Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?

Message boards : Politics : Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile betreger
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 9526
Credit: 25,873,206
RAC: 22,018
United States
Message 1344113 - Posted: 8 Mar 2013, 18:40:52 UTC - in response to Message 1344065.  
Last modified: 8 Mar 2013, 18:48:45 UTC

ID, I ask what well regulated militia do you belong to? After all you proclaim to be a gun owner and 2nd amendment proponent!
ID: 1344113 · Report as offensive
Nick: ID 666
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 13047
Credit: 36,465,465
RAC: 20,515
United Kingdom
Message 1344419 - Posted: 9 Mar 2013, 7:01:54 UTC

ID: 1344419 · Report as offensive
Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 455
Credit: 2,358,858
RAC: 444
United States
Message 1344427 - Posted: 9 Mar 2013, 7:23:34 UTC - in response to Message 1344113.  

ID, I ask what well regulated militia do you belong to? After all you proclaim to be a gun owner and 2nd amendment proponent!

=================================================================
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[13]

1) part one to first coma an ability to form a militia is necessary to keep a free state.

2) after first coma the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,

a militia being formed of armed citizens, the citizens right to keep and bear arms

shall not be infringed.

if you read the federalist papers it is clear that the founding fathers felt

that an unchecked government was the greatest fear.


ID: 1344427 · Report as offensive
Profile Gone with the wind Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 41577
Credit: 41,999,081
RAC: 909
Message 1344471 - Posted: 9 Mar 2013, 9:44:06 UTC
Last modified: 9 Mar 2013, 9:45:44 UTC

if you read the federalist papers it is clear that the founding fathers felt that an unchecked government was the greatest fear.

Agreed, that was the original reason for the 2nd Amendment. But that was then, when the only way to remove a bad government was by a mob at gunpoint, or a private army. These days we would not have a mob or militia waving guns descend upon the White House, and physically drag the President out of the Oval office. Presidents can be impeached and governments can be voted out of office. For threats from foreign governments outside the USA, the USA armed forces are quite adequate to defend the country. It would not be necessary to arm the American general public. There might be a case for ex armed forces personnel being drafted as emergency Sheriffs Deputies at times of severe civil unrest

Therefore although the original reason for the amendment was reasonable at the time, it is not relevant any more today. The reason that you have the pro-gun lobby is because of the traditional American red-neck attitude that we have always had guns, and we quite like them, so why shouldn't we be allowed to keep them.
ID: 1344471 · Report as offensive
Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 455
Credit: 2,358,858
RAC: 444
United States
Message 1344531 - Posted: 9 Mar 2013, 13:28:20 UTC - in response to Message 1344471.  

apparently Chris you do not read the news it is even more relivant now than it ever has been.
ID: 1344531 · Report as offensive
Profile Gone with the wind Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 41577
Credit: 41,999,081
RAC: 909
Message 1344554 - Posted: 9 Mar 2013, 14:31:02 UTC

apparently Chris you do not read the news it is even more relivant now than it ever has been.

Unfortunately for you I do, and I do not like what I see. With a 60% turnout at the last election, you had a 50/50 vote on the new President. Your Electoral College which clearly does not represent the people, gave you Obama. Result 1/3 of the USA are unhappy bunnies. You also have gun atrocities in schools killing innocent children.

So let me get this quite unequivocally clear, are you saying that the current gun laws are relevant because
    A. The people don't like the President and want the right to remove him from office at physical gunpoint, opening fire if neccessary?

    B. By keeping the existing gun laws you accept the possibility of more kids being killed in the future?


So what is it that you see as relevant?


ID: 1344554 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1344590 - Posted: 9 Mar 2013, 15:45:11 UTC - in response to Message 1344554.  
Last modified: 9 Mar 2013, 15:48:36 UTC

apparently Chris you do not read the news it is even more relivant now than it ever has been.

Unfortunately for you I do, and I do not like what I see. With a 60% turnout at the last election, you had a 50/50 vote on the new President. Your Electoral College which clearly does not represent the people, gave you Obama. Result 1/3 of the USA are unhappy bunnies. You also have gun atrocities in schools killing innocent children.

So let me get this quite unequivocally clear, are you saying that the current gun laws are relevant because
    A. The people don't like the President and want the right to remove him from office at physical gunpoint, opening fire if neccessary?

    B. By keeping the existing gun laws you accept the possibility of more kids being killed in the future?


So what is it that you see as relevant?





You--You also have gun atrocities in schools killing innocent children.

Me--Your logic is convoluted. The weapon did not jump from the table and kill people. A person who happened to be mentally unstable took human life.

No to A

No to B

I'm not going to let you set the questioning nor am I going let you set the tone.

The country is to be run by a certain set of rules. If I write checks that I cannot keep at the bank more then once I go to jail. Why can the government officials do so? Never was before, in our founding.

If I lie to the public, the public I have taken an oath to in court; I go to jail. Why can the officialsin government lie in court? And not go to jail?

If I cannot take a life unless in self-defense, why can the government drop a hell-fire missile on someones head with out the benefit of the Constitution?

Your logic isn't even close to being right. Your not equipped for the argument.
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1344590 · Report as offensive
Profile Gone with the wind Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 41577
Credit: 41,999,081
RAC: 909
Message 1344610 - Posted: 9 Mar 2013, 16:10:28 UTC

Well, I was talking to Dancer before you so rudely butted in, without so much as a by your leave.

You - I'm not going to let you set the questioning nor am I going let you set the tone.

Me - That means that as per usual you haven't got a coherent answer, and will just resort to blustering as usual.

OK, you have the floor, get on with it. I have much better things to do than argue with you.

Bye
ID: 1344610 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1344614 - Posted: 9 Mar 2013, 16:24:15 UTC - in response to Message 1344610.  

Well, I was talking to Dancer before you so rudely butted in, without so much as a by your leave.

You - I'm not going to let you set the questioning nor am I going let you set the tone.

Me - That means that as per usual you haven't got a coherent answer, and will just resort to blustering as usual.

OK, you have the floor, get on with it. I have much better things to do than argue with you.

Bye


We are a Constitutional Republic. Not a Dictatorship. Your welcome for the clarification. That is the reason for being armed.

Good day to you.
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1344614 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 50378
Credit: 983,777,979
RAC: 2,819
United States
Message 1344617 - Posted: 9 Mar 2013, 16:27:49 UTC - in response to Message 1344610.  

Well, I was talking to Dancer before you so rudely butted in, without so much as a by your leave.

You - I'm not going to let you set the questioning nor am I going let you set the tone.

Me - That means that as per usual you haven't got a coherent answer, and will just resort to blustering as usual.

OK, you have the floor, get on with it. I have much better things to do than argue with you.

Bye

Chris......
I consider you my friend.
Tell me if I am wrong in that regard.

I hold the 2nd amendment to our stateside constitution as almost gospel.
I have had a lifetime membership in the NRA, although do not currently carry.
I shall soon.

I have been called a redneck. Oh, s==t, yeah.

I am just a redneck ass444le. Dumbass wind blowing mindless dude in the midwest.. We blow our snow too......... Beer and cheese and freaking snow.

Chris..........anything else is just Pissin' in the wind.



"Learn from yesterday. Live for today. Hope for tomorrow." Albert Einstein
"With cats." kittyman

ID: 1344617 · Report as offensive
Profile Gone with the wind Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 41577
Credit: 41,999,081
RAC: 909
Message 1344619 - Posted: 9 Mar 2013, 16:30:50 UTC

Chris......
I consider you my friend.
Tell me if I am wrong in that regard.

Being a friend means that I can disagree with your views :-)

ID: 1344619 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1344626 - Posted: 9 Mar 2013, 16:42:11 UTC - in response to Message 1344619.  

Chris......
I consider you my friend.
Tell me if I am wrong in that regard.

Being a friend means that I can disagree with your views :-)




It also means I must set you right when you are wrong.
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1344626 · Report as offensive
Nick: ID 666
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 13047
Credit: 36,465,465
RAC: 20,515
United Kingdom
Message 1344635 - Posted: 9 Mar 2013, 16:52:24 UTC - in response to Message 1344626.  

Chris......
I consider you my friend.
Tell me if I am wrong in that regard.

Being a friend means that I can disagree with your views :-)




It also means I must set you right when you are wrong.

But the stats must say your views are wrong. And with your health system it is no use saying it is a mental health problem, because in any one year ~30% of all people will have a mental health problem, most of whom cannot or will not go for treatment because they cannot afford the costs now or in the future.
ID: 1344635 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 50378
Credit: 983,777,979
RAC: 2,819
United States
Message 1344637 - Posted: 9 Mar 2013, 16:57:02 UTC

Ya see........

This is where I diverge.


Correct me if I am wrong.
Except when I get stupid in my cups.

I generally just post the correct questions and let you others fight out the details. That's what I do.


I don't think there is much debate left in just who killed Kennedy, and why.

I cherish my friends here, although I have much abused them.

My past haunts me. There is nothing I can do to erase that.

God shall wipe it in the next life.

You all just remain my friends in this one, and I'll do OK.


"Learn from yesterday. Live for today. Hope for tomorrow." Albert Einstein
"With cats." kittyman

ID: 1344637 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1344680 - Posted: 9 Mar 2013, 19:32:31 UTC - in response to Message 1344635.  

Chris......
I consider you my friend.
Tell me if I am wrong in that regard.

Being a friend means that I can disagree with your views :-)




It also means I must set you right when you are wrong.

But the stats must say your views are wrong. And with your health system it is no use saying it is a mental health problem, because in any one year ~30% of all people will have a mental health problem, most of whom cannot or will not go for treatment because they cannot afford the costs now or in the future.


I will not separate people into classes. This has already been done without regard to the condition of being--human. I will not force people to get help, nor can I force people to get help.

There is no condition in the second amendment that says only people of a sound mind can have so called--rights. The Constitution covers ALL people of voting age. The younger people are covered by their parents. When you put conditions on this or that you divide people into a class you do not unite them. It is not up to the government to divide. This is pushed down to the one, the individual.

To say, "You sir cannot have this right because..." or "You sir can have this right, but..", you are not for the right in the first place. You divide. You place a condition. You force a person into this class or that one for reasons of your own.

In fact that is why we have laws. This person broke the law and now must pay for that very fact in treasure or in his life. The fact of a mental condition only mitigates in the treasure or in his life.

The fact that I'm armed also mitigates in the treasure or in his life. I have the right to defend myself from someone who refuses to get help for them self. This is the only time I can lawfully force someone.
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1344680 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 50378
Credit: 983,777,979
RAC: 2,819
United States
Message 1344684 - Posted: 9 Mar 2013, 19:40:41 UTC
Last modified: 9 Mar 2013, 19:41:58 UTC

The right to bear arms was intended to bring strength to the forces of the common people of the time. And the common people of these times. We, as a people, had just escaped some who would take such rights from us.

Never freaking again, shall history betray us.

You want to take my 2nd amendment rights?

Come now to my home and try it.

I can teach you what it is about.

Try it.
"Learn from yesterday. Live for today. Hope for tomorrow." Albert Einstein
"With cats." kittyman

ID: 1344684 · Report as offensive
Nick: ID 666
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 13047
Credit: 36,465,465
RAC: 20,515
United Kingdom
Message 1344819 - Posted: 10 Mar 2013, 4:00:21 UTC
Last modified: 10 Mar 2013, 4:01:15 UTC

So after all the misinformation from the gun lobby it would seem that the majority of people buying guns and requesting permits are already gun owners. The actual figures for households with guns is declining from 50% in the 70's to 32% now.

Share of Homes With Guns Shows 4-Decade Decline

This is an article about a survey conducted by the General Social Survey which receives it's funding from the National Science Foundation, just like BOINC and Seti@Home.
ID: 1344819 · Report as offensive
Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 455
Credit: 2,358,858
RAC: 444
United States
Message 1344824 - Posted: 10 Mar 2013, 4:39:59 UTC

you my be right about the survey though if i were to by a gun today i would

by it at a gun show not from a dealer and i would not advertise that i owned one.

it is just getting to close to were the second amendment might come in to play.


ID: 1344824 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1345008 - Posted: 10 Mar 2013, 16:56:24 UTC

Thanks but we have many firearm laws already. The difference between the two.
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1345008 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1345009 - Posted: 10 Mar 2013, 17:01:24 UTC

More reasons for being armed.


Perhaps it is needed.
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1345009 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?


 
©2019 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.