What are you talking about, and what do you find "quite funny"?
Are you suggesting that I contradict myself, and if so when/where?
I really have no idea what you're alluding to. Do you even know what it is you are alluding to? LOL.
Actually, with your first response I thought you were being funny in the sense that my forum name is a pseudonym. Kind of a play on words. Of course, now I realize your question was not in jest.
And yes, in the original text, I was alluding that you contradict yourself. I feel no need to go into a quote war though and suffice to say that is my perception of you.
What are you talking about, and what do you find "quite funny"?
Are you suggesting that I contradict myself, and if so when/where?
I really have no idea what you're alluding to. Do you even know what it is you are alluding to? LOL.
Actually, with your first response I thought you were being funny in the sense that my forum name is a pseudonym. Kind of a play on words. Of course, now I realize your question was not in jest.
And yes, in the original text, I was alluding that you contradict yourself. I feel no need to go into a quote war though and suffice to say that is my perception of you.
How many situations like this per day happen? Theres a few accidental shooting deaths a day.
I'm still not completely sure on my position on gun control. On one hand, I think people should be free to do what they please as long as they don't hurt others. Guns, drugs, etc. But on the other hand, guns were invented to kill and legally obtained ones do so quite often.
I've never felt any need to have one.
Using individual events like these are poor examples in favor or against gun control.
This is an example of where owning a gun possibly saved someones life. I can mention events where lives would have been saved if gun control was enforced.
yep like the rapest life would have been saved if they had Gun control.
you are a sick person you want to call 911 and wait 40 mins and watch this man rape you wife your child and then what. let them go do it again. you would rather the rapest live and the innocent die.
if everyone had a Gun we all would be alot better.
sure there are people that get kill by acadents. like left teh keys in the car and a child starts the car and runs over and kills the one that left the keys in the car. just like someone leaving a loaded gun where a child could get ahold of it.
yep like the rapest life would have been saved if they had Gun control. you are a sick person you want to call 911 and wait 40 mins and watch this man rape you wife your child and then what. let them go do it again. you would rather the rapest live and the innocent die. if everyone had a Gun we all would be alot better. sure there are people that get kill by acadents. like left teh keys in the car and a child starts the car and runs over and kills the one that left the keys in the car. just like someone leaving a loaded gun where a child could get ahold of it.
Exhibit B:
Originally posted by Ekibiogami:
Yip Yip Yip! Am I XVicks? No Dont think so. cant speek for you But I Only have the one account. So Compareing Me to him is Stupidity on your part. And you DO Need to L2R. Ive maid My case here just because you and your "Cercomvent the law" friends want to use a loop hole to try and cheat inplace of dooing it right then there is no point in argueing the point. And If you really want to Do the Elementary playground Duel then Bring it.
If I didn't know any better, I'd swear Ekibiogami had been using two accounts on these forums. The attitude, logic and even spelling is practically the same.
How many situations like this per day happen? Theres a few accidental shooting deaths a day. I'm still not completely sure on my position on gun control. On one hand, I think people should be free to do what they please as long as they don't hurt others. Guns, drugs, etc. But on the other hand, guns were invented to kill and legally obtained ones do so quite often. I've never felt any need to have one.
Using individual events like these are poor examples in favor or against gun control.
This is an example of where owning a gun possibly saved someones life. I can mention events where lives would have been saved if gun control was enforced.
yep like the rapest life would have been saved if they had Gun control.
you are a sick person you want to call 911 and wait 40 mins and watch this man rape you wife your child and then what. let them go do it again. you would rather the rapest live and the innocent die.
if everyone had a Gun we all would be alot better.
sure there are people that get kill by acadents. like left teh keys in the car and a child starts the car and runs over and kills the one that left the keys in the car. just like someone leaving a loaded gun where a child could get ahold of it.
edit: removed... shooting an angry fish in a barrel... I don't need to explain all the things wrong with this post >.>
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
How many situations like this per day happen? Theres a few accidental shooting deaths a day.
I'm still not completely sure on my position on gun control. On one hand, I think people should be free to do what they please as long as they don't hurt others. Guns, drugs, etc. But on the other hand, guns were invented to kill and legally obtained ones do so quite often.
I've never felt any need to have one.
Using individual events like these are poor examples in favor or against gun control.
This is an example of where owning a gun possibly saved someones life. I can mention events where lives would have been saved if gun control was enforced.
yep like the rapest life would have been saved if they had Gun control.
you are a sick person you want to call 911 and wait 40 mins and watch this man rape you wife your child and then what. let them go do it again. you would rather the rapest live and the innocent die.
if everyone had a Gun we all would be alot better.
sure there are people that get kill by acadents. like left teh keys in the car and a child starts the car and runs over and kills the one that left the keys in the car. just like someone leaving a loaded gun where a child could get ahold of it.
Oh yeah, that's the solution to everything. We should all be packing.
Maybe you should spend less time at the gun range and more time in school so you could write an intelligible post.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
Wait. Let me edit that last paragraph and see if it still makes sense for you.
Do we even need one needless death involving alcohol when it could have been prevented? I have no idea why you are perfectly comfortable with children's needless deaths that can easily be prevented by one act.
Does your argument still make sense?
If you wish to change the conditions of the post to make a different argument after its been presented, you are welcome to it. That's your right, its your post and you made it. I will not stop you from changing things around to suit your point and argue things that are not related to gun deaths.
Tobacco, alcohol, autos are not the discussion. Guns are and how we can stop guns from proliferating in the United States legally. That's what we are trying to discuss. Clouding the issue and throwing in stuff from Walmart is always cute, but it serves to do nothing but debase the point.
The vast overwhelming majority of people that own guns in the United States don't NEED them, they just WANT them. That is no reason to make guns available. There are only so many people that need guns on a daily basis or in their line of employment, and all of those people are highly trained professionals, not Rebel flag waving yahoos who leave guns out so their 7 year old kids kill themselves while still arguing gun rights. It's just plain nutty.
Gun limitations and banning WILL lower the death rate by firearms, its just simple math. Less guns, less deaths... negligent homicides or otherwise. That alone far outweighs some yahoo drinking beer and plinking plates. I see no merit or redeeming quality in the allowance of such individuals owning guns. But you cannot discriminate against that sadsack, so I am fair enough to say that everyone should be barred from buying weapons.
Sorry, about the wait but this post got lost in the shuffle while I was trouncing gameloading.
I'm also sorry that you feel you have to limit the field of engagement in order to have an advantage here. You actually don't have a leg to stand on no matter how small you make your case. There are a few elphants standing in the room that you've repeatedly, I dare to say conveniently, ignored.
But let me start with a story that happened near where I live recently. A Kindergarten class, here in town, was recently taken out for a day to a local pizza place to eat. When a couple of the boys went to the bathroom they found a gun sitting on the back of the toilet. Did they pick it up an play with it? Did they take it out into the restaurant and show it off to their classmates? Did they hide it and take it home? No. no. And no.
The kids didn't even touch the gun. They came out and told their teacher who then told the restaraunt owners about the situation. The police were called in and, as it turns out, the gun belonged to the police department. Aparently one of the local cops took off his gun to use the commode and forgot to grab it on his way out.
The point of the story: All these kids grew up in an area where gun ownership was common. All of these kids knew not to mess with this device. FIVE YEAR OLD CHILDREN understood that a gun was not a toy. How did they know this? Because their parents, who owned guns legally, taught them that.
Let's recap the shit that you've failed to address in this thread (scroll up becuase this has all been mentioned previously).
1) Laws only affect the lawful. Criminals don't give a shit about laws, so making a ban will not stop criminals from acquiring firearms.
2) The number of accidental deaths attributed to firearms, per capita, among legal gun owners is less than half of a percent with way less than a thousandth of a percent being deaths of minors. Although I will admit that the CDC doesn't differentiate between legal and illegal gun ownership, I'm going to just assume that all of those accidents happened with legally owned guns. The statistics clearly demonstrate that the OVERWHELMING majority of gun owners ARE responsible and competent to own firearms.
3) The final and biggest issue that you consistently ignore is the fact that, in a democracy, we do not take away rights due to the possibility that those rights may be abused by criminals or crazy people. Treating your citizenry like criminals, guilty until proven
Sorry, about the wait but this post got lost in the shuffle while I was trouncing gameloading.
I'm also sorry that you feel you have to limit the field of engagement in order to have an advantage here. You actually don't have a leg to stand on no matter how small you make your case. There are a few elphants standing in the room that you've repeatedly, I dare to say conveniently, ignored.
But let me start with a story that happened near where I live recently. A Kindergarten class, here in town, was recently taken out for a day to a local pizza place to eat. When a couple of the boys went to the bathroom they found a gun sitting on the back of the toilet. Did they pick it up an play with it? Did they take it out into the restaurant and show it off to their classmates? Did they hide it and take it home? No. no. And no.
The kids didn't even touch the gun. They came out and told their teacher who then told the restaraunt owners about the situation. The police were called in and, as it turns out, the gun belonged to the police department. Aparently one of the local cops took off his gun to use the commode and forgot to grab it on his way out.
The point of the story: All these kids grew up in an area where gun ownership was common. All of these kids knew not to mess with this device. FIVE YEAR OLD CHILDREN understood that a gun was not a toy. How did they know this? Because their parents, who owned guns legally, taught them that. I clap at your personal anecdote. **golf clap**. But this is not the reality everywhere, sorry. I think you might want to submit this to Guns and Ammo magazine, but one anecdote is poor "proof" as a situational norm.
Let's recap the shit that you've failed to address in this thread (scroll up becuase this has all been mentioned previously).
1) Laws only affect the lawful. This is your uninformed opinion, but that still doesn't make it true, no matter how many curse words you attach for effect. You have absolutely no proof backing this claim up.Criminals don't give a shit about laws, so making a ban will not stop criminals from acquiring firearms.
2) The number of accidental deaths attributed to firearms, per capita, among legal gun owners is less than half of a percent with way less than a thousandth of a percent being deaths of minors. Although I will admit that the CDC doesn't differentiate between legal and illegal gun ownership, I'm going to just assume This is why you fail often. Half of what you suggest is "assumption". Please stop doing that.that all of those accidents happened with legally owned guns. The statistics clearly demonstrate that the OVERWHELMING majority of gun owners ARE responsible and competent to own firearms.
3) The final and biggest issue that you consistently ignore is the fact that, in a democracy, we do not take away rights due to the possibility that those rights may be abused by criminals or crazy people.This is irrelevant. We are talking about banning guns due to illegal firearms and gun deaths, irrespective of motive. Your suggestion we are treating citizenry like "criminals" is quite obtuse. No one puts citizens in jail or suggests it. We are saying that the law should reflect the proper spirit of it. The 2nd amendment was not for recreational sport plate and can shooting by thrill seekers. It was provisioned due to the state of the country just emerging from a WAR where citizen involvement in the defense was paramount. Because you want to shoot engine blocks and giggle with Youtube videos does not resemble national defense in any way. Treating your citizenry like criminals, guilty until proven innocent, is the exact opposite of what democracy is all about.
You are being held hostage in your own country by Muslims, Africans, and Jews. Eight CCTV cameras per person in your country. Your crime rate has risen since your gun control laws went into effect. You sir, can keep your ideas within the border of your fantastic country, and we will keep ours. Yeah, I'm fully aware of the grip around your balls your country has on you, I do read other articles in the news outside the States, unlike most Americans. I can throw the same violent crimes in your country in your face all day. The funny part is, it got worse after your gun control laws.
Poster child for the NRA. Great representation of it when the mask is removed. Nice job. While I respect your right to have a crazy, warped view of things as a citizen, I certainly don't want you armed while saying the same.
This is exactly why free speech should be given, and guns should be taken away.
Originally posted by barkjj Originally posted by popinjay
Originally posted by barkjj
You are being held hostage in your own country by Muslims, Africans, and Jews. Eight CCTV cameras per person in your country. Your crime rate has risen since your gun control laws went into effect. You sir, can keep your ideas within the border of your fantastic country, and we will keep ours. Yeah, I'm fully aware of the grip around your balls your country has on you, I do read other articles in the news outside the States, unlike most Americans. I can throw the same violent crimes in your country in your face all day. The funny part is, it got worse after your gun control laws.
Poster child for the NRA. Great representation of it when the mask is removed. Nice job. While I respect your right to have a crazy, warped view of things as a citizen, I certainly don't want you armed while saying the same.
This is exactly why free speech should be given, and guns should be taken away.
Come get them. Bring all your liberal friends. Oh, can you provide me with any proof to how my opinions reflect the NRA? I
Oh, you're not a member? That would be surprising in that you have so many views in common with them :P
Quote:The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.
Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."
Yes the days of gun control are long gone.....lol
Wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up first...
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
Nope, thought about it, but no. I'm not getting my name put on some member list that DHLS is going to call "exremists" and "terrorists". Even though, I was in the Marines for 9 years and was in both Afghanistan and Iraq, so I was already called a "extremist" by our new government. Talking about supporting the troops lol. Getting labeled into a group of terrorist for fighting terrorist? Nah, that's not going to piss us off at all.
Wow. Talk about someone who completely misunderstood the DHS report.
The DHS report did not label all veterans "extremists." All it said was that extremist groups would likely attempt to target veterans for recruitment due to the fact that they have combat skills.
The whole "smear on veterans" is a sham cooked up by Fox News and the far-right noise machine. Congrats. You fell for it.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
Nope, thought about it, but no. I'm not getting my name put on some member list that DHLS is going to call "exremists" and "terrorists". Even though, I was in the Marines for 9 years and was in both Afghanistan and Iraq, so I was already called a "extremist" by our new government. Talking about supporting the troops lol. Getting labeled into a group of terrorist for fighting terrorist? Nah, that's not going to piss us off at all.
Wow. Talk about someone who completely misunderstood the DHS report.
The DHS report did not label all veterans "extremists." All it said was that extremist groups would likely attempt to target veterans for recruitment due to the fact that they have combat skills.
The whole "smear on veterans" is a sham cooked up by Fox News and the far-right noise machine. Congrats. You fell for it.
The problem is not the fabricated label, it is the perception. The fact that the DHS would imply veterans could become those which they had fought abhors them.
Nope, thought about it, but no. I'm not getting my name put on some member list that DHLS is going to call "exremists" and "terrorists". Even though, I was in the Marines for 9 years and was in both Afghanistan and Iraq, so I was already called a "extremist" by our new government. Talking about supporting the troops lol. Getting labeled into a group of terrorist for fighting terrorist? Nah, that's not going to piss us off at all.
Wow. Talk about someone who completely misunderstood the DHS report.
The DHS report did not label all veterans "extremists." All it said was that extremist groups would likely attempt to target veterans for recruitment due to the fact that they have combat skills.
The whole "smear on veterans" is a sham cooked up by Fox News and the far-right noise machine. Congrats. You fell for it.
The problem is not the fabricated label, it is the perception. The fact that the DHS would imply veterans could become those which they had fought abhors them.
"reality is nothing, perception is everything"
It's pointless to argue. If the DHS does something fucked up, that means, Obama fucked up. Nobody is going to admit to that.
I'm sure our little expert will return to explain how we are all wrong, forget the fact that no matter how much they love Obama and no matter what excuses we hear, most of us in the military hates Obama, and that made it even worse.
It's a big Fuck You to us. Liberals would never understand that.
The study was commissioned by the Bush "administration," and immediately followed one on left-wing extremism.
Also, it said veterans would be TARGETED FOR RECRUITMENT. Not that they would automatically join. Doesn't that make sense to you?
But whatever. You're going to read what you want to read, because it justifies your worldview.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
Nope, thought about it, but no. I'm not getting my name put on some member list that DHLS is going to call "exremists" and "terrorists". Even though, I was in the Marines for 9 years and was in both Afghanistan and Iraq, so I was already called a "extremist" by our new government. Talking about supporting the troops lol. Getting labeled into a group of terrorist for fighting terrorist? Nah, that's not going to piss us off at all.
Wow. Talk about someone who completely misunderstood the DHS report.
The DHS report did not label all veterans "extremists." All it said was that extremist groups would likely attempt to target veterans for recruitment due to the fact that they have combat skills.
The whole "smear on veterans" is a sham cooked up by Fox News and the far-right noise machine. Congrats. You fell for it.
The problem is not the fabricated label, it is the perception. The fact that the DHS would imply veterans could become those which they had fought abhors them.
"reality is nothing, perception is everything"
I understand that, which is why the ability to think critically and to actually read, and not just listen to what the pill-popping fatass on the radio says, are nice things to have.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
Sorry, about the wait but this post got lost in the shuffle while I was trouncing gameloading.
I'm also sorry that you feel you have to limit the field of engagement in order to have an advantage here. You actually don't have a leg to stand on no matter how small you make your case. There are a few elphants standing in the room that you've repeatedly, I dare to say conveniently, ignored.
But let me start with a story that happened near where I live recently. A Kindergarten class, here in town, was recently taken out for a day to a local pizza place to eat. When a couple of the boys went to the bathroom they found a gun sitting on the back of the toilet. Did they pick it up an play with it? Did they take it out into the restaurant and show it off to their classmates? Did they hide it and take it home? No. no. And no.
The kids didn't even touch the gun. They came out and told their teacher who then told the restaraunt owners about the situation. The police were called in and, as it turns out, the gun belonged to the police department. Aparently one of the local cops took off his gun to use the commode and forgot to grab it on his way out.
The point of the story: All these kids grew up in an area where gun ownership was common. All of these kids knew not to mess with this device. FIVE YEAR OLD CHILDREN understood that a gun was not a toy. How did they know this? Because their parents, who owned guns legally, taught them that. I clap at your personal anecdote. **golf clap**. But this is not the reality everywhere, sorry. I think you might want to submit this to Guns and Ammo magazine, but one anecdote is poor "proof" as a situational norm. Your stance throughout this thread has been one all-inclusive statement that "common people" will act like retards in the vicinity of firearms. You extended this all-inclusive stance to a "save the children" appeal to pathos that implies that kids + firearms = death. The fact that there is even one case where your equation fails adequately falsifies your previous arguments.
Let's recap the shit that you've failed to address in this thread (scroll up becuase this has all been mentioned previously).
1) Laws only affect the lawful. This is your uninformed opinion, but that still doesn't make it true, no matter how many curse words you attach for effect. You have absolutely no proof backing this claim up. Okay, how about the fact that 80% of all convicts, who were involved in gun crimes, acquired their guns on the street through an illegal source? I'm still looking, so I can't comment on the number of gun crimes committed by previously convicted felons who aren't allowed to legally purchase firearms anyway. The simple fact that 80% of violent offenders are purchasing guns through illegal means should be a heads up that a ban on guns will affect people that follow the law disproportionately more than those who do not. Criminals don't give a shit about laws, so making a ban will not stop criminals from acquiring firearms.
2) The number of accidental deaths attributed to firearms, per capita, among legal gun owners is less than half of a percent with way less than a thousandth of a percent being deaths of minors. Although I will admit that the CDC doesn't differentiate between legal and illegal gun ownership, I'm going to just assume This is why you fail often. Half of what you suggest is "assumption". Please stop doing that. At this point I'd like to compare debating with you to a fist fight with a drunk. You swing really wide and when I easily dodge and land one right on the button, you're too caught up in the moment and your own intoxication to realize that you've been seriously injured and should really stop while you're ahead. Your comment is exhibit A. You were so anxious to find a cheap shot that you totally overlooked the fact that I WAS ERRING ON YOUR SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT. If we remove the illegal gun owners, then the percent of accidents among law abiding gun owners will drop accordingly. By focusing on only two words, in this case "assume" and "shit," you ended up undermining your own argument and calling into question your own integrity. At this point, I'm fully aware of the fact that you care more about how something is said than what is actually said. that all of those accidents happened with legally owned guns. The statistics clearly demonstrate that the OVERWHELMING majority of gun owners ARE responsible and competent to own firearms.
3) The final and biggest issue that you consistently ignore is the fact that, in a democracy, we do not take away rights due to the possibility that those rights may be abused by criminals or crazy people.This is irrelevant. We are talking about banning guns due to illegal firearms and gun deaths, irrespective of motive. And as we saw in point one, a ban will do nothing to stop criminals from acquiring firearms if they actually want them. Your suggestion we are treating citizenry like "criminals" is quite obtuse. No one puts citizens in jail or suggests it. Alright then, lets change that to treating citizens like children. You are talking about taking away a right, although there really aren't any "rights" only privileges, based on the assumption that law abiding citizens will abuse that right.
We are saying that the law should reflect the proper spirit of it. The 2nd amendment was not for recreational sport plate and can shooting by thrill seekers. It was provisioned due to the state of the country just emerging from a WAR where citizen involvement in the defense was paramount. Because you want to shoot engine blocks and giggle with Youtube videos does not resemble national defense in any way. Ad hominem? How quaint... The 2nd amendment was also meant as a stop-gap to government power. The idea being that the citizenry would have the means for armed revolt in the case that the government should ever go outside of the will of the people. Of course, the people always have this ability (see point 1), but having a law built in certainly gives a nice warning sign to the people that something is amiss when the government starts looking at disarming lawful citizens. And this is where we part ways. Why disarm law abiding people who have demonstrated that they are a threat to no one? What would be the point? You have yet to make this clear. Treating your citizenry like criminals, guilty until proven innocent, is the exact opposite of what democracy is all about.
{ Mod Edit }
Good day to you sir!
BTW, sorry about the time gap. I got temporarily banned for calling a skinhead a skinhead and telling him what he could do with his racists bullshit. I regret nothing.
BTW, sorry about the time gap. I got temporarily banned for calling a skinhead a skinhead and telling him what he could do with his racists bullshit. I regret nothing. cheers.
Sorry to hear about your ban. I guess it was worth it calling a guy something, probably.
The posts we had resembled the flag of the Rainbow Coalition, so I read what I could but I'm starting to wonder why we even started it in the first place when you look at it visually.
We will have to disagree on what the 2nd amendment is actually saying, as I respectfully disagreed with someone earlier about that same point.
I tend to think it's primary and main focus was to keep citizenry armed in case of attack from outside nations and governments. I believe that as laws evolved and commonplace law and order surfaced and has proliferated, home defense is a poor primary argument for the 2nd amendment.
I'd have more respect for those advocates if they just plainly came out and said "Look, I like to drink beers and shoot plates. When I've shot all the plates or drank all the beer, I then like to shoot the empty beer cans." I have an extensive background in gun training and shooting guns is actually quite fun so I can understand.
But for people to want to frame their wants, desires and fun addictions around an argument of home defense and national security interests in the 21st century is poor and disengenuous.
The fact of the matter is, the 2nd Amendment stands.
This is not the bible that can be interpreted to your agenda. There are hundreds of papers written by the framers, explaining the Bill of Rights in detail. The 2nd Amendment protects us from our Government and protects the other nine Amendments. There are plenty of places in the world that have no guns, why not look into what they offer? You might like it there better. I'm sure they even have Gay Marriage as well. It's a liberals wet dream overseas. Gun owners are NOT the problem, it's the criminals. Look up who those people are. It's plainly in BLACK and white on the FBI.gov website. But you liberals are so damn worried to offend those people. But they are the ones killing and raping you guys in record numbers. Stop making excuses for them and get real.
I make no excuses for criminals. Not sure where you find that on this thread.
Grandiose distortions by barkjj:
"But they are the ones killing and raping you guys in record numbers."
Comments
What do you mean, daeandor?
Actually, that is quite funny.
What are you talking about, and what do you find "quite funny"?
Are you suggesting that I contradict myself, and if so when/where?
I really have no idea what you're alluding to. Do you even know what it is you are alluding to? LOL.
Actually, with your first response I thought you were being funny in the sense that my forum name is a pseudonym. Kind of a play on words. Of course, now I realize your question was not in jest.
And yes, in the original text, I was alluding that you contradict yourself. I feel no need to go into a quote war though and suffice to say that is my perception of you.
I fucking love you. Did you know that? No? Well, now you do.
What do you mean, daeandor?
Actually, that is quite funny.
What are you talking about, and what do you find "quite funny"?
Are you suggesting that I contradict myself, and if so when/where?
I really have no idea what you're alluding to. Do you even know what it is you are alluding to? LOL.
Actually, with your first response I thought you were being funny in the sense that my forum name is a pseudonym. Kind of a play on words. Of course, now I realize your question was not in jest.
And yes, in the original text, I was alluding that you contradict yourself. I feel no need to go into a quote war though and suffice to say that is my perception of you.
Huh?
Using individual events like these are poor examples in favor or against gun control.
This is an example of where owning a gun possibly saved someones life. I can mention events where lives would have been saved if gun control was enforced.
yep like the rapest life would have been saved if they had Gun control.
you are a sick person you want to call 911 and wait 40 mins and watch this man rape you wife your child and then what. let them go do it again. you would rather the rapest live and the innocent die.
if everyone had a Gun we all would be alot better.
sure there are people that get kill by acadents. like left teh keys in the car and a child starts the car and runs over and kills the one that left the keys in the car. just like someone leaving a loaded gun where a child could get ahold of it.
www.DigitalMindz.com
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
If I didn't know any better, I'd swear Ekibiogami had been using two accounts on these forums. The attitude, logic and even spelling is practically the same.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Using individual events like these are poor examples in favor or against gun control.
This is an example of where owning a gun possibly saved someones life. I can mention events where lives would have been saved if gun control was enforced.
yep like the rapest life would have been saved if they had Gun control.
you are a sick person you want to call 911 and wait 40 mins and watch this man rape you wife your child and then what. let them go do it again. you would rather the rapest live and the innocent die.
if everyone had a Gun we all would be alot better.
sure there are people that get kill by acadents. like left teh keys in the car and a child starts the car and runs over and kills the one that left the keys in the car. just like someone leaving a loaded gun where a child could get ahold of it.
edit: removed... shooting an angry fish in a barrel... I don't need to explain all the things wrong with this post >.>
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
Using individual events like these are poor examples in favor or against gun control.
This is an example of where owning a gun possibly saved someones life. I can mention events where lives would have been saved if gun control was enforced.
yep like the rapest life would have been saved if they had Gun control.
you are a sick person you want to call 911 and wait 40 mins and watch this man rape you wife your child and then what. let them go do it again. you would rather the rapest live and the innocent die.
if everyone had a Gun we all would be alot better.
sure there are people that get kill by acadents. like left teh keys in the car and a child starts the car and runs over and kills the one that left the keys in the car. just like someone leaving a loaded gun where a child could get ahold of it.
Oh yeah, that's the solution to everything. We should all be packing.
Maybe you should spend less time at the gun range and more time in school so you could write an intelligible post.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
If you wish to change the conditions of the post to make a different argument after its been presented, you are welcome to it. That's your right, its your post and you made it. I will not stop you from changing things around to suit your point and argue things that are not related to gun deaths.
Tobacco, alcohol, autos are not the discussion. Guns are and how we can stop guns from proliferating in the United States legally. That's what we are trying to discuss. Clouding the issue and throwing in stuff from Walmart is always cute, but it serves to do nothing but debase the point.
The vast overwhelming majority of people that own guns in the United States don't NEED them, they just WANT them. That is no reason to make guns available. There are only so many people that need guns on a daily basis or in their line of employment, and all of those people are highly trained professionals, not Rebel flag waving yahoos who leave guns out so their 7 year old kids kill themselves while still arguing gun rights. It's just plain nutty.
Gun limitations and banning WILL lower the death rate by firearms, its just simple math. Less guns, less deaths... negligent homicides or otherwise. That alone far outweighs some yahoo drinking beer and plinking plates. I see no merit or redeeming quality in the allowance of such individuals owning guns. But you cannot discriminate against that sadsack, so I am fair enough to say that everyone should be barred from buying weapons.
Sorry, about the wait but this post got lost in the shuffle while I was trouncing gameloading.
I'm also sorry that you feel you have to limit the field of engagement in order to have an advantage here. You actually don't have a leg to stand on no matter how small you make your case. There are a few elphants standing in the room that you've repeatedly, I dare to say conveniently, ignored.
But let me start with a story that happened near where I live recently. A Kindergarten class, here in town, was recently taken out for a day to a local pizza place to eat. When a couple of the boys went to the bathroom they found a gun sitting on the back of the toilet. Did they pick it up an play with it? Did they take it out into the restaurant and show it off to their classmates? Did they hide it and take it home? No. no. And no.
The kids didn't even touch the gun. They came out and told their teacher who then told the restaraunt owners about the situation. The police were called in and, as it turns out, the gun belonged to the police department. Aparently one of the local cops took off his gun to use the commode and forgot to grab it on his way out.
The point of the story: All these kids grew up in an area where gun ownership was common. All of these kids knew not to mess with this device. FIVE YEAR OLD CHILDREN understood that a gun was not a toy. How did they know this? Because their parents, who owned guns legally, taught them that.
Let's recap the shit that you've failed to address in this thread (scroll up becuase this has all been mentioned previously).
1) Laws only affect the lawful. Criminals don't give a shit about laws, so making a ban will not stop criminals from acquiring firearms.
2) The number of accidental deaths attributed to firearms, per capita, among legal gun owners is less than half of a percent with way less than a thousandth of a percent being deaths of minors. Although I will admit that the CDC doesn't differentiate between legal and illegal gun ownership, I'm going to just assume that all of those accidents happened with legally owned guns. The statistics clearly demonstrate that the OVERWHELMING majority of gun owners ARE responsible and competent to own firearms.
3) The final and biggest issue that you consistently ignore is the fact that, in a democracy, we do not take away rights due to the possibility that those rights may be abused by criminals or crazy people. Treating your citizenry like criminals, guilty until proven
{ Mod Edit }
Good day to you sir!
"TO MICHAEL!"
Poster child for the NRA. Great representation of it when the mask is removed. Nice job. While I respect your right to have a crazy, warped view of things as a citizen, I certainly don't want you armed while saying the same.
This is exactly why free speech should be given, and guns should be taken away.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Poster child for the NRA. Great representation of it when the mask is removed. Nice job. While I respect your right to have a crazy, warped view of things as a citizen, I certainly don't want you armed while saying the same.
This is exactly why free speech should be given, and guns should be taken away.
Come get them.
Bring all your liberal friends.
Oh, can you provide me with any proof to how my opinions reflect the NRA? I
Oh, you're not a member? That would be surprising in that you have so many views in common with them :P
"TO MICHAEL!"
I see this thread became a name calling contest instead of any valid points being made by either side.
Who is name calling?
Who is irrelevant.
DC gun ban....Supreme court....over turned....
Quote:The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.
Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."
Yes the days of gun control are long gone.....lol
Wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up first...
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
Wow. Talk about someone who completely misunderstood the DHS report.
The DHS report did not label all veterans "extremists." All it said was that extremist groups would likely attempt to target veterans for recruitment due to the fact that they have combat skills.
The whole "smear on veterans" is a sham cooked up by Fox News and the far-right noise machine. Congrats. You fell for it.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
Wow. Talk about someone who completely misunderstood the DHS report.
The DHS report did not label all veterans "extremists." All it said was that extremist groups would likely attempt to target veterans for recruitment due to the fact that they have combat skills.
The whole "smear on veterans" is a sham cooked up by Fox News and the far-right noise machine. Congrats. You fell for it.
The problem is not the fabricated label, it is the perception. The fact that the DHS would imply veterans could become those which they had fought abhors them.
"reality is nothing, perception is everything"
Wow. Talk about someone who completely misunderstood the DHS report.
The DHS report did not label all veterans "extremists." All it said was that extremist groups would likely attempt to target veterans for recruitment due to the fact that they have combat skills.
The whole "smear on veterans" is a sham cooked up by Fox News and the far-right noise machine. Congrats. You fell for it.
The problem is not the fabricated label, it is the perception. The fact that the DHS would imply veterans could become those which they had fought abhors them.
"reality is nothing, perception is everything"
It's pointless to argue. If the DHS does something fucked up, that means, Obama fucked up. Nobody is going to admit to that.
I'm sure our little expert will return to explain how we are all wrong, forget the fact that no matter how much they love Obama and no matter what excuses we hear, most of us in the military hates Obama, and that made it even worse.
It's a big Fuck You to us. Liberals would never understand that.
The study was commissioned by the Bush "administration," and immediately followed one on left-wing extremism.
Also, it said veterans would be TARGETED FOR RECRUITMENT. Not that they would automatically join. Doesn't that make sense to you?
But whatever. You're going to read what you want to read, because it justifies your worldview.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
Wow. Talk about someone who completely misunderstood the DHS report.
The DHS report did not label all veterans "extremists." All it said was that extremist groups would likely attempt to target veterans for recruitment due to the fact that they have combat skills.
The whole "smear on veterans" is a sham cooked up by Fox News and the far-right noise machine. Congrats. You fell for it.
The problem is not the fabricated label, it is the perception. The fact that the DHS would imply veterans could become those which they had fought abhors them.
"reality is nothing, perception is everything"
I understand that, which is why the ability to think critically and to actually read, and not just listen to what the pill-popping fatass on the radio says, are nice things to have.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
BTW, sorry about the time gap. I got temporarily banned for calling a skinhead a skinhead and telling him what he could do with his racists bullshit. I regret nothing.
cheers.
Sorry to hear about your ban. I guess it was worth it calling a guy something, probably.
The posts we had resembled the flag of the Rainbow Coalition, so I read what I could but I'm starting to wonder why we even started it in the first place when you look at it visually.
We will have to disagree on what the 2nd amendment is actually saying, as I respectfully disagreed with someone earlier about that same point.
I tend to think it's primary and main focus was to keep citizenry armed in case of attack from outside nations and governments. I believe that as laws evolved and commonplace law and order surfaced and has proliferated, home defense is a poor primary argument for the 2nd amendment.
I'd have more respect for those advocates if they just plainly came out and said "Look, I like to drink beers and shoot plates. When I've shot all the plates or drank all the beer, I then like to shoot the empty beer cans." I have an extensive background in gun training and shooting guns is actually quite fun so I can understand.
But for people to want to frame their wants, desires and fun addictions around an argument of home defense and national security interests in the 21st century is poor and disengenuous.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I make no excuses for criminals. Not sure where you find that on this thread.
Grandiose distortions by barkjj:
"But they are the ones killing and raping you guys in record numbers."
US Department of Justice Rape and Murder Stats.
Rapes have gone down substantially and murders have not increased either. Almost every major crime are at their lowest points almost since 1973.
You're an avid Glenn Beck/Hannity/O'Reilly Fox News watcher, aren't you?
"TO MICHAEL!"