right to own a gun, just as the author is not. Both of us make arguments as to why owning a gun does not necessarily protect a high profile athlete, while it can in fact cause legal problems. I am answering the fact that Mr. Dunlop is overly defensive about gun rights in his post, as the original article has little to do with gun rights and everything to do with logic. While it may be a poor justification for gun rights, it does not have to be to make Mr. Freeman's argument sound.
One of the posts mentions that Paul Pierce and Sean Taylor probably wish they had a gun when they were attacked. I do not remember the specifics of Pierce's stabbing, but I do know that Sean Taylor was shot through his bedroom door. He n | |
|
