Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bull Gator

Gun nutter sttrikes again

Recommended Posts

Topic is gun deaths.

 

You're smarter than this.

 

Suppose there was a policy that we could prove would lower gun deaths, but would also increase deaths by other means even more - so that the net result was an increase in overall violent deaths. Preposterous. Would you support that policy? I wouldn't.

 

Frenchie, inflicted deaths by other means will not transfer on a one-to-one basis.

They will NOT increase, because of the unique chickenshit detachment a firearm presents.

 

First of all, you don't know that. The statistical evidence doesn't prove your case OR the opposite case. Then let's just try it. Let's be willing to risk that the knife-guys and SUV crowd-crushers won't have 16 mass incidents in the US in 2013.

 

Second of all, gun regulation actually really does affect only the law-abiding. You really are, in effect, only disarming the potential victims. Not on a one-to-one basis. I gag on this fatalism, this nikilism, ten times a day on these forums. The march of a thousand miles begins with a single, resolute step.

 

We don't actually know how many killings are prevented by legal gun owners, estimates are all over the map - but we know it isn't zero. Jeanne Assam, off the top of my head. That off-duty cop in the other thread, for another. Let's share a laugh. A woman jogging in our area last week had some perv pull out his junk. She drive him away with a handgun, then sent her dog chasing him. What a toilet we live in, sometimes.

 

FWIW - I used to be firmly opposed to private ownership of handguns. Then Marc Lepine shot a bunch of women in an engineering classroom at my favorite cousin's faculty. She was okay, but later pulled a bullet out of the textbooks that were in her backpack. I thought about it some more, and eventually changed my mind. Yes. Yes. Tom's story about his wife defending against an intruder with a kitchen knife was perty graphic.

Look, I spent years in the ghettos of the US. by choice, I know the crap is out there, but also that most whites don't handle themselves very well.

I have heard that US jerks don't fare well in Mexico, I wonder how EM gets by there with his prick-with-guns bit.

But firepower is not the solution--THINK BIGGER.

 

Guns need regulating, IMO, because of diversion onto the black market, and because of accidental shootings. But mass shooters are actually the strongest argument for private gun ownership & legal concealed carry. IMO. We are approaching terminal mass here, I fear. You want guns to solve the gun problem? Look to Australia, look to Canada, and get bigger than your trigger finger.

 

Thanks for the conversation, Frenchie. I gain from all your posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't think that at all. The guns are an effect, not a cause. The cause is in our hearts and minds.

 

.......

To start by addressing the supply of guns, and the plethora of guns, is certainly one part.

 

Please continue.

Why should we start by addressing effects rather than causes?

 

Because solutions work both from the inside out, and the outside in. Of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can take the kid out of the inner city, but then you need to take the inner city out of the kid.

 

Not to highjack the thread, or change the subject, but I've been chewing on that statement ever since you first said it on the other thread. Pretty sure I disagree with it, in the sense that - well, in my experience, half the problem is the kid's probably never seen anything outside the inner city, and finds it hard to imagine anything outside the inner city really actually fucking exists, in any real sense, for him, as a real possibility / option.

 

Yeah. REALLY yeah.

As far as I know only you and Greever (who was thugged on as the only white in a school of mainly blacks) and I could push this much further. You are right.

Even if they see the possibility they can't grasp it. But the same is true, to a lesser extent, with the blue-collar/white collar disparity in the US.

And the shooters in our sights are the disenfranchised whites, no?

 

My Detroit street gang's territory measured two blocks, exactly. One chick I got a job for (four blocks away) was sexually accosted by the employer in the first few days, whoops.

What a jungle. But the whites polarizing and arming up is immature, and alarming, since the firm largess has to come from that side, and won't flow from (or be accepted from) anyone who is armed. Duh.

 

Frenchie, you told us of your acceptance by the local stoop hoodies at your Bed-Sty crib. You even mentioned their curiosity about your value system, It's quite a span, innit? I would buy these kids a pack of KOOL cigarettes and just toss it on a table--but the first to grab it was the one to be negotiated with it you wanted a smoke--the sharing concept was NIL. And anything not bolted down had free agency status, wtf?

Our selfish honky heads aren't in the place to help--while acknowledging the problem, I also have to point out that wearing a gun finalizes the catastrophe here, and certifies the dead-end. And so I speak up,

 

 

 

 

 

 

but I have felt like this guy.beem3_zps5cf5aad5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Frenchie, you told us of your acceptance by the local stoop hoodies at your Bed-Sty crib. You even mentioned their curiosity about your value system, It's quite a span, innit? I would buy these kids a pack of KOOL cigarettes and just toss it on a table--but the first to grab it was the one to be negotiated with it you wanted a smoke--the sharing concept was NIL. And anything not bolted down had free agency status, wtf?

 

I think you & I had pretty different experiences. Not relating to this, at all.

 

Maybe it's a generational thing - the guys i knew were all survivors of the 80's crack wars, they'd had to hang together or die in their youth. Or maybe it's because a lot of the guys I knew were related, to various degrees - the core group were all cousins, raised by the same grandma. Or maybe it's because I lived there, as opposed to parachuting in as a social-worker type.

 

I'm not sure.

 

Just know that I never once had to worry about my cigarettes, or my tools, or my laptop, or my cellphone growing legs. Or even my stash, for that matter. The one time I got mugged, by guys who didn't know me, my friends got my 40 bucks back to me within 12 hours; with assurances it wouldn't happen again.

 

Our value systems weren't all that far apart, at all. Just our life circumstances, and our experiences - the contexts we used to make decisions. Throw me into their lives, I would have made a lot of the same decisions I saw them making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there's no conclusive evidence with both sides of the gun debate releasing studies that show opposite opinions.

 

Bingo.

 

Ok I'll bite. Australia's gun death rate and overall violent death rate is far far below America's.

 

I actually don't put much credence in the pro gun studies. Sorry I just don't. They smack of the same self serving stuff from the amazing plethora of pro gun websites in the USA all of which have all the maturity of a mad magazine and wheedle out the two bit self serving professors who are what David Irving is to the Holocaust deniers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I actually don't put much credence in the pro gun studies. Sorry I just don't. They smack of the same self serving stuff from the amazing plethora of pro gun websites in the USA all of which have all the maturity of a mad magazine and wheedle out the two bit self serving professors who are what David Irving is to the Holocaust deniers.

 

How about government statistics? Are you able to recognize when they have been cherry picked by anti-gun reporters creating propaganda?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dammit, Tom, will you quit it with the hard evidence?? You'll hurt his feelings.

 

Pearl prices up another 16% already today.... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there's no conclusive evidence with both sides of the gun debate releasing studies that show opposite opinions.

 

Bingo.

 

Ok I'll bite. Australia's gun death rate and overall violent death rate is far far below America's.

 

I actually don't put much credence in the pro gun studies. Sorry I just don't. They smack of the same self serving stuff from the amazing plethora of pro gun websites in the USA all of which have all the maturity of a mad magazine and wheedle out the two bit self serving professors who are what David Irving is to the Holocaust deniers.

 

 

Comparing one country to another doesn't address other possible causes, other differences between them - culture, population density, socioeconomic factors, etc.

 

Try comparing Australia, before they tightened their gun regulations, to Australia before. It's a lot less conclusive than you'd expect..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there's no conclusive evidence with both sides of the gun debate releasing studies that show opposite opinions.

 

Bingo.

 

Ok I'll bite. Australia's gun death rate and overall violent death rate is far far below America's.

 

I actually don't put much credence in the pro gun studies. Sorry I just don't. They smack of the same self serving stuff from the amazing plethora of pro gun websites in the USA all of which have all the maturity of a mad magazine and wheedle out the two bit self serving professors who are what David Irving is to the Holocaust deniers.

 

 

Comparing one country to another doesn't address other possible causes, other differences between them - culture, population density, socioeconomic factors, etc.

 

Try comparing Australia, before they tightened their gun regulations, to Australia before. It's a lot less conclusive than you'd expect..

 

Kinda like comparing China and Iceland's annual chop stick injuries?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck, I've heard folks imply gunplay in these conversations since the shooting...that is, they are ready, able and willing to shoot other people who try to regulate their guns...or at least they say so.

 

 

My goodness, that kind of thing is sometimes terrible.

 

yvonne-coby-threat.jpg

 

More advocacy of violence from the anti-gun crowd...

 

I hope Professor Loomis gets counseling for his anger. But not any of those happy drugs. I don't trust them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck, I've heard folks imply gunplay in these conversations since the shooting...that is, they are ready, able and willing to shoot other people who try to regulate their guns...or at least they say so.

 

 

My goodness, that kind of thing is sometimes terrible.

 

yvonne-coby-threat.jpg

 

More advocacy of violence from the anti-gun crowd...

 

I hope Professor Loomis gets counseling for his anger. But not any of those happy drugs. I don't trust them.

 

The fact that kid's are expressing anti NRA sentiments by threatening gun violence is a sad indictment of gun culture as a whole. It doesn't do anything for the gun lobby's case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there's no conclusive evidence with both sides of the gun debate releasing studies that show opposite opinions.

 

Bingo.

 

Ok I'll bite. Australia's gun death rate and overall violent death rate is far far below America's.

 

I actually don't put much credence in the pro gun studies. Sorry I just don't. They smack of the same self serving stuff from the amazing plethora of pro gun websites in the USA all of which have all the maturity of a mad magazine and wheedle out the two bit self serving professors who are what David Irving is to the Holocaust deniers.

 

 

Comparing one country to another doesn't address other possible causes, other differences between them - culture, population density, socioeconomic factors, etc.

 

Try comparing Australia, before they tightened their gun regulations, to Australia before. It's a lot less conclusive than you'd expect..

 

Kinda like comparing China and Iceland's annual chop stick injuries?....

 

Actually comparing all countries across the globe does give a picture. Yes variation in culture, socioeconomic factors etc etc notwithstanding.

 

America doesn't sit within the statistics, it sits as a complete outlier in the 1st world by 8 times. You'd have to be blind Freddie not to read the complete stats and not realise it's now a BIG problem. Yes ok ok perhaps not compared to Columbia or South Africa or Somalia.

 

Come on gun club, high five Boothy on his funny comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck, I've heard folks imply gunplay in these conversations since the shooting...that is, they are ready, able and willing to shoot other people who try to regulate their guns...or at least they say so.

 

 

My goodness, that kind of thing is sometimes terrible.

 

yvonne-coby-threat.jpg

 

More advocacy of violence from the anti-gun crowd...

 

I hope Professor Loomis gets counseling for his anger. But not any of those happy drugs. I don't trust them.

 

The fact that kid's are expressing anti NRA sentiments by threatening gun violence is a sad indictment of gun culture as a whole. It doesn't do anything for the gun lobby's case.

 

 

It also does nothing for the other team's case......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck, I've heard folks imply gunplay in these conversations since the shooting...that is, they are ready, able and willing to shoot other people who try to regulate their guns...or at least they say so.

 

 

My goodness, that kind of thing is sometimes terrible.

 

yvonne-coby-threat.jpg

 

More advocacy of violence from the anti-gun crowd...

 

I hope Professor Loomis gets counseling for his anger. But not any of those happy drugs. I don't trust them.

 

The fact that kid's are expressing anti NRA sentiments by threatening gun violence is a sad indictment of gun culture as a whole. It doesn't do anything for the gun lobby's case.

 

 

It also does nothing for the other team's case......

 

They're kids. Your call

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

My goodness, that kind of thing is sometimes terrible.

 

yvonne-coby-threat.jpg

 

More advocacy of violence from the anti-gun crowd...

 

I hope Professor Loomis gets counseling for his anger. But not any of those happy drugs. I don't trust them.

 

The fact that kid's are expressing anti NRA sentiments by threatening gun violence is a sad indictment of gun culture as a whole. It doesn't do anything for the gun lobby's case.

 

 

It also does nothing for the other team's case......

 

They're kids. Your call

 

How do you know that?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that kid's are expressing anti NRA sentiments by threatening gun violence is a sad indictment of gun culture as a whole. It doesn't do anything for the gun lobby's case.

 

It may come as a surprise to folks like Tom, but what a-holes spew on twitter every second has about as much relevance to this conversation as Britney Spears has on our constitution.

 

Let's get back to our regularly scheduled program. I heard the head of the gun nutter org last night on TV say 100% that these guns are held by Tom and friends to scare and petition the government.

 

This question is going to have to be settled once and for all by the courts. My guess is that ever the far right judges won't say that guns are allowed to be kept so as to shoot THEM and other pols and leaders with, but maybe Tom thinks differently.

 

Once we settle that small matter, we can treat gun ownership like the home security and recreational issue that it would be if the ruling is as I suspect....

 

Since Scalia said he agrees with the founders coming down on someone who even CARRIED a scary looking axe....and also says clearly that the weapons being discussed are not modern weapons, but what the founders are looking at, I can't imagine old Anthony suddenly calling for armed rebellion.

 

I hope this happens soon. If Obama and his friends are really serious, they need to get this in front of the court at the earliest possible date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that kid's are expressing anti NRA sentiments by threatening gun violence is a sad indictment of gun culture as a whole. It doesn't do anything for the gun lobby's case.

 

It may come as a surprise to folks like Tom, but what a-holes spew on twitter every second has about as much relevance to this conversation as Britney Spears has on our constitution.

 

Let's get back to our regularly scheduled program. I heard the head of the gun nutter org last night on TV say 100% that these guns are held by Tom and friends to scare and petition the government.

 

This question is going to have to be settled once and for all by the courts. My guess is that ever the far right judges won't say that guns are allowed to be kept so as to shoot THEM and other pols and leaders with, but maybe Tom thinks differently.

 

Once we settle that small matter, we can treat gun ownership like the home security and recreational issue that it would be if the ruling is as I suspect....

 

Since Scalia said he agrees with the founders coming down on someone who even CARRIED a scary looking axe....and also says clearly that the weapons being discussed are not modern weapons, but what the founders are looking at, I can't imagine old Anthony suddenly calling for armed rebellion.

 

I hope this happens soon. If Obama and his friends are really serious, they need to get this in front of the court at the earliest possible date.

 

You do realize, doncha, that whatever Obama proposes, and congress may pass, will NOT DO A G-DAMN THING TO PREVENT TRAGEDIES LIKE THIS ONE? Do I have your fuking attention now? Nothing? At all? Like zero?

 

 

Jeeziz Kidz, please, please start thinking with your heads about this subject, instead of your twats.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

How do you know that?....

 

You're right the second line is by an adult but the third and most inflammatory is by a kid.

 

Makes me wanna send the paper some of your shit Boothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know that?....

 

You're right the second line is by an adult but the third and most inflammatory is by a kid.

 

Makes me wanna send the paper some of your shit Boothy.

 

Why would you do that? Have you seen me call for shooting anyone? Even those I don't agree with?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that kid's are expressing anti NRA sentiments by threatening gun violence is a sad indictment of gun culture as a whole. It doesn't do anything for the gun lobby's case.

 

It may come as a surprise to folks like Tom, but what a-holes spew on twitter every second has about as much relevance to this conversation as Britney Spears has on our constitution.

 

Let's get back to our regularly scheduled program. I heard the head of the gun nutter org last night on TV say 100% that these guns are held by Tom and friends to scare and petition the government.

 

This question is going to have to be settled once and for all by the courts. My guess is that ever the far right judges won't say that guns are allowed to be kept so as to shoot THEM and other pols and leaders with, but maybe Tom thinks differently.

 

Once we settle that small matter, we can treat gun ownership like the home security and recreational issue that it would be if the ruling is as I suspect....

 

Since Scalia said he agrees with the founders coming down on someone who even CARRIED a scary looking axe....and also says clearly that the weapons being discussed are not modern weapons, but what the founders are looking at, I can't imagine old Anthony suddenly calling for armed rebellion.

 

I hope this happens soon. If Obama and his friends are really serious, they need to get this in front of the court at the earliest possible date.

 

You do realize, doncha, that whatever Obama proposes, and congress may pass, will NOT DO A G-DAMN THING TO PREVENT TRAGEDIES LIKE THIS ONE? Do I have your fuking attention now? Nothing? At all? Like zero?

 

 

Jeeziz Kidz, please, please start thinking with your heads about this subject, instead of your twats.....

 

I'm afraid I didn't find that the least bit convincing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know that?....

 

You're right the second line is by an adult but the third and most inflammatory is by a kid.

 

Makes me wanna send the paper some of your shit Boothy.

 

Why would you do that? Have you seen me call for shooting anyone? Even those I don't agree with?....

 

No you haven't, the stuff is otherwise the carry on of a gun dealing, bullying redneck. It might fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanna explain to the rest of the class then, how what I just posted is wrong? Or how anything 'passed' by Congress tomorrow morning will prevent the next 1,000 mass shootings?

 

Any evidence you have proving your point will suffice. I'll even give you three years to do so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know that?....t

 

You're right the second line is by an adult but the third and most inflammatory is by a kid.

 

Makes me wanna send the paper some of your shit Boothy.

 

Why would you do that? Have you seen me call for shooting anyone? Even those I don't agree with?....

 

No you haven't, the stuff is otherwise the carry on of a gun dealing, bullying redneck. It might fly.

 

Uhm, once again, you are wrong. I'm neither a redneck, a bully nor a gun dealer. Really, why do you constantly make shit up, and then get pissy & defensive when we call you on it?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know that?....t

 

You're right the second line is by an adult but the third and most inflammatory is by a kid.

 

Makes me wanna send the paper some of your shit Boothy.

 

Why would you do that? Have you seen me call for shooting anyone? Even those I don't agree with?....

 

No you haven't, the stuff is otherwise the carry on of a gun dealing, bullying redneck. It might fly.

 

Uhm, once again, you are wrong. I'm neither a redneck, a bully nor a gun dealer. Really, why do you constantly make shit up, and then get pissy & defensive when we call you on it?....

 

 

Pissy and defensive ... when? I know you are a bully; why would I be pissy and defensive in the face of your stupid lowbrow redneck taunts?

 

Feel free to quote me on anything I've said as long as I'm free to quote you, idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanna explain to the rest of the class then, how what I just posted is wrong? Or how anything 'passed' by Congress tomorrow morning will prevent the next 1,000 mass shootings?

 

Any evidence you have proving your point will suffice. I'll even give you three years to do so...

 

Again you make an entirely subjective damnation of the process with no argument whatsoever, none, nada, zilch.

 

Then you say I have to prove you wrong?

 

This is a form of delusion, where you think you are completely right and don't have to argue it, but rather challenge others to disprove you. It is childish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanna explain to the rest of the class then, how what I just posted is wrong? Or how anything 'passed' by Congress tomorrow morning will prevent the next 1,000 mass shootings?

 

Any evidence you have proving your point will suffice. I'll even give you three years to do so...

 

Again you make an entirely subjective damnation of the process with no argument whatsoever, none, nada, zilch.

 

Then you say I have to prove you wrong?

 

This is a form of delusion, where you think you are completely right and don't have to argue it, but rather challenge others to disprove you. It is childish.

 

Ok, I'll bite-----why not instead tell us how any new laws passed tomorrow morning will prevent the next one thousand multiple shootings? Trust me, we're all ears here awaiting your answer......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanna explain to the rest of the class then, how what I just posted is wrong? Or how anything 'passed' by Congress tomorrow morning will prevent the next 1,000 mass shootings?

 

Any evidence you have proving your point will suffice. I'll even give you three years to do so...

 

Again you make an entirely subjective damnation of the process with no argument whatsoever, none, nada, zilch.

 

Then you say I have to prove you wrong?

 

This is a form of delusion, where you think you are completely right and don't have to argue it, but rather challenge others to disprove you. It is childish.

 

Ok, I'll bite-----why not instead tell us how any new laws passed tomorrow morning will prevent the next one thousand multiple shootings? Trust me, we're all ears here awaiting your answer......

 

You show no comprehension of my previous post ... You are simply asking me to disprove a previous blanket statement where you didn't feel the least bit obliged to provide any argument or proofs.

 

ie YOU don't have to make any arguments or provide any proofs but like Lord Muck you can simply oblige me to disprove your edict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more time----what exactly would ANY new gun laws passed tomorrow do to stop the next 1,000 mass shootings?

 

And no, this is not a trick question. I'm just curious to know what you know, that I don't.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more time----what exactly would ANY new gun laws passed tomorrow do to stop the next 1,000 mass shootings?

 

And no, this is not a trick question. I'm just curious to know what you know, that I don't.....

 

Its your assertion that it won't and asking me to disprove it first a thousand times won't stop me telling you that is no civilised conversation that I know of. It is however how you operate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more time----what exactly would ANY new gun laws passed tomorrow do to stop the next 1,000 mass shootings?

 

And no, this is not a trick question. I'm just curious to know what you know, that I don't.....

 

Its your assertion that it won't and asking me to disprove it first a thousand times won't stop me telling you that is no civilised conversation that I know of. It is however how you operate.

 

So, basically, you can't think of any new law that would stop mass killings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more time----what exactly would ANY new gun laws passed tomorrow do to stop the next 1,000 mass shootings?

 

And no, this is not a trick question. I'm just curious to know what you know, that I don't.....

 

Its your assertion that it won't and asking me to disprove it first a thousand times won't stop me telling you that is no civilised conversation that I know of. It is however how you operate.

 

And that right there is the exact answer that I expected from Team Do Something, Anything's exalted leader.

 

 

I rest my case....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more time----what exactly would ANY new gun laws passed tomorrow do to stop the next 1,000 mass shootings?

 

And no, this is not a trick question. I'm just curious to know what you know, that I don't.....

 

Its your assertion that it won't and asking me to disprove it first a thousand times won't stop me telling you that is no civilised conversation that I know of. It is however how you operate.

 

And that right there is the exact answer that I expected from Team Do Something, Anything's exalted leader.

 

 

I rest my case....

 

You have made no case!!! Only a blanket assertion with no argument,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more time----what exactly would ANY new gun laws passed tomorrow do to stop the next 1,000 mass shootings?

 

And no, this is not a trick question. I'm just curious to know what you know, that I don't.....

 

Its your assertion that it won't and asking me to disprove it first a thousand times won't stop me telling you that is no civilised conversation that I know of. It is however how you operate.

 

And that right there is the exact answer that I expected from Team Do Something, Anything's exalted leader.

 

 

I rest my case....

 

You have made no case!!! Only a blanket assertion with no argument,

 

Do you not even have a basic grasp on English? Did they not teach you what a question is? Or how to answer one?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that kid's are expressing anti NRA sentiments by threatening gun violence is a sad indictment of gun culture as a whole. It doesn't do anything for the gun lobby's case.

 

It may come as a surprise to folks like Tom, but what a-holes spew on twitter every second has about as much relevance to this conversation as Britney Spears has on our constitution.

 

Let's get back to our regularly scheduled program. I heard the head of the gun nutter org last night on TV say 100% that these guns are held by Tom and friends to scare and petition the government.

 

This question is going to have to be settled once and for all by the courts. My guess is that ever the far right judges won't say that guns are allowed to be kept so as to shoot THEM and other pols and leaders with, but maybe Tom thinks differently.

 

Once we settle that small matter, we can treat gun ownership like the home security and recreational issue that it would be if the ruling is as I suspect....

 

Since Scalia said he agrees with the founders coming down on someone who even CARRIED a scary looking axe....and also says clearly that the weapons being discussed are not modern weapons, but what the founders are looking at, I can't imagine old Anthony suddenly calling for armed rebellion.

 

I hope this happens soon. If Obama and his friends are really serious, they need to get this in front of the court at the earliest possible date.

 

You do realize, doncha, that whatever Obama proposes, and congress may pass, will NOT DO A G-DAMN THING TO PREVENT TRAGEDIES LIKE THIS ONE? Do I have your fuking attention now? Nothing? At all? Like zero?

 

 

Jeeziz Kidz, please, please start thinking with your heads about this subject, instead of your twats.....

 

 

...and I said you haven't convinced me with this blanket statement.

 

Then you ask me to disprove it. You have said nothing to prove an entirely subjective statement. Its like saying "we should gybe over to the right of the course coz we just should."

 

Then your gun club buddy jumps on it and says that I `can't think of any new law' and you both high five and walk away without ever having made a single salient point to support Boothy's assertion.

 

Well I can walk away because I HAVE made no assertion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that kid's are expressing anti NRA sentiments by threatening gun violence is a sad indictment of gun culture as a whole. It doesn't do anything for the gun lobby's case.

 

It may come as a surprise to folks like Tom, but what a-holes spew on twitter every second has about as much relevance to this conversation as Britney Spears has on our constitution.

 

Let's get back to our regularly scheduled program. I heard the head of the gun nutter org last night on TV say 100% that these guns are held by Tom and friends to scare and petition the government.

 

This question is going to have to be settled once and for all by the courts. My guess is that ever the far right judges won't say that guns are allowed to be kept so as to shoot THEM and other pols and leaders with, but maybe Tom thinks differently.

 

Once we settle that small matter, we can treat gun ownership like the home security and recreational issue that it would be if the ruling is as I suspect....

 

Since Scalia said he agrees with the founders coming down on someone who even CARRIED a scary looking axe....and also says clearly that the weapons being discussed are not modern weapons, but what the founders are looking at, I can't imagine old Anthony suddenly calling for armed rebellion.

 

I hope this happens soon. If Obama and his friends are really serious, they need to get this in front of the court at the earliest possible date.

 

You do realize, doncha, that whatever Obama proposes, and congress may pass, will NOT DO A G-DAMN THING TO PREVENT TRAGEDIES LIKE THIS ONE? Do I have your fuking attention now? Nothing? At all? Like zero?

 

 

Jeeziz Kidz, please, please start thinking with your heads about this subject, instead of your twats.....

 

 

...and I said you haven't convinced me with this blanket statement.

 

Then you ask me to disprove it. You have said nothing to prove an entirely subjective statement. Its like saying "we should gybe over to the right of the course coz we just should."

 

Then your gun club buddy jumps on it and says that I `can't think of any new law' and you both high five and walk away without ever having made a single salient point to support Boothy's assertion.

 

Well I can walk away because I HAVE made no assertion.

 

The reason I specified 'new' law was because, obviously, the current laws didn't do one damn thing to stop this tragedy. That kinda leaves new laws and so far you haven't come up with anything.

 

You really should walk away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know that?....

 

You're right the second line is by an adult but the third and most inflammatory is by a kid.

 

 

I thought several by the professor were inflammatory, not to mention the retweet by the politician.

 

But feel free to excuse them by saying it's just kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know that?....

 

You're right the second line is by an adult but the third and most inflammatory is by a kid.

 

 

I thought several by the professor were inflammatory, not to mention the retweet by the politician.

 

But feel free to excuse them by saying it's just kids.

 

Yes they were very poor and inflammatory. I've already acknowledged that I thought only the third was a kid.

 

I still can't see how threats made with guns are anything other than the result of gun culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck, I've heard folks imply gunplay in these conversations since the shooting...that is, they are ready, able and willing to shoot other people who try to regulate their guns...or at least they say so.

 

 

My goodness, that kind of thing is sometimes terrible.

 

yvonne-coby-threat.jpg

 

More advocacy of violence from the anti-gun crowd...

 

I hope Professor Loomis gets counseling for his anger. But not any of those happy drugs. I don't trust them.

 

The fact that kid's are expressing anti NRA sentiments by threatening gun violence is a sad indictment of gun culture as a whole. It doesn't do anything for the gun lobby's case.

 

Nor for the anti-gun lobby.

 

It demonstrates the degree to which many are simply projecting when they say they don't trust people to act responsibly with a gun; they're acknowledging how irresponsible they themselves would be.... how immature their own mindset and reasoning skills... and expect us to buy the argument that we are no better.

 

It must suck to be wrong so often.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that kid's are expressing anti NRA sentiments by threatening gun violence is a sad indictment of gun culture as a whole. It doesn't do anything for the gun lobby's case.

 

It may come as a surprise to folks like Tom, but what a-holes spew on twitter every second has about as much relevance to this conversation as Britney Spears has on our constitution.

 

Let's get back to our regularly scheduled program. I heard the head of the gun nutter org last night on TV say 100% that these guns are held by Tom and friends to scare and petition the government.

 

This question is going to have to be settled once and for all by the courts. My guess is that ever the far right judges won't say that guns are allowed to be kept so as to shoot THEM and other pols and leaders with, but maybe Tom thinks differently.

 

Once we settle that small matter, we can treat gun ownership like the home security and recreational issue that it would be if the ruling is as I suspect....

 

Since Scalia said he agrees with the founders coming down on someone who even CARRIED a scary looking axe....and also says clearly that the weapons being discussed are not modern weapons, but what the founders are looking at, I can't imagine old Anthony suddenly calling for armed rebellion.

 

I hope this happens soon. If Obama and his friends are really serious, they need to get this in front of the court at the earliest possible date.

 

You do realize, doncha, that whatever Obama proposes, and congress may pass, will NOT DO A G-DAMN THING TO PREVENT TRAGEDIES LIKE THIS ONE? Do I have your fuking attention now? Nothing? At all? Like zero?

 

 

Jeeziz Kidz, please, please start thinking with your heads about this subject, instead of your twats.....

 

 

...and I said you haven't convinced me with this blanket statement.

 

Then you ask me to disprove it. You have said nothing to prove an entirely subjective statement. Its like saying "we should gybe over to the right of the course coz we just should."

 

Then your gun club buddy jumps on it and says that I `can't think of any new law' and you both high five and walk away without ever having made a single salient point to support Boothy's assertion.

 

Well I can walk away because I HAVE made no assertion.

 

The reason I specified 'new' law was because, obviously, the current laws didn't do one damn thing to stop this tragedy. That kinda leaves new laws and so far you haven't come up with anything.

 

You really should walk away.

 

I'm not walking away, I care about those kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they were very poor and inflammatory. I've already acknowledged that I thought only the third was a kid.

 

I still can't see how threats made with guns are anything other than the result of gun culture.

 

You acknowledged the facts after being corrected. Well done. Want to go for two?

 

Those people advocating violence are part of our anti-gun culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck, I've heard folks imply gunplay in these conversations since the shooting...that is, they are ready, able and willing to shoot other people who try to regulate their guns...or at least they say so.

 

 

My goodness, that kind of thing is sometimes terrible.

 

yvonne-coby-threat.jpg

 

More advocacy of violence from the anti-gun crowd...

 

I hope Professor Loomis gets counseling for his anger. But not any of those happy drugs. I don't trust them.

 

The fact that kid's are expressing anti NRA sentiments by threatening gun violence is a sad indictment of gun culture as a whole. It doesn't do anything for the gun lobby's case.

 

Nor for the anti-gun lobby.

 

It demonstrates the degree to which many are simply projecting when they say they don't trust people to act responsibly with a gun; they're acknowledging how irresponsible they themselves would be.... how immature their own mindset and reasoning skills... and expect us to buy the argument that we are no better.

 

It must suck to be wrong so often.

 

No you are quite right, this very sad angry threat to use guns .

 

"It must suck to be wrong so often" that's standard gun club put down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they were very poor and inflammatory. I've already acknowledged that I thought only the third was a kid.

 

I still can't see how threats made with guns are anything other than the result of gun culture.

 

You acknowledged the facts after being corrected. Well done. Want to go for two?

 

Those people advocating violence are part of our anti-gun culture.

 

Nah, that's a long bow. Anyone violent people would like a gun. You are talking conspiracy theories now Tom.

 

Oh and actually I wasn't corrected, Boothy was trying to suck me into a greater error so he could do the old `haven't got your facts straight stupid fuken leftista emotionalist' diatribe. Glad I dodged that drivel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nah, that's a long bow. Anyone violent people would like a gun. You are talking conspiracy theories now Tom.

 

 

Would you mind putting that through a drunken-gibberish-to-English translator and posting the results? I have no idea what you are saying is a long bow, the second sentence is really not a sentence, and I have no idea what conspiracy theory I might have advanced, but am eager to learn. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have made no case!!! Only a blanket assertion with no argument,

 

While Tom can articulate this better than I, it works like this over here: the Bill of Rights don't give US citizens a damn thing.

 

These rights, known as Civil Rights, are believed to be the rights of all people - even you - just because you were born. Examine the wording of each and its clear that they don't generate that which was not there before; rather, they each place a limit upon what the government can do.

 

For many of them, such as the 1st, 2nd, and 4th for example, exceptions have been made and compromises settled upon. For instance, I don't have to let someone in my home because I don't like his religion or his politics, but if I want to rent him a room or hire him at my job, I may not discriminate on those nor certain other points.

 

Back to the real issue, is that these rights are believed to be present from birth, period. It falls to the challenger - the one who doesn't like the status quo, who believes a law or a restriction that impacts a civil right, to demonstrate a stronger public good that outweighs further protection by that right.

 

So - nobody needs to express a need for a 20-round magazine any more than he needs to justify the color he paints his house or in what manner, if any, he keeps Christmas. Want to limit rifle types? Be prepared to refute that the design has been around for 100 years, way prior to cases currently at hand. If you want to limit (infringe upon) my right to keep the police out of my home, save for existing provisions based upon compelling need and immediate threat to the public good, then YOU must prove the need to so so. YOU must explain why the public is better served by letting the cops barge in whenever they want, and show that there is no other good way to achieve the sought objective within your argument. Same thing with gun ownership. We have MORE compromises on this right than we ever have in the past, many more than when people for the most part did NOT go shooting up places. So, be very prepared to demonstrate how more controls will address those things that are different now, from 30-40 years ago when, as it happens, guns were much easier to obtain.

 

One more thing - the US Supreme Court judges one thing - the constitutionality of a law. In judging whether that law meets the restrictions put upon the State, the manner in which other protected rights have been addressed, is considered. One example is the phrase, "the people."

 

This may articulate some points better as well -

http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/emb2nda2.htm

 

 

That's how it works. Don't like the way we do things here? Grab your rakes, torches, and pitchforks and come 'round and overthrow our system and start it over. Though there is a legal way to change the Constitution. If the gun+control-freak camp weren't so dishonest in their stated wishes, they'd simply fight toward that goal and let the chips fall where they may. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have made no case!!! Only a blanket assertion with no argument,

 

While Tom can articulate this better than I...

 

I thought you did fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, that's a long bow. Anyone violent people would like a gun. You are talking conspiracy theories now Tom.

 

 

Would you mind putting that through a drunken-gibberish-to-English translator and posting the results? I have no idea what you are saying is a long bow, the second sentence is really not a sentence, and I have no idea what conspiracy theory I might have advanced, but am eager to learn. :lol:

 

Fair enough. The 1st sentence was a shortening of `to draw a long bow' which is to exaggerate.

I meant to say in the 2nd: Any violent person would like guns.

The 3rd sums up what I think of the idea that only anti gun sentiments can account for violence in what is a gun violence debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for clarifying. I never heard the long bow expression. It's no conspiracy theory to think those tweeters are anti-gun. They are. The fact that you can only be anti-gun if guns exist is, I suppose, one reason to blame guns for their violent rhetoric, but it's a stupid reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have made no case!!! Only a blanket assertion with no argument,

 

While Tom can articulate this better than I, it works like this over here: the Bill of Rights don't give US citizens a damn thing.

 

These rights, known as Civil Rights, are believed to be the rights of all people - even you - just because you were born. Examine the wording of each and its clear that they don't generate that which was not there before; rather, they each place a limit upon what the government can do.

 

For many of them, such as the 1st, 2nd, and 4th for example, exceptions have been made and compromises settled upon. For instance, I don't have to let someone in my home because I don't like his religion or his politics, but if I want to rent him a room or hire him at my job, I may not discriminate on those nor certain other points.

 

Back to the real issue, is that these rights are believed to be present from birth, period. It falls to the challenger - the one who doesn't like the status quo, who believes a law it restriction that impacts a civil right, to demonstrate a stronger public good that outweighs further protection by that right.

 

So - nobody needs to express a need for a 20-round magazine any more than he needs to justify the color he paints his house or in what manner, if any, he keeps Christmas. Want to limit rifle types? Be prepared to refute that the design has been around for 100 years, way prior to cases currently at hand. If you want to limit (infringe upon) my right to keep the police out of my home, save for existing provisions based upon compelling need and immediate threat to the public good, then YOU must prove the need to so so. YOU must explain why the public is better served by letting the cops barge in whenever they want, and show that there is no other good way to achieve the sought objective within your argument. Same thing with gun ownership. We have MORE compromises on this right than we ever have in the past, many more than when people for the most part did NOT go shooting up places. So, be very prepared to demonstrate how more controls will address those things that are different now, from 30-40 years ago when, as it happens, guns were much easier to obtain.

 

One more thing - the US Supreme Court judges one thing - the constitutionality of a law. In judging whether that law meets the restrictions put upon the State, the manner in which other protected rights have been addressed, is considered. One example is the phrase, "the people."

 

This may articulate some points better as well -

http://polyticks.com...ms/emb2nda2.htm

 

 

That's how it works. Don't like the way we do things here? Grab your rakes, torches, and pitchforks and come 'round and overthrow our system and start it over. Though there is a legal way to change the Constitution. If the gun+control-freak camp weren't so dishonest in their stated wishes, they'd simply fight toward that goal and let the chips fall where they may. .

 

Thank you for making your case as to why nothing of the 2nd can be changed.

 

It would appear to me that the 2nd amendment was drafted over 200 years ago and is a very simple statement of an American's right.

 

The gun lobby would have us believe there is the one concrete meaning, yet constitutional lawyers by their 100s (1000s?) are arguing the intent of the `right' as drafted, even as we speak.

 

I'm not surprised Boothy stated that there is no way Obama can change anything; after all he has advocated civil war if anyone tries to impinge on his rights. We'd better make sure Obama doesn't go by any grassy knolls.

 

I think it is so very sad that there is only intransigent stances taken by the gun club here. It is business as usual; ie more guns is the solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've stated in many threads, some things we can implement tomorrow, but for some people squealing like a rusty old barn door about their untouchable "rights" as well. Compromise is good, as long as the other guys are the ones who give a little, I suppose.

 

I've also gone on record on some things worth doing, the effects of which may take a generation.... which means not that they should be dismissed due to the lack of immediate results, but that they can take place along side the other ideas that (in my opinion) are likely to show a relatively quick difference... And along side measures other people being to the discussion.

 

Gun owners have every reason to distrust those who want more controls. When the major ringleaders are on record for wanting to restrict these things down to about zero - or to a privelige for the rich and well-connected - we tend to doubt their sincerity. When people talk of registration, one need only look toward peoples whose lawful guns were registered & then rounded up at worst, or the registries closed so no one could lawfully participate, at best.

 

I would have more respect for the likes of Chuck Schumer, Barb Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, and our president (for whom I did vote) would just come out and say they want to lawfully repeal the Second Amendment (as prohibition was repealed), and reorganise the entire gun ownership culture in their image. At least, then, the dialogue would be based upon honesty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Kansas gun nut shoots intruder in his home

 

I'm thinking it might be time to demonstrate once again that I really can post a steady stream of these, so here they come. This seems like a good thread for them.

 

That would be awesome. Could you give us 27?

 

This may take a little longer than I thought, since my usual channels for such information are completely clogged with Sandy Hook chatter, but in this incident a homeowner shot and killed one robber and wounded several others.

 

Good thing he had enough rounds to confront multiple assailants.

 

The homeowner was wounded in the confrontation. I think that's down to 24 to go now, maybe 23.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have made no case!!! Only a blanket assertion with no argument,

 

While Tom can articulate this better than I...

 

I thought you did fine.

 

The post is a gem, atoyot. But we still have a little problem here.

 

 

 

Nick-Anderson-NRA-cartoon-courtesy-ctpostcom__zpse00f90b1.jpg

 

 

images32_zpse3311ca2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we do have a problem. Now how do you propose to get Hollywood and the video game makers to finally step up to the f'ng plate and fix the damage they have caused across the country? And the psychs and drug companies that are ruining our children?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we do have a problem. Now how do you propose to get Hollywood and the video game makers to finally step up to the f'ng plate and fix the damage they have caused across the country? And the psychs and drug companies that are ruining our children?...

 

A large part of the problem is that we don't share the same views. The unfortunate part is that as long as there continues to be uncontrolled violence the gun industry will bear the brunt of negative personal opinion whether deserved or not. My world will change, we'll go back to musicals and period movies. Your world will change more radically and there will be no return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we do have a problem. Now how do you propose to get Hollywood and the video game makers to finally step up to the f'ng plate and fix the damage they have caused across the country? And the psychs and drug companies that are ruining our children?...

 

A large part of the problem is that we don't share the same views. The unfortunate part is that as long as there continues to be uncontrolled violence the gun industry will bear the brunt of negative personal opinion whether deserved or not. My world will change, we'll go back to musicals and period movies. Your world will change more radically and there will be no return.

 

All day long today, on the local AM radio stations, all the hosts and the Hollywood guests and the media moguls have refused to accept ANY responsibility for the damage they have done to this nation.

 

Sounds familiar, donut?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we do have a problem. Now how do you propose to get Hollywood and the video game makers to finally step up to the f'ng plate and fix the damage they have caused across the country? And the psychs and drug companies that are ruining our children?...

 

A large part of the problem is that we don't share the same views. The unfortunate part is that as long as there continues to be uncontrolled violence the gun industry will bear the brunt of negative personal opinion whether deserved or not. My world will change, we'll go back to musicals and period movies. Your world will change more radically and there will be no return.

 

All day long today, on the local AM radio stations, all the hosts and the Hollywood guests and the media moguls have refused to accept ANY responsibility for the damage they have done to this nation.

 

Sounds familiar, donut?....

 

Now THAT was funny, Booth. ;)Lee-Judge-NRA-cartoon-courtesy-ctpostcom__zps72f26c4d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you find one holding a gun to someone's head forcing them to do violence you may be onto something. Until then, your version is just a Manchurian candidate script.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think Hollywood and video game makers have zero culpability in the decline of American Civilization, and creating hundreds of natural born killers?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think Hollywood and video game makers have zero culpability in the decline of American Civilization, and creating hundreds of natural born killers?....

 

Look up deflection. Its what crisis managers do when the heat is on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is, and those so adamant about protecting their "First Amendment rights" are doing a bang-up job, blaming lawful gun owners for the acts of crazy persons. And when we try to identify the larger picture, citing times when practically a toddler could buy a gun through the mail (and very few if any such shootings), the very idea that popular cultural images need to be addressed as well as the need to better screen gun sales for lunatics, this gets dismissed outright.

 

Deflection, indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is, and those so adamant about protecting their "First Amendment rights" are doing a bang-up job, blaming lawful gun owners for the acts of crazy persons. And when we try to identify the larger picture, citing times when practically a toddler could buy a gun through the mail (and very few if any such shootings), the very idea that popular cultural images need to be addressed as well as the need to better screen gun sales for lunatics, this gets dismissed outright.

 

Deflection, indeed.

 

 

In the days of rural outhouses, last year's Sears & Roebuck catalogue could usually be found in the privy.

They always had a pretty good gun section...

 

 

 

Who defines "lunatic", Atoyot?

Feel free to chime in, Boothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While i have some personal opinions on it, I think it's up to the medical community to determine what psychiatric traits should be flagged for risk, that's not my field or profession. When traits or trends are quantified such that an MD can recommend that the rights of the individual can be legitimately compromised for the public good, then a program can and should be put into action. The sooner the better.

 

In the other matter, the time period to which I refer applies up to 1968..... Our home and those of everyone we knew had indoor plumbing, electricity, and central heat, and, there were guns for sale in some of the magazines yet no regularity at all of these senseless shootings. So, if folks want to go the easy route and blame the type rifle action that had not, up to that time, picked itself up and become associated with shooting up schools all on their own, they certainly may do so.

 

What now - do we need to pick nits over the term, "senseless"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have more respect for the likes of Chuck Schumer, Barb Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, and our president (for whom I did vote) would just come out and say they want to lawfully repeal the Second Amendment (as prohibition was repealed), and reorganise the entire gun ownership culture in their image. At least, then, the dialogue would be based upon honesty.

 

It seems like you are a heck of a mind reader! Especially since Obama has done about zero on gun control in four year...yet you know what he is thinking exactly? That's the definition of paranoia....

 

Now, if he or any of the other ASKED the SCOTUS to carefully define the 2nd as it applies today, would you consider that positive or negative? Isn't it very realistic to know exactly what it means and doesn't mean if we are going to discuss it?

 

Or...do you like the nebulous meaning where you can make it up?

 

I remember many years ago when I was studying the Constitution - had zero opinion on the 2nd - but I read it and wondered "what the heck are all these nutters talking about", it clearly deals with a militia organized by the several states and Feds".

 

I still think the same way but believe in certain "gun rights" which are outside of that. That is, they have IMHO little to do with that, and more to do with the right of self-protection.

 

We really need this call for "2nd Amendment remedies" defined by the courts. It should be simple. Either the founders, AFTER the bill of rights and constitution, meant for a militia to be protecting the government....OR, they meant it to allow others to kill them (the government).

 

Which is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a year or so, and see if his (POTUS) words or actions are or are not in line with my - mind reading.

 

 

I'm OK with the Supreme Court's interpretation to date.

 

Regarding:

 

I remember many years ago when I was studying the Constitution - had zero opinion on the 2nd - but I read it and wondered "what the heck are all these nutters talking about", it clearly deals with a militia organized by the several states and Feds".

 

I still think the same way but believe in certain "gun rights" which are outside of that. That is, they have IMHO little to do with that, and more to do with the right of self-protection.

 

If your first paragraph above reflects what the Supremes should have ruled, then by what right does one assume people have gun rights that include self-protection?

 

On the other hand, if you or anyone does believe that these provisions have "more to do with self-protection", then that has to support the individual right to the means of that self-protection. My take is that protection of self and the State is the inalienable right, and that a militia is but one of the reasons why the right of The People (interpreted to mean "individuals" everywhere else it's used) may not be infringed upon.

 

Consider this analog, from another web site:

 

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."

 

Obviously this does not mean that only well-educated voters have the right to read or write books. Nor does it mean that the right to read books of one's choosing can be restricted to only those subjects which lead to a well-educated electorate.

 

The purpose of this provision is: although not everyone may end up being well-educated, enough people will become well-educated to preserve a free society.

 

Nor can it be construed to deny one's pre-existing right to read books if there are not enough well-educated people to be found. The right to read books of one's choosing is not granted by the above statement. The rationale given is only one reason for not abridging that right, there are others as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Wait a year or so, and see if his (POTUS) words or actions are or are not in line with my - mind reading.

 

 

I'm OK with the Supreme Court's interpretation to date.

 

Regarding:

 

I remember many years ago when I was studying the Constitution - had zero opinion on the 2nd - but I read it and wondered "what the heck are all these nutters talking about", it clearly deals with a militia organized by the several states and Feds".

 

I still think the same way but believe in certain "gun rights" which are outside of that. That is, they have IMHO little to do with that, and more to do with the right of self-protection.

 

If your first paragraph above reflects what the Supremes should have ruled, then by what right does one assume people have gun rights that include self-protection?

 

On the other hand, if you or anyone does believe that these provisions have "more to do with self-protection", then that has to support the individual right to the means of that self-protection. My take is that protection of self and the State is the inalienable right, and that a militia is but one of the reasons why the right of The People (interpreted to mean "individuals" everywhere else it's used) may not be infringed upon.

 

Consider this analog, from another web site:

 

 

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."

 

Obviously this does not mean that only well-educated voters have the right to read or write books. Nor does it mean that the right to read books of one's choosing can be restricted to only those subjects which lead to a well-educated electorate.

 

The purpose of this provision is: although not everyone may end up being well-educated, enough people will become well-educated to preserve a free society.

 

Nor can it be construed to deny one's pre-existing right to read books if there are not enough well-educated people to be found. The right to read books of one's choosing is not granted by the above statement. The rationale given is only one reason for not abridging that right, there are others as well.

 

 

 

You're wasting your time. There really are none so blind as those who will not see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a year or so, and see if his (POTUS) words or actions are or are not in line with my - mind reading.

 

 

I'm OK with the Supreme Court's interpretation to date.

 

Regarding:

 

I remember many years ago when I was studying the Constitution - had zero opinion on the 2nd - but I read it and wondered "what the heck are all these nutters talking about", it clearly deals with a militia organized by the several states and Feds".

 

I still think the same way but believe in certain "gun rights" which are outside of that. That is, they have IMHO little to do with that, and more to do with the right of self-protection.

 

If your first paragraph above reflects what the Supremes should have ruled, then by what right does one assume people have gun rights that include self-protection?

 

On the other hand, if you or anyone does believe that these provisions have "more to do with self-protection", then that has to support the individual right to the means of that self-protection. My take is that protection of self and the State is the inalienable right, and that a militia is but one of the reasons why the right of The People (interpreted to mean "individuals" everywhere else it's used) may not be infringed upon.

 

Consider this analog, from another web site:

 

 

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."

 

Obviously this does not mean that only well-educated voters have the right to read or write books. Nor does it mean that the right to read books of one's choosing can be restricted to only those subjects which lead to a well-educated electorate.

 

The purpose of this provision is: although not everyone may end up being well-educated, enough people will become well-educated to preserve a free society.

 

Nor can it be construed to deny one's pre-existing right to read books if there are not enough well-educated people to be found. The right to read books of one's choosing is not granted by the above statement. The rationale given is only one reason for not abridging that right, there are others as well.

 

 

 

The Heller decision foot came down HARD on the practical use of the gun for indoor self protection. It seemed very firm on that specifically, ruling against gun disablement as the heart of their logic, free of the militia issue.

 

Interesting, and sound IMO. It would work if the sick-o's were controlled, so I really wonder what the Supreme Court thoughts are on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Kansas gun nut shoots intruder in his home

 

I'm thinking it might be time to demonstrate once again that I really can post a steady stream of these, so here they come. This seems like a good thread for them.

 

That would be awesome. Could you give us 27?

 

Don't bring a stun gun to a gun fight

 

A 79-year-old Evansville man shot and killed a 19-year-old who was attacking his granddaughter, Evansville Police said in a news release.

 

...

 

Police said Gee got into an argument with a 17-year-old girl at the Denby Avenue home on Sunday evening. Gee threatened to assault the girl and to use a "stun gun" on her.

She ran from the house but Gee chased her down, catching her in the yard and beating her. The girl's 79-year-old grandfather, who was in the house, came outside to help her. He told Gee to quit beating the girl.

 

According to witnesses, Gee then threatened to use the stun gun on the grandfather. Reaching into his pocket, he approached the 79-year-old who told him several times to stop.

 

The grandfather told police he feared he could not defend himself against the bigger, younger attacker and that he feared the stun gun would kill him due to a heart condition. When the man kept approaching, witnesses said, the grandfather pulled out a handgun and fired one shot. Gee ran into a neighboring yard and collapsed.

 

"God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Surprised they didn't arrest the parents for allowing the 12 year old girl to defend herself (and her family) with a gun... absolutely reckless.

 

Just IMAGINE

 

Might have had a different legal outcome in CA, NY or NJ. This is also why making laws saying that the gun she used should have been locked up an unloaded so she could not gain access to it are just so much more bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more time----what exactly would ANY new gun laws passed tomorrow do to stop the next 1,000 mass shootings?

 

And no, this is not a trick question. I'm just curious to know what you know, that I don't.....

 

It will make the killing of 20 children with a gun illegal. You could go to jail or get the Death Penalty if you shoot someone with an "assault weapon"!

 

Oh, that can already happen....

 

 

 

 

Nevermind......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just imagine if my limits on ammo purchases and reasonable tracking proposals were in effect the colorado shooting would have never happened.

 

i have schooled you again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

only retarded backwater redneck folks. they are usually too drunk to plan much less carry out a mass shooting. no way the colorado shooter would have done that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. I forgot. Only backwater rednecks reload.

I wonder if anyone would dare sell black market ammo? What do you think Gasdumb, not a chance right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think we can all agree you fithy faggot that the Tuscon, Aurora, Newtown, Portland and Rochester mass murderers would not have been able to source their ammo that way.

 

I have scooled you again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think we can all agree you fithy faggot that the Tuscon, Aurora, Newtown, Portland and Rochester mass murderers would not have been able to source their ammo that way.

 

I have scooled you again!

You certainly have.

Exactly how many appletinies have you had?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think we can all agree you fithy faggot that the Tuscon, Aurora, Newtown, Portland and Rochester mass murderers would not have been able to source their ammo that way.

 

I have scooled you again!

You certainly have.

Exactly how many appletinies have you had?

 

Save your breath, you really don't wanna waste your evening waiting for Gator to answer a math question....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think we can all agree you fithy faggot that the Tuscon, Aurora, Newtown, Portland and Rochester mass murderers would not have been able to source their ammo that way.

 

I have scooled you again!

 

 

 

Gaytor, you need to go back to School.

 

Remember the Luxury Tax that was instated back in the early 1990's? Remember how it was supposed to “Punish the Rich” and “Enrich the Poor”? The “Rich” could easily afford the measly 10% tax on boats, furs, and luxury cars. The Government was going to reap hundreds of millions of dollars in new revenues. What a boon, just like Peter Pan, we'll steal from the Rich to give to the Poor! It sounded too good to be true. “How Easy” the politicians said, “Why didn't we do this before?” they quipped.

 

Now, remember the consequences of this wonderful tax? Sales of boats, furs, and luxury cars dwindled to a trickle. The revenue from the Luxury tax was near nil. Sales and use tax revenue from these items plummeted. Many boat builders went out of business, firing all their skilled labor force. Unemployment rates shot up. These former middle class workers now couldn't afford to buy non luxury tax cars, much less luxury cars.

 

Another wonderful unintended consequence is Japanese SUVs. Back in the 1960's, our wonderful government imposed a 25% tariff on imported pick-up trucks in response to the French imposing a tariff on American poultry. Back in the late 1980's the Japanese started making these cheap 2 door SUVs. The original Toyota Fourrunner was one of these. We hit it with a 25% tariff that made it not so cheap. So what did the Japanese do? They started making 4 door SUVs that circumvented the truck tax. This did a lot of damage to the American auto industry.

 

California, and several other states placed heavy taxes on tobacco products, and used the revenue for anti smoking education. The problem is that it worked too well. Smoking rates in California have dropped significantly, therefor the revenue from cigarettes has dwindled. Yet, the spending for the anti smoking education was fixed. Now it is straining an already stresses education budget.

 

So, Gaytor, there is no “Simple” solution. Simply taxing or banning ammo will not solve the problem. If it were so simple, why wasn't it done generations ago? You aren't the first one to think of the asinine ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites