Forums (http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/index.php)
- Politics & Religion (http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?forumid=27)
-- Piers Morgan losing it again (http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=246432)
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-24-12 02:30 AM:
Piers Morgan losing it again
The guy is having a nervous breakdown on the air talking about gun control. For the love of God, get this guy to shut up.
__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by 377OHMS on 07-24-12 02:56 AM:
Re: Piers Morgan losing it again
Quote from Maverick74:
The guy is having a nervous breakdown on the air talking about gun control. For the love of God, get this guy to shut up.
I didn't see it. If you've got a link to it I'll take a look though.
I don't watch CNN but I have viewed links of Piers Morgan being destroyed in various interviews. I think you or Max posted those links. I saw somewhere that Morgan has taken CNN viewership down to record low numbers.
Posted by futurecurrents on 07-24-12 03:14 AM:
He did a great job saying what the rational among us are thinking.
__________________
The future chaos is determined by the current chaos, in a chaotic manner.
Posted by Clubber Lang on 07-24-12 03:18 AM:
Quote from futurecurrents:
He did a great job saying what the rational among us are thinking.
That you and your liberal ilk are nothing but parasites?
Posted by futurecurrents on 07-24-12 03:26 AM:
Quote from Clubber Lang:
That you and your liberal ilk are nothing but parasites?
No, that it's time to stand up to the gun nuts and demand common sense regulations on guns.__________________
The future chaos is determined by the current chaos, in a chaotic manner.
Posted by denner on 07-24-12 03:46 AM:
Quote from futurecurrents:
No, that it's time to stand up to the gun nuts and demand common sense regulations on guns.
In other words, exactly what is happening in O's home state of Illinois...where the gangbangers and other criminal element are armed to the hilt and the ordinary citizen is a sitting target.__________________
wealth effect: stock market higher, health care costs higher, unemployment higher, food/energy prices higher, taxes higher, poverty higher, bonuses higher, foreclosures higher, homelessness higher, crime rate higher, bankruptcies higher, unsold cars higher... it's economics 101
Posted by wildchild on 07-24-12 05:11 AM:
Quote from futurecurrents:
He did a great job saying what the rational among us are thinking.
You are not rational. You are a liberal. By definition liberals are not rational.
Here is a nice little story for you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
"A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.
The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.
But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.
The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000."
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-24-12 05:12 AM:
For all you "gun control" is the answer folks out there, I leave you with this:
Norway, country with one of the toughest gun control laws in the world. Didn't stop him.
__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by futurecurrents on 07-24-12 05:58 AM:
Quote from wildchild:
You are not rational. You are a liberal. By definition liberals are not rational.
Here is a nice little story for you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
"A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.
The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.
But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.
The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000."
Yes, and how many people are killed by guns in England vs the US ? Crimes are one thing, murders quite another.__________________
The future chaos is determined by the current chaos, in a chaotic manner.
Posted by futurecurrents on 07-24-12 06:00 AM:
__________________
The future chaos is determined by the current chaos, in a chaotic manner.
Posted by RCG Trader on 07-24-12 06:46 AM:
Re: Piers Morgan losing it again
Quote from Maverick74:
The guy is having a nervous breakdown on the air talking about gun control. For the love of God, get this guy to shut up.
Free speech?
Posted by piezoe on 07-24-12 10:27 AM:
Quote from Maverick74:
For all you "gun control" is the answer folks out there, I leave you with this:
Norway, country with one of the toughest gun control laws in the world. Didn't stop him.
Norway has almost zero gun violence! If you want to get any respect for your argument re guns, you will have to explain why the high correlation between gun ownership and the ease with which guns can be obtained in the civilian population and gun violence among the civilian population in developed countries worldwide is not related as cause and effect.
Posted by Tsing Tao on 07-24-12 01:18 PM:
Re: Re: Piers Morgan losing it again
Quote from RCG Trader:
Free speech?
I don't think Mav was saying that Piers has no right to say what he was saying. I just think Mav found it funny.
Posted by Brass on 07-24-12 01:42 PM:
Re: Piers Morgan losing it again
Quote from Maverick74:
The guy is having a nervous breakdown on the air talking about gun control. For the love of God, get this guy to shut up.
I have to agree. Although I side with Morgan almost completely on the subject matter, he just doesn't know when to get out of the way and STFU. He has become CNN's version of Bill O'Reilly, who invites guests on his show so that he can give them a talking to. Morgan should have let Lott and Dershowitz slug it out and only mediate when necessary. And when he asks a question, he should let the guest answer (and in Lott's case, let the guest dig his own grave).
Posted by CaptainObvious on 07-24-12 01:54 PM:
Hey Piers, check this out. 3 killed and 11 wounded in Chicago this past weekend. Over a dozen shot just last night. Care to guess how many were shot with an assault weapon? My guess would be zero. Care to guess how many were shot with a gun purchased legally? My guess would be zero.
I know this may come as a shock to you Piers, but criminals don't obey the law. Therefore, it is with utmost confidence that I can predict taking guns out of the hands of law biding citizens will not reduce violent crime.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/...iday-night.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...0,7572962.story
Posted by denner on 07-24-12 02:33 PM:
Quote from CaptainObvious:
Hey Piers, check this out. 3 killed and 11 wounded in Chicago this past weekend. Over a dozen shot just last night. Care to guess how many were shot with an assault weapon? My guess would be zero. Care to guess how many were shot with a gun purchased legally? My guess would be zero.
I know this may come as a shock to you Piers, but criminals don't obey the law. Therefore, it is with utmost confidence that I can predict taking guns out of the hands of law biding citizens will not reduce violent crime.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/...iday-night.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...0,7572962.story
Exactly. It's as if this giant herd of leftists around here have absolutely no familiarity with the happenings in O's backyard. Chicago is probably the most Pro-Union, rabid anti-gun place in the United States. Any leftist delusion has been implemented and defended to the point of absurdity.
And what is the outcome? Some of the highest taxes, biggest pension underfunding, scores of corrupt and imprisoned politicians, urban blight, etc, etc...
It's a leftist utopia (or maybe not), but facts never get in the way of their fantasies.__________________
wealth effect: stock market higher, health care costs higher, unemployment higher, food/energy prices higher, taxes higher, poverty higher, bonuses higher, foreclosures higher, homelessness higher, crime rate higher, bankruptcies higher, unsold cars higher... it's economics 101
Posted by Eight on 07-24-12 02:42 PM:
Quote from futurecurrents:
No, that it's time to stand up to the gun nuts and demand common sense regulations on guns.
And futurecurrents [a legend in his own mind] goes for the intellectual and moral high ground.. will he be able to hold it... can he fight his personal demons to a standstill... will the rebels make him look like a complete idiot........ stay tuned folks!
Posted by Brass on 07-24-12 02:46 PM:
Quote from futurecurrents:
No, that it's time to stand up to the gun nuts and demand common sense regulations on guns.
Very much so.
Posted by Eight on 07-24-12 02:47 PM:
Quote from denner:
Exactly. It's as if this giant herd of leftists around here have absolutely no familiarity with the happenings in O's backyard. Chicago is probably the most Pro-Union, rabid anti-gun place in the United States. Any leftist delusion has been implemented and defended to the point of absurdity.
And what is the outcome? Some of the highest taxes, biggest pension underfunding, scores of corrupt and imprisoned politicians, urban blight, etc, etc...
It's a leftist utopia (or maybe not), but facts never get in the way of their fantasies.
Leftist shitholes abound in the US of A.. Inner cities, publicly funded schools, the rotting stench is something one wants to avoid as much as possible. I'd say that when the US of A gets on with it's chosen course of very high inflation that the underfunding of said shitholes will reach crisis levels and we might get to sink them like old battleships.
Posted by futurecurrents on 07-24-12 03:51 PM:
Quote from Eight:
Leftist shitholes abound in the US of A.. Inner cities, publicly funded schools, the rotting stench is something one wants to avoid as much as possible. I'd say that when the US of A gets on with it's chosen course of very high inflation that the underfunding of said shitholes will reach crisis levels and we might get to sink them like old battleships.
You just hate those publicly funded schools don't you? They teach evolution! LOL !
You just want to keep the ignore in ignorant don't you? It allows you to keep wandering around without a care in your deluded world.__________________
The future chaos is determined by the current chaos, in a chaotic manner.
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-24-12 07:11 PM:
Re: Re: Piers Morgan losing it again
Quote from Brass:
I have to agree. Although I side with Morgan almost completely on the subject matter, he just doesn't know when to get out of the way and STFU. He has become CNN's version of Bill O'Reilly, who invites guests on his show so that he can give them a talking to. Morgan should have let Lott and Dershowitz slug it out and only mediate when necessary. And when he asks a question, he should let the guest answer (and in Lott's case, let the guest dig his own grave).
For once we agree on something. While I don't mind listening to O'Reilly or Chris Mathews when I want to hear one side rage their argument, I expect to get a more balanced and subdued conversation when listening to Piers. All he did was make the left look over emotional on issue that requires reason and logic to debate.__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by Spike Trader on 07-24-12 07:28 PM:
Piers is stiff lipped . . . . just like 377.
Posted by futurecurrents on 07-24-12 07:31 PM:
Re: Re: Re: Piers Morgan losing it again
Quote from Maverick74:
For once we agree on something. While I don't mind listening to O'Reilly or Chris Mathews when I want to hear one side rage their argument, I expect to get a more balanced and subdued conversation when listening to Piers. All he did was make the left look over emotional on issue that requires reason and logic to debate.
I must admit I also think he was being a little overbearing and he totally missed the point that crime is different than murder.__________________
The future chaos is determined by the current chaos, in a chaotic manner.
Posted by AAAintheBeltway on 07-24-12 07:55 PM:
The great irony in all this blathering about gun control is that it just creates more uncertainty and distrust and people respond by loading up on weapons and ammo they are afraid will be banned.
It happened in 2008, and no doubt is happening now.
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 02:37 AM:
And who does Piers have on tonight? Michael Moore. And more gun control talk. At least tonight he is not screaming at his guest. Only because he agrees with him.
__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 02:50 AM:
Oh for f*cks sake. Michael Moore thinks the gun problem is white america who lives in the suburbs is afraid of the colored guy from the city coming out to get them. Are you f*cking serious? Good lord. We're never going to be able to have a real debate about this. The left is just completely unwilling to be reasonable.
__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by 377OHMS on 07-25-12 03:08 AM:
Quote from Maverick74:
Oh for f*cks sake. Michael Moore thinks the gun problem is white america who lives in the suburbs is afraid of the colored guy from the city coming out to get them. Are you f*cking serious? Good lord. We're never going to be able to have a real debate about this. The left is just completely unwilling to be reasonable.
There is an analogy to discussions about taxes.
If the left was even slightly willing to address the spending side of the federal budget then I would be quite a bit more inclined to discuss tax increases. But they won't and insist taxes be increased without any effort given to reducing federal spending.
If the left would acknowledge the second amendment in any meaningful way then many of us conservatives would probably be inclined to discuss some restrictions on assault weapons, some increase in the background checks for handgun purchases etc. But they refuse to acknowledge the right to bear arms in any form so there can be no rational discussion. There is no common ground from which compromise could be achieved.
The *fact* that the federal government under Barrack Obama forced gun dealers to sell thousands of assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels without any attempt to track those weapons looks like an unconstitutional attempt to manipulate the gun control debate. That cost many mexicans and quite a few US citizens to lose their lives including an INS agent. There is really nothing to discuss with this regime, it was caught red-handed engaged in illegal activity that it intended to use to subvert the constitution.
Posted by denner on 07-25-12 03:12 AM:
Quote from Maverick74:
Oh for f*cks sake. Michael Moore thinks the gun problem is white america who lives in the suburbs is afraid of the colored guy from the city coming out to get them. Are you f*cking serious? Good lord. We're never going to be able to have a real debate about this. The left is just completely unwilling to be reasonable.
Not watching it and I think my days of viewing this arrogant windbag might be over with. Generally, I enjoy his non-political interviews, but it's becoming rather evident that as his ratings increased he has just become another leftist mouthpiece.
Forget it.__________________
wealth effect: stock market higher, health care costs higher, unemployment higher, food/energy prices higher, taxes higher, poverty higher, bonuses higher, foreclosures higher, homelessness higher, crime rate higher, bankruptcies higher, unsold cars higher... it's economics 101
Posted by mgrund on 07-25-12 03:16 AM:
Gun Control? so how do expect to win a war without guns?
Posted by Mav88 on 07-25-12 05:38 AM:
There is no gun problem with american whites, the outliers like colorado are anecdotes and mean nothing. England has a murder rate the same as other european countries that have gun cultures.
Posted by Mav88 on 07-25-12 06:21 AM:
Michael, I'll make a trade: shoot all the fat liberals and then ban guns.
Study: Obesity adds $190 billion in health costs
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4721154...n-health-costs/
$34 billion Annual US medical and productivity costs of gun injuries and deaths
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-...u_b_139879.html
Posted by Tsing Tao on 07-25-12 12:59 PM:
Quote from 377OHMS:
[B]There is an analogy to discussions about taxes.
If the left was even slightly willing to address the spending side of the federal budget then I would be quite a bit more inclined to discuss tax increases. But they won't and insist taxes be increased without any effort given to reducing federal spending.
/B]
This has been my position on tax increases from the start. I would consider paying more taxes if I knew it wasn't being thrown into a wasteful abyss.
Posted by bigarrow on 07-25-12 02:42 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
For all you "gun control" is the answer folks out there, I leave you with this:
Norway, country with one of the toughest gun control laws in the world. Didn't stop him.
That's like posting a picture of a 95 year old who's smoked cigarettes all their lives as evidence smoking isn't dangerous.__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 02:46 PM:
Quote from bigarrow:
That's like posting a picture of a 95 year old who's smoked cigarettes all their lives as evidence smoking isn't dangerous.
Not at all. It's simply to point out that you cannot stop 10 sigma events from happening through legislation. Legislation is only effective curbing trivial crimes. History has shown this time and time again.__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by bigarrow on 07-25-12 02:55 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
Not at all. It's simply to point out that you cannot stop 10 sigma events from happening through legislation. Legislation is only effective curbing trivial crimes. History has shown this time and time again.
I didn't watch the show and won't, I can't take too much talk shows anymore unless it's entertaining or smart. This gun control talk is BS anyway. Almost everyone is for some gun control, the disagreement is the degree of gun control.__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 02:58 PM:
Quote from bigarrow:
I didn't watch the show and won't, I can't take too much talk shows anymore unless it's entertaining or smart. This gun control talk is BS anyway. Almost everyone is for some gun control, the disagreement is the degree of gun control.
Sure. But I took particular offense to this garbage spewed by Moore that white people want guns in the suburbs to protect against those dangerous colored folk that might leave the city and come out to the burbs to get them. Piers never challenged him on that. He just sat there. Moore said the gun problem is NOT in the cities but the burbs. Is he high on crack? He said guns in the city are not the problem. Has he been to Chicago?!!?!!?!!?__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by Brass on 07-25-12 03:01 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
Not at all. It's simply to point out that you cannot stop 10 sigma events from happening through legislation. Legislation is only effective curbing trivial crimes. History has shown this time and time again.
So the authorities should stop trying? What possible point could you be trying to make here?
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 03:05 PM:
Quote from bigarrow:
I didn't watch the show and won't, I can't take too much talk shows anymore unless it's entertaining or smart. This gun control talk is BS anyway. Almost everyone is for some gun control, the disagreement is the degree of gun control.
At the more fundamental core of the argument is the idea on the left that the government can control people which they can't. I rather treat the cause, not the affect. Spend more money on trying to find guys likes Holmes BEFORE they go postal. Rather then pretending if we make guns harder to get that people like him will simply throw their hands up and say, I give up.__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 03:08 PM:
Quote from Brass:
So the authorities should stop trying? What possible point could you be trying to make here?
It's not a matter of trying. It's where you put your resources. Kind of like Bush spending all our money and resources in Iraq vs going after Bin Laden eh? Not sure if you realize this Brass, but contrary to what your friends on the left tell you, we have very limited funds and resources in this country. LOL.__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by Brass on 07-25-12 03:13 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
At the more fundamental core of the argument is the idea on the left that the government can control people which they can't. I rather treat the cause, not the affect. Spend more money on trying to find guys likes Holmes BEFORE they go postal. Rather then pretending if we make guns harder to get that people like him will simply throw their hands up and say, I give up.
Sure, the cause is always a great place to focus, but not at the expense of the effect. It need not be either/or. Cutbacks in fundiing of mental health facilties don't help to root out the "cause" part. As for these outlier events, notice how they always seem to involve automatic-type weaponry. I wonder if there might just possibly be a connection between the the speed at which these firearms can be discharged and the amount of carnage that ensues, resulting in such outlier-type events...
Posted by bigarrow on 07-25-12 03:13 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
At the more fundamental core of the argument is the idea on the left that the government can control people which they can't. I rather treat the cause, not the affect. Spend more money on trying to find guys likes Holmes BEFORE they go postal. Rather then pretending if we make guns harder to get that people like him will simply throw their hands up and say, I give up.
It's not an either / or problem. Just like taxing and spending. The right seems to try and simplify everything into black and white arguments. Our problems are more complicated than that. And making guns harder to get for people like Holmes is more gun control.__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"
Posted by Ricter on 07-25-12 03:15 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
It's not a matter of trying. It's where you put your resources. Kind of like Bush spending all our money and resources in Iraq vs going after Bin Laden eh? Not sure if you realize this Brass, but contrary to what your friends on the left tell you, we have very limited funds and resources in this country. LOL.
Actually, the private sector has record piles of cash sitting idle, and to the public sector the world's money is pouring in to the extent that they are paying us to borrow their money. Throw in productive capacity sitting idle, and unemployment, and it's hard to imagine a time when we've had more resources at our disposal.
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 03:17 PM:
Quote from Brass:
Sure, the cause is always a great place to focus, but not at the expense of the effect. It need not be either/or. Cutbacks in fundiing of mental health facilties don't help to root out the "cause" part. As for these outlier events, notice how they always seem to involve automatic-type weaponry? I wonder if there might be a connection between the the speed at which these firearms can be discharged and the amount of carnage that ensues, resulting in such an outlier-type event...
Nah, they could just as easily use explosives. Timothy McVeigh didn't use one. Neither did Ted Kaczynski.__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 03:18 PM:
Quote from bigarrow:
It's not an either / or problem. Just like taxing and spending. The right seems to try and simplify everything into black and white arguments. Our problems are more complicated than that. And making guns harder to get for people like Holmes is more gun control.
The problem is not you are not making it harder for him, you are making it harder for US!!!!! If he REALLY wants to get one, he will. I'm not willing to jump through 100 hoops to get one.__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by Brass on 07-25-12 03:19 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
Nah, they could just as easily use explosives. Timothy McVeigh didn't use one. Neither did Ted Kaczynski.
Right. So don't bother locking your car. If someone wants to steal it, they're going to do it anyway. In fact, why not just streamline the whole mundane process by leaving your keys inside?
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 03:20 PM:
Quote from Ricter:
Actually, the private sector has record piles of cash sitting idle, and to the public sector the world's money is pouring in to the extent that they are paying us to borrow their money. Throw in productive capacity sitting idle, and unemployment, and it's hard to imagine a time when we've had more resources at our disposal.
It's called debt Ricter. LOL. You do know we have to pay that back right? LOL.__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by Ricter on 07-25-12 03:22 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
It's called debt Ricter. LOL. You do know we have to pay that back right? LOL.
Please reread the part about where we are being paid to borrow money.
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 03:23 PM:
Quote from Brass:
Right. So don't bother locking your car. If someone wants to steal it, they're going to do it anyway. In fact, why not just streamline the whole mundane process by leaving your keys inside?
Actually the authors of the book Freakonomics point out that locking your house door and locking your car door does not reduce the odds of someone breaking in your home or your car. Thieves steal the cars they WANT, not the cars with the doors unlocked. Same with houses.__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 03:25 PM:
Quote from Ricter:
Please reread the part about where we are being paid to borrow money.
You get paid to "lend" money Ricter, not borrow it. LOL.__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by Brass on 07-25-12 03:30 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
Actually the authors of the book Freakonomics point out that locking your house door and locking your car door does not reduce the odds of someone breaking in your home or your car. Thieves steal the cars they WANT, not the cars with the doors unlocked. Same with houses.
Well, then, I'm convinced. You know what to do. Leave the car unlocked and the keys inside. And if they're going to do it anyway, why bother with ineffectual legislation as well? It's all about streamlining the process so that people can then get on with their day.
Posted by bigarrow on 07-25-12 03:32 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
Actually the authors of the book Freakonomics point out that locking your house door and locking your car door does not reduce the odds of someone breaking in your home or your car. Thieves steal the cars they WANT, not the cars with the doors unlocked. Same with houses.
Do you really believe that crap about locking your doors?
Do you lock your car and house ?__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"
Posted by Ricter on 07-25-12 03:35 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
You get paid to "lend" money Ricter, not borrow it. LOL.
Lol all you want, you are not getting it. Investors are loaning us, e.g., $1000 today and asking, in real effect, for $990 back ten years from now
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 03:35 PM:
Quote from bigarrow:
Do you really believe that crap about locking your doors?
Do you lock your car and house ?
Don't own a car and believe it or not, I don't lock my apartment.
I should point out I live in a doorman building.__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 03:38 PM:
Quote from Brass:
Well, then, I'm convinced. You know what to do. Leave the car unlocked and the keys inside. And if they're going to do it anyway, why bother with ineffectual legislation as well? It's all about streamlining the process so that people can then get on with their day.
Brass, come on now, you are just being difficult. Here is a better analogy, is it better for us to determine on our own if we want to lock our car doors or have the government impose fines on us if we leave our cars unlocked?
Brass, do you support the war on drugs yes or no?__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by Brass on 07-25-12 03:38 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
...I don't lock my apartment.
But you own guns?
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 03:39 PM:
Quote from Brass:
But you own guns?
Never owned a gun in my life.__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 03:43 PM:
Just curious if any of you gun control folks believe in our drug laws. You know the laws we have on the books that are suppose to stop people from using illegal drugs. I eagerly await all the responses from the left.
__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by Brass on 07-25-12 03:45 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
Brass, come on now, you are just being difficult. Here is a better analogy, is it better for us to determine on our own if we want to lock our car doors or have the government impose fines on us if we leave our cars unlocked?
Brass, do you support the war on drugs yes or no?
I will not address that analogy because it is a non sequitur in the context you propose. If you're not willing to make the mental effort to draw a proper parallel with the car analogy, then I won't waste my time either.
As for the war on drugs, yes I support it. However, not in the manner it is being addressed. I don't wish to discuss that particular war, however, because I have already done so repeatedly in the past and have no desire to repeat myself.
Posted by achilles28 on 07-25-12 03:48 PM:
We need more guns, not less. Whether you liberals agree with it or not, it's our 2nd Amendment Right to keep and bear arms. The entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment was written as the final and last check on tyrannical Government. It ain't for hunting, folks.
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 03:50 PM:
Quote from Brass:
I will not address that analogy because it is a non sequitur in the context you propose. If you're not willing to make the mental effort to draw a proper parallel with the car analogy, then I won't waste my time either.
As for the war on drugs, yes I support it. However, not in the manner it is being addressed. I don't wish to discuss that particular war, however, because I have already done so repeatedly in the past and have no desire to repeat myself.
My point about bringing up the war on drugs was to demonstrate that laws cannot stop people from purchasing and using illegal drugs. Sure, it will stop and be effective in trivial cases. The same is true with guns. But if someone REALLY wants a gun and really wants to buy some drugs, no law is going to stop them. The laws are simply making it more profitable for the dealers, both gun and drug.__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by Brass on 07-25-12 03:52 PM:
Quote from achilles28:
We need more guns, not less. Whether you liberals agree with it or not, it's our 2nd Amendment Right to keep and bear arms. The entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment was written as the final and last check on tyrannical Government. It ain't for hunting, folks.
You are clearly the master of parody, because no one can really be that stupid. Very entertaining.
Posted by Brass on 07-25-12 03:56 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
My point about bringing up the war on drugs was to demonstrate that laws cannot stop people from purchasing and using illegal drugs. Sure, it will stop and be effective in trivial cases. The same is true with guns. But if someone REALLY wants a gun and really wants to buy some drugs, no law is going to stop them. The laws are simply making it more profitable for the dealers, both gun and drug.
So if there were no laws, it would all be better? Consider the implications.
Posted by achilles28 on 07-25-12 04:08 PM:
Quote from Brass:
You are clearly the master of parody, because no one can really be that stupid. Very entertaining.
The only idiot around here is you, my friend. The Founders created the richest, most powerful nation the world has ever known. The 2nd Amendment has kept the machinations of despots - foreign and domestic - in check for the past 200 years. Love it or leave it.
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 04:08 PM:
Quote from Brass:
So if there were no laws, it would all be better? Consider the implications.
Come on. Brass...you're being difficult again. Nobody is saying there should not be no laws. We simply need to enforce the laws we have and focus government resources on the "causes" of these events vs going door to door and taking people's ability to protect themselves away from them. Most of the people on the left believe removing all guns will solve the problem even if they know this will never happen. The problem is even that extreme measure would not solve the problem.
Why is it that the left always moves to that extreme? People on the right want NO taxes or NO government or NO regulations. I think we can do with a lot less but certainly we don't need to add any more. Most of us just want a leaner and more effective government.__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by Brass on 07-25-12 04:14 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
...Most of the people on the left believe removing all guns will solve the problem even if they know this will never happen. The problem is even that extreme measure would not solve the problem...
Fine, so why not ban automatic (and perhaps even semi-automatic) weaponry? That will at least prevent or limit the kind of outlying carnage when the wrong people get their hands on such arms. Is that a sufficient compromise? Along with better and more stringent background checks and requirements, and fully functioning and properly funded mental health facilities.
People don't need automatic weapons to protect their homes or for that level-playing-field "sport," hunting. And I sure as hell wouldn't want well-intentioned good samaritans walking around (swaggering?) with automatic weapons.
Sure, it won't get these weapons out of the hands of the wrong people who already own them, but unless you start somewhere, you go nowhere.
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 04:18 PM:
Quote from Brass:
Fine, so why not ban automatic (and perhaps even semi-automatic) weaponry? That will at least prevent or limit the kind of outlying carnage when the wrong people get their hands on such arms. Is that a sufficient compromise? Along with better and more stringent background checks and requirements, and fully functioning and properly funded mental health facilities.
Sure, it won't get these weapons out of the hands of the wrong people who already own them, but unless you start somewhere, you go nowhere.
When I hear the word ban, I see an arm's dealer eyes light up. No need to ban. I have no issue with back ground checks and waiting periods. I also support mandatory sentencing for any crime committed by a gun. I would support mandatory 10 years for any gun crime and mandatory life without parole for any convicted murder who used a gun to kill someone. Now even that will not stop the Holmes of the world, but it would be effective for going after gangs.__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by Brass on 07-25-12 04:24 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
When I hear the word ban, I see an arm's dealer eyes light up...
Right. The last thing you want to try and do is limit access when trying to curtail usage. Sure. So the best way to prevent people from stealing your car is to be sure and leave the keys inside.
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 04:30 PM:
Quote from Brass:
Right. The last thing you want to try and do is limit access when trying to curtail usage. Sure. So the best way to prevent people from stealing your car is to be sure and leave the keys inside.
Oh come on. See why we can't get anywhere in these debates? Brass, are you denying the fact that gangs and the mafia won't seize upon the opportunity to provide the street with guns if you ban them at the retail level? Come on, don't be that obtuse. As far as cars go, yes, the more rare a car is, the higher the value. This is why limited edition cars trade at a premium or old classic cars that actually can increase in value with age!!!!
I actually knew a guy who was a car thief back in the day and he said if a thief wants your car, he'll get it. Locks or alarms are not going to stop him. They take the cars they want, not the cars that are available. Hence why car thieves don't hang out at redneck trailer parks stealing 1985 Ford Escorts that never have their doors locked.__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by achilles28 on 07-25-12 04:33 PM:
Quote from Brass:
Right. The last thing you want to try and do is limit access when trying to curtail usage. Sure. So the best way to prevent people from stealing your car is to be sure and leave the keys inside.
"Banning" doesn't work, retard. Drugs are banned. Prostitution is banned. (Private) gambling, is banned. Handguns are largely banned in most Canadian cities, yet handgun crime is on the rise. How on earth do criminals buy guns, deal drugs, gamble or pimp hookers if all these things are "banned"?!?!?
Boggles the mind, doesn't it!?!?
Posted by Ricter on 07-25-12 04:35 PM:
Quote from achilles28:
"Banning" doesn't work, retard. Drugs are banned. Prostitution is banned. (Private) gambling, is banned. Handguns are largely banned in most Canadian cities, yet handgun crime is on the rise. How on earth do criminals buy guns, deal drugs, gamble or pimp hookers if all these things are "banned"?!?!?
Boggles the mind, doesn't it!?!?
You're not expecting perfection from those bans, are you?
Posted by RCG Trader on 07-25-12 04:38 PM:
Quote from achilles28:
"Banning" doesn't work, retard. Drugs are banned. Prostitution is banned. (Private) gambling, is banned. Handguns are largely banned in most Canadian cities, yet handgun crime is on the rise. How on earth do criminals buy guns, deal drugs, gamble or pimp hookers if all these things are "banned"?!?!?
Boggles the mind, doesn't it!?!?
Not really. Might want to talk with the gun runners and their enablers.
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 04:39 PM:
Quote from Ricter:
You're not expecting perfection from those bans, are you?
Ricter, can I ask you a question. Will you promise to be 100% honest? Please?
Let's say you are a criminal (I know it's a stretch) and you were walking through a nice neighborhood scouting for a house to rob. You come across two huge homes that fit the bill. The home on the left has a sign in their yard that reads "we do not believe in guns or own any". The house on the right has a sign in their yard that reads"we absolutely support the 2nd amendment and this house is armed". Which house are you going to rob all things being equal?__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by Ricter on 07-25-12 04:47 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
Ricter, can I ask you a question. Will you promise to be 100% honest? Please?
Let's say you are a criminal (I know it's a stretch) and you were walking through a nice neighborhood scouting for a house to rob. You come across two huge homes that fit the bill. The home on the left has a sign in their yard that reads "we do not believe in guns or own any". The house on the right has a sign in their yard that reads"we absolutely support the 2nd amendment and this house is armed". Which house are you going to rob all things being equal?
I rob the house with the guns, when the occupants are gone. Guns are valuable on the black market. Don't laugh, I know (knew) guys who do just this.
Of course, guns as equalizers work as you intend to show, and crooks don't look for fair fights. Power differentials can be achieved on both sides, though. If everyone is armed, crooks will seek bigger guns, or different tactics. It's probably cheaper and better all around if we don't give people as much reason to steal, like the more equitable societies do.
Posted by RCG Trader on 07-25-12 04:48 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
Ricter, can I ask you a question. Will you promise to be 100% honest? Please?
Let's say you are a criminal (I know it's a stretch) and you were walking through a nice neighborhood scouting for a house to rob. You come across two huge homes that fit the bill. The home on the left has a sign in their yard that reads "we do not believe in guns or own any". The house on the right has a sign in their yard that reads"we absolutely support the 2nd amendment and this house is armed". Which house are you going to rob all things being equal?
That's funny. It would of course depend on what weapons are being brought to bear, whether there was training, etc, and so forth.
John, are you having a bad day?
Posted by Brass on 07-25-12 04:50 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
Oh come on. See why we can't get anywhere in these debates? Brass, are you denying the fact that gangs and the mafia won't seize upon the opportunity to provide the street with guns if you ban them at the retail level?
You're right. Uzis should be an impulse buy item at the checkout counters at Walmart. That'll limit their use and keep those mafiosos at bay.
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 04:50 PM:
Quote from Ricter:
I rob the house with the guns, when the occupants are gone. Guns are valuable on the black market. Don't laugh, I know (knew) guys who do just this.
Of course, guns as equalizers work as you intend to show, and crooks don't look for fair fights. Power differentials can be achieved on both sides, though. If everyone is armed, crooks will seek bigger guns, or different tactics. It's probably cheaper and better all around if we don't give people as much reason to steal, like the more equitable societies do.
Ha! I knew you would squirm out of this one. I wouldn't go anywhere near a home that is armed. You might "think" someone is not home but you know damn well you would NOT take that chance. Not if there was a huge home next door that is not armed. Don't be silly Ricter.__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by achilles28 on 07-25-12 04:50 PM:
Quote from Ricter:
You're not expecting perfection from those bans, are you?
Please go back and read what I wrote. "Banning" doesn't work. It's not that banning delivers slightly less than perfect, or above average results. IT DOESN'T WORK. Drugs are more plentiful then they've ever been. The sex trade is a hundred billion dollar a year industry. Gambling, even more so. These aren't respectable outcomes. These are abject failures.
Chicago has a total handgun ban, if I'm not mistaken? Should be a utopian paradise by now, according to your logic? Guess not. Well, only if guns were banned throughout America, right? The only snag with that is it's totally unrealistic, unconstitutional, and the confiscation of guns from patriots nationwide would ignite a civil war. Lets ignore the long-term political consequences of that for a moment, and assume you got your wish. All gun ownership was abolished in the UNited Stated. Hooray!
Guess what happens next? Cartels and gangs import guns into the country along with drugs, and now only the police and criminals own guns. The law-abiding citizens are left defenseless against the State, gangs and criminals. Is that what you want?
Posted by RCG Trader on 07-25-12 04:51 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
gangs and the mafia won't seize upon the opportunity to provide the street with guns if you ban them at the retail level?
And just how do these guns get out of the armory and onto the street?
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 04:51 PM:
Quote from RCG Trader:
That's funny. It would of course depend on what weapons are being brought to bear, whether there was training, etc, and so forth.
John, are you having a bad day?
Having a great day! A little bored now though.__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by Ricter on 07-25-12 04:52 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
Ha! I knew you would squirm out of this one. I wouldn't go anywhere near a home that is armed. You might "think" someone is not home but you know damn well you would NOT take that chance. Not if there was a huge home next door that is not armed. Don't be silly Ricter.
You didn't ask me to be a dumb criminal. So, I case the joint.
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 04:53 PM:
Quote from Brass:
You're right. Uzis should be an impulse buy item at the checkout counters at Walmart. That'll limit their use and keep those mafiosos at bay.
See Brass, you are only showing how intellectually dishonest you are. You asked me a fair question earlier about what measures I would support and I told you. No where did I say one should be able to buy guns like that on demand without a waiting period. This is why it really is pointless to argue with a liberal. That's too bad. It only means these problems will never be solved.__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 04:55 PM:
Quote from Ricter:
You didn't ask me to be a dumb criminal. So, I case the joint.
Ricter, that's not very effective with LARGE homes. There is almost always kids at home and you will never know it. And many of them can shoot just fine thanks to dad. You will NOT take that chance. No f*cking way. Don't be stupid.__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by TheBlackHand on 07-25-12 04:55 PM:
Quote from wildchild:
...
The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.
...
[/B]
LOL. I'm sure they werent biased in how they conducted their research! I wonder if they had an agenda?
The research, commissioned by the Turkey's Alliance's Campaign for getting rid of Christmas, has concluded that existing laws are targeting turkey's unfairly, and people should be eating pork or chicken at Christmas
Posted by Ricter on 07-25-12 04:59 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
Ricter, that's not very effective with LARGE homes. There is almost always kids at home and you will never know it. And many of them can shoot just fine thanks to dad. You will NOT take that chance. No f*cking way. Don't be stupid.
Your scenario is fair so far as it goes, which isn't far. As long as people feel the need to steal, you're simply going to get escalation and different tactics.
"For every thousand hacking at the branches there is but one chopping at the root."
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 05:01 PM:
Quote from Ricter:
Your scenario is fair so far as it goes, which isn't far. As long as people feel the need to steal, you're simply going to get escalation and different tactics.
"For every thousand hacking at the branches there is but one chopping at the root."
No need for escalation Ricter. There are more then enough homes in this country that are not armed.__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by Ricter on 07-25-12 05:03 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
No need for escalation Ricter. There are more then enough homes in this country that are not armed.
That's good. On average, escalation is going to kill more bystanders.
Posted by Brass on 07-25-12 05:07 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
See Brass, you are only showing how intellectually dishonest you are. You asked me a fair question earlier about what measures I would support and I told you. No where did I say one should be able to buy guns like that on demand without a waiting period. This is why it really is pointless to argue with a liberal. That's too bad. It only means these problems will never be solved.
The only reason these problems may never be solved is because the NRA is too powerful and politicians risk losing rural and independent voters. There is no need for automatic (and even semi-automatic) weaponry among the citizenry and should therefore be illegal just as certain other military weapons are presently illegal for citizens to own. No difference. Apply the same existing laws presently applying to prohibited weapons, to automatic and semi-automatic weapons. So, no, don't change the law, just broaden the existing one to include those types of weapons that semm to always be present at these outlier events to which you previously referred.
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 05:09 PM:
Quote from Brass:
The only reason these problems may never be solved is because the NRA is too powerful and politicians risk losing rural and independent voters. There is no need for automatic (and even semi-automatic) weaponry among the citizenry and should therefore be illegal just as certain other military weapons are presently illegal for citizens to own. No difference. Apply the same existing laws presently applying to prohibited weapons, to automatic and semi-automatic weapons. So, no, don't change the law, just broaden the existing one.
You can broaden all the laws you want, it won't stop these 10 sigma events from happening.__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by achilles28 on 07-25-12 05:09 PM:
Quote from Brass:
The only reason these problems may never be solved is because the NRA is too powerful and politicians risk losing rural and independent voters. There is no need for automatic (and even semi-automatic) weaponry among the citizenry and should therefore be illegal just as certain other military weapons are presently illegal for citizens to own. No difference. Apply the same existing laws presently applying to prohibited weapons, to automatic and semi-automatic weapons. So, no, don't change the law, just broaden the existing one.
That's bullocks. The Police use semi's and auto's. Therefore, citizens should have access to semi's and auto's. The 2nd Amendment is for defense against the State, you dumbass. That's what the law says, and that's how it was designed. You don't like it? Cry me a fucking river.
Posted by Brass on 07-25-12 05:11 PM:
Quote from achilles28:
That's bullocks. The Police use semi's and auto's. Therefore, citizens should have access to semi's and auto's. The 2nd Amendment is for defense against the State, you dumbass. That's what the law says, and that's how it was designed. You don't like it? Cry me a fucking river.
Really? Well the military has a hell of a lot more in its arsenal. Does that entitle you to the same? If I cry you a river, will you promise to go drown in it?
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-25-12 05:15 PM:
It turns out we didn't need a law to stop Holmes, we just needed his psychiatrist to do his job!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/2...kage-mailed-to/
__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by achilles28 on 07-25-12 05:18 PM:
Quote from Brass:
Really? Well the military has a hell of a lot more in its arsenal. Does that entitle you to the same? If I cry you a river, will you promise to go drown in it?
Another pathetic argument. How many times do you libs throw that red herring out? The Founders intended guns. That was the weapon of the day, that's what they meant, and that's what the Constitution says. Not nukes. Not chemical weapons. Not cluster bombs. Comprehende? Now go cry us that river, nancyboy.
Posted by Brass on 07-25-12 05:23 PM:
Quote from achilles28:
Another pathetic argument. How many times do you libs throw that red herring out? The Founders intended guns. That was the weapon of the day, that's what they meant, and that's what the Constitution says. Not nukes. Not chemical weapons. Not cluster bombs. Comprehende? Now go cry us that river, nancyboy.
Really? You mean they didn't envision nukes, chemical weapons and cluster bombs in the future? Otherwise they would have included it? Because, after all, these are the weapons of the day that the government possesses. How are you going to "protect" yourself from these weapons in order to keep the government in line?
Posted by achilles28 on 07-25-12 05:30 PM:
Quote from Brass:
Really? You mean they didn't envision nukes, chemical weapons and cluster bombs in the future? Otherwise they would have included it? Because, after all, these are the weapons of the day that the government possesses. How are you going to "protect" yourself from these weapons in order to keep the government in line?
Are you a total and complete moron? Seriously. Are you?
The Constitution says guns. The Founders meant guns. It's that simple. That's it. Anything else, Corky?
Posted by Brass on 07-25-12 05:37 PM:
Quote from achilles28:
Are you a total and complete moron? Seriously. Are you?
The Constitution says guns. The Founders meant guns. It's that simple. That's it. Anything else, Corky?
Since these guns are approved by the Second Amendment to protect yourself from the government, and the government NOW has stuff to make your weapons look like pop guns, how are you going to protect yourself from the government in the manner that the framers of the Constitution had intended? Does not the spirit of this outdated law, assuming you need to protect yourself from the government, imply that you should have the same "weapons of the day" so that you can protect yourself from an evil government in an effective way? That's what they intended, isn't it?
Posted by Brass on 07-25-12 05:44 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
It turns out we didn't need a law to stop Holmes, we just needed his psychiatrist to do his job!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/2...kage-mailed-to/
You need to read your own links:
...The source said the package had been in the mailroom since July 12, though another source who confirmed the discovery to FoxNews.com could not say if the package arrived prior to Friday's massacre. It was not clear why it had not been delivered to the psychiatrist. The notebook is now in possession of the FBI, sources told FoxNews.com...
Meanwhile, the automatic nature of the weapons had no bearing on the outlying nature of the carnage, right?
Posted by futurecurrents on 07-26-12 02:52 AM:
Quote from Brass:
You need to read your own links:
...The source said the package had been in the mailroom since July 12, though another source who confirmed the discovery to FoxNews.com could not say if the package arrived prior to Friday's massacre. It was not clear why it had not been delivered to the psychiatrist. The notebook is now in possession of the FBI, sources told FoxNews.com...
Meanwhile, the automatic nature of the weapons had no bearing on the outlying nature of the carnage, right?
If he had been restricted to just a shotgun and rifle, both with limited internal magazines it's likely there would have been fewer casualties.
That being said, there is also a part of me that agrees with the defense against the state argument.
But everyone doesn't need assault weapons. If every citizen had just one rifle the shear numbers alone would create the strength.__________________
The future chaos is determined by the current chaos, in a chaotic manner.
Posted by bigarrow on 07-26-12 04:19 AM:
Quote from achilles28:
Are you a total and complete moron? Seriously. Are you?
The Constitution says guns. The Founders meant guns. It's that simple. That's it. Anything else, Corky?
Really, the constitution says "guns" ?
Could you post where it says that Corky ?__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"
Posted by achilles28 on 07-26-12 09:02 AM:
Quote from bigarrow:
Really, the constitution says "guns" ?
Could you post where it says that Corky ?
What do you think they meant? Your physical arm? You fucking idiot?
Ever read the Federalist Papers? Do you know what "arms" means, moron?
Posted by Trader7793 on 07-26-12 11:15 AM:
Usually when someone argues for the Federal govt to ban semi-automatic "assault" weapons they fail to realize that it is not as simple as it seems to even define them properly. That is why the "1994 Assault weapons ban" used purely cosmetic items to define them. Items such as flash suppressors and pistol grips were used to classify one gun as an "assault weapon" while other guns with the same caliber and capabilites were ignored because they appeared more "sportsman" like.
In addition during the 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban, the US Supreme Court had not ruled that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right. Any bans that came about now would face some very strong court challenges.
The vast majority of murders in the US are committed with handguns and while shootings like the one in Colorado are very sensational, they are not how must victims of gun violence get shot. Ultimatley if the gun control proponents believe that the only way to reduce gun violence on any significant level is to attack the inanimate objects they blame for the carnage...they will have to ban, or drastically reduce civilian ownership of handguns. Despite what they say "Assault Weapons" would only be the beginning. Think about it...if some nut case walks into a mall with two Glock handguns even with reduced 10 round magazines and shoots 20 people and kills like 17 of them...the cries will go out about semi-automatic handguns and how no one needs more than one of them and more than 5 rounds in any one magazine. Once the public has accepted that banning firearms is the key to public safety you could easily be restricted to single shot weapons for hunting and target shooting purposes.
Organizations like the NRA do not exist to support gun control measures...like the left want them to. They exist to protect the 2nd amendment rights of their members and the public. If they were to stop being so strident in their views and actions they would be down to 200,000 members in a few months and other groups such as Gun Owners of America would take over. The NRA's effectiveness is a result of the fact that they do not pussyfoot around and compromise. They are not invincible and can be defeated, but wisely they do not just surrender everytime the gun ban crowd gets on TV and starts whinning about them.
Posted by Tsing Tao on 07-26-12 11:32 AM:
Quote from Brass:
Meanwhile, the automatic nature of the weapons had no bearing on the outlying nature of the carnage, right?
I thought they were semi-automatic, not automatic.
Posted by bigarrow on 07-26-12 11:38 AM:
Quote from achilles28:
What do you think they meant? Your physical arm? You fucking idiot?
Ever read the Federalist Papers? Do you know what "arms" means, moron?
This is your quote
" The Constitution says guns. "
I can tell from your post you are a constitutional expert. And I may of missed where it said guns. Please show me where it says "guns".__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"
Posted by Tsing Tao on 07-26-12 01:07 PM:
Quote from bigarrow:
This is your quote
" The Constitution says guns. "
I can tell from your post you are a constitutional expert. And I may of missed where it said guns. Please show me where it says "guns".
Come on, bigarrow. You know as well as everyone else that "arms" means "guns". If you do not want to concede that simple point, please tell us what "arms" means in your view.
Posted by bigarrow on 07-26-12 01:46 PM:
Quote from Tsing Tao:
Come on, bigarrow. You know as well as everyone else that "arms" means "guns". If you do not want to concede that simple point, please tell us what "arms" means in your view.
Corky was stating as fact the constitution says guns. Corky got excited and made a mistake then throws a fit and curses when the mistake is pointed out.
From the New Oxford American Dictionary
arms - weapons and ammunition; armaments
Wouldn't you agree a well regulated militia probably included cannons and war ships.
Madison understood the meaning of the word guns yet he didn't use that word.
The current opinion of the supreme court says the individual has some rights to own and possess guns. A sawed off shotgun is a gun by anyone's definition yet it's illegal to own today.
What is the courts view of what constitutes a well regulated militia ?__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"
Posted by Tsing Tao on 07-26-12 02:40 PM:
Quote from bigarrow:
Corky was stating as fact the constitution says guns. Corky got excited and made a mistake then throws a fit and curses when the mistake is pointed out.
From the New Oxford American Dictionary
arms - weapons and ammunition; armaments
Wouldn't you agree a well regulated militia probably included cannons and war ships.
Madison understood the meaning of the word guns yet he didn't use that word.
The current opinion of the supreme court says the individual has some rights to own and possess guns. A sawed off shotgun is a gun by anyone's definition yet it's illegal to own today.
What is the courts view of what constitutes a well regulated militia ?
For the court's view, you'll have to refer to the court. For my point, all I'm saying is that the Constitution protects our rights to own and keep firearms. As to your argument with achillies here, my sole point is "arms" in this context for the citizen of the republic means "guns". I think we can agree the forefathers did not intend for individuals to own cannons and warships.
Posted by bigarrow on 07-26-12 03:22 PM:
"I think we can agree the forefathers did not intend for individuals to own cannons and warships."
I don't know if this is true or not.
IMO in the constitution the word "arms" did mean all weapons of war for the militia, not just guns. Which is what this conversation is about. And I'd guess some weapons of war were owned by individuals in colonial times.
__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"
Posted by Tsing Tao on 07-26-12 03:25 PM:
Quote from bigarrow:
"I think we can agree the forefathers did not intend for individuals to own cannons and warships."
I don't know if this is true or not.
IMO in the constitutional the word "arms" did mean all weapons of war for the militia, not just guns. Which is what this conversation is about. And I'd guess some weapons of war were owned by individuals in colonial times.
Oh, come now. Individuals cannot afford, could not afford, could not manage and/or operate weapons of war like ships, etc. I get that you don't want to "give" on this point, but it's just silly now.
The founding fathers were looking for the population to remain armed to protect itself from government. The "arms" that they refer to may have been larger weapons of war for militias, etc. But for the individual, "arms" meant guns. To argue otherwise is just arguing for the sake of arguing.
EDIT:
I know you'll cry "cut and paste" but this read certainly details it better and more succinctly than I could...
http://www.straightdope.com/columns...rms-really-mean
Historically there have been two interpretations of the Second Amendment: the states-rights argument and the individual-rights argument. The states-rights view is that the Second Amendment merely guarantees the states the right to organize militias and citizens the right to join. (Militia here means any armed force raised for the common defense, not just the national guard.) The individual-rights view is that the Second Amendment means what it says: citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. The states-rights view currently prevails in federal case law, but the individual-rights view is probably closer to the framers' intent. A reasonable restatement of the amendment might go something like this: "Since we as a nation have found it necessary to organize citizen militias to defend against tyranny and may be compelled to do so again, and since these militias are necessarily composed of volunteers supplying their own weapons, the right of individuals to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
And then other topics more related to the spirit of the thread...
OK, some gun-control advocates will concede, but that merely means infringed by the federal government. As an article in Mother Jones put it, "The legal precedents are clear: Almost any state or local gun-control action is fine; the Second Amendment does not apply. On the federal level, only laws interfering with state militias are prohibited."
This is a crock. The legal precedents are far from clear. They're also pathetically sparse, suggesting a reluctance on the part of the courts and the legal community generally to deal with the issue. (An enlightening article in the Yale Law Journal a few years ago was titled "The Embarrassing Second Amendment.") In almost every other aspect of law the Bill of Rights has been broadly construed to restrain the states as well as the federal government. Few today would argue that states can abrogate the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. Yet many are prepared to let them gut the second, on the grounds that the framers didn't foresee urban violence on the scale we face now. Maybe they didn't, but so what? Civil-liberties advocates don't accept urban violence as an excuse to curtail other constitutional rights, such as the protection against unlawful search and seizure.
Accepting the Second Amendment at face value doesn't mean you can't regulate gun ownership. No one can argue plausibly that the authors of the Bill of Rights meant to make the authorities powerless to disarm criminals. The framers likely would have objected to a blanket proscription of handguns, which they would have seen as legitimate weapons of self-defense, and arguably they would have opposed a ban on assault rifles, the AK-47 being to today's oppressed what the long rifle was to those of 1776. But local gun registration presents no obvious constitutional problems. Criminals don't register guns, of course; that's the point. Arrest a carful of mopes with guns and no permits and you have a good ipso facto case for throwing the book at them. How much better to approach gun control on a reasonable basis rather than make a religious war out of it.
Posted by bigarrow on 07-26-12 03:29 PM:
On private ownership of battleships. Interesting read.
http://suite101.com/article/patriot...ivateers-a62563
__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"
Posted by CaptainObvious on 07-26-12 03:32 PM:
Quote from Tsing Tao:
Come on, bigarrow. You know as well as everyone else that "arms" means "guns". If you do not want to concede that simple point, please tell us what "arms" means in your view.
Have you not read your leftist manual? Or is is manuel? Anyway, BARE arms in the leftist interpetation is the right to wear short sleeved shirts. Try to keep up with modern day history for christs sake.
Posted by Tsing Tao on 07-26-12 03:35 PM:
Quote from bigarrow:
On private ownership of battleships. Interesting read.
http://suite101.com/article/patriot...ivateers-a62563
There's no question about it, even during the civil war you could argue that the Merrimack and Monitor were privately funded. I'm not disputing anything your link quotes or refers to, nor that privateers were relied on to support war efforts in order to add to an organized force. I'm speaking strictly to the Constitution and the Right to Bear Arms.
Posted by Tsing Tao on 07-26-12 03:36 PM:
Quote from CaptainObvious:
Have you not read your leftist manual? Or is is manuel? Anyway, BARE arms in the leftist interpetation is the right to wear short sleeved shirts. Try to keep up with modern day history for christs sake.
Yes, yes, I understand. I'm trying to have a civil debate on the subject.
Posted by bigarrow on 07-26-12 03:43 PM:
Quote from Tsing Tao:
There's no question about it, even during the civil war you could argue that the Merrimack and Monitor were privately funded. I'm not disputing anything your link quotes or refers to, nor that privateers were relied on to support war efforts in order to add to an organized force. I'm speaking strictly to the Constitution and the Right to Bear Arms.
Good then we're in agreement on something.__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"
Posted by RCG Trader on 07-26-12 03:53 PM:
Quote from CaptainObvious:
Have you not read your leftist manual? Or is is manuel? Anyway, BARE arms in the leftist interpetation is the right to wear short sleeved shirts. Try to keep up with modern day history for christs sake.
Shame shame, asshole
Posted by Tsing Tao on 07-26-12 03:55 PM:
Quote from bigarrow:
Good then we're in agreement on something.
Ah, so it's ok for me to cede points to you, but you won't dare do the same in return, is that it?
I should have known, I guess. Willingness to debate only goes so far as I see your point, but not the other way around.
Posted by RCG Trader on 07-26-12 04:00 PM:
Quote from Tsing Tao:
Ah, so it's ok for me to cede points to you, but you won't dare do the same in return, is that it?
I should have known, I guess. Willingness to debate only goes so far as I see your point, but not the other way around.
Ivan....I like Ivan better, hope you don't mind....
I do not see where the counterpoint was made. Not in your case, but in the counterparty. Sometimes salvos are fired in preparation for the full volley.
Just sayin.
Posted by RCG Trader on 07-26-12 04:01 PM:
Quote from Tsing Tao:
There's no question about it, even during the civil war you could argue that the Merrimack and Monitor were privately funded. I'm not disputing anything your link quotes or refers to, nor that privateers were relied on to support war efforts in order to add to an organized force. I'm speaking strictly to the Constitution and the Right to Bear Arms.
And so, have we actually gone backwards with Citizens United?
Posted by RCG Trader on 07-26-12 04:02 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
You can broaden all the laws you want, it won't stop these 10 sigma events from happening.
And just how do you know this?
Posted by bigarrow on 07-26-12 04:14 PM:
Quote from Tsing Tao:
Ah, so it's ok for me to cede points to you, but you won't dare do the same in return, is that it?
I should have known, I guess. Willingness to debate only goes so far as I see your point, but not the other way around.
I don't know what I'm supposed to cede. Originally the constitution protected the rights of citizens to own all arms, including guns. Now the right is restricted to only some guns.
Edit: in my opinion, I'm not an expert in this field.__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"
Posted by Tsing Tao on 07-26-12 04:20 PM:
Quote from RCG Trader:
Ivan....I like Ivan better, hope you don't mind....
I do not see where the counterpoint was made. Not in your case, but in the counterparty. Sometimes salvos are fired in preparation for the full volley.
Just sayin.
I don't mind Ivan if you prefer that moniker.
I was arguing that the Constitution has two real interpretations for arms- one on the state level (in terms of a militia) and one on the personal level, where "arms" is obviously meant to be "guns" or "firearms". bigarrow pointed out that this could be cannons and warships, etc. I responded that that could be on the militia level, yes, but there's no way the founders would mean "arms" for individuals meant military machinery of any sort.
bigarrow provided a source that detailed how privateers had been used in wars or other military engagements (was an interesting read). These privateers were singular owners of ships and other large scale objects (armed as such, incidentally to protect themselves from pirates, etc) and were hired to supplement military engagements accordingly.
My sole point was the Forefather's intent of the word "arms" in usage to generally mean "guns" on the individual level.
Posted by Tsing Tao on 07-26-12 04:22 PM:
Quote from RCG Trader:
And so, have we actually gone backwards with Citizens United?
Please clarify which Citizens United object you are referring to.
Posted by RCG Trader on 07-26-12 04:24 PM:
Quote from Tsing Tao:
I don't mind Ivan if you prefer that moniker.
I was arguing that the Constitution has two real interpretations for arms- one on the state level (in terms of a militia) and one on the personal level, where "arms" is obviously meant to be "guns" or "firearms". bigarrow pointed out that this could be cannons and warships, etc. I responded that that could be on the militia level, yes, but there's no way the founders would mean "arms" for individuals meant military machinery of any sort.
bigarrow provided a source that detailed how privateers had been used in wars or other military engagements (was an interesting read). These privateers were singular owners of ships and other large scale objects (armed as such, incidentally to protect themselves from pirates, etc) and were hired to supplement military engagements accordingly.
My sole point was the Forefather's intent of the word "arms" in usage to generally mean "guns" on the individual level.
I agree with this. The right to bear arms I think was constructed just in case the Redcoats came back into town. Citizens would need a way to fight house by house at the front, and as word spread, towns would need to readily form militias. I think the founders also felt that British money could touch the infant government and possibly turn them, so the citizens needed to be ready for that too.
Posted by RCG Trader on 07-26-12 04:25 PM:
Quote from Tsing Tao:
Please clarify which Citizens United object you are referring to.
The GOP one, of course.
Posted by Brass on 07-26-12 04:27 PM:
Quote from achilles28:
What do you think they meant? Your physical arm? You fucking idiot?
Ever read the Federalist Papers? Do you know what "arms" means, moron?
http://www.answers.com/topic/arms-7
"Arms" is an all-encompassing term.
Besides, you still didn't answer my question:
Quote from Brass:
Since these guns are approved by the Second Amendment to protect yourself from the government, and the government NOW has stuff to make your weapons look like pop guns, how are you going to protect yourself from the government in the manner that the framers of the Constitution had intended? Does not the spirit of this outdated law, assuming you need to protect yourself from the government, imply that you should have the same "weapons of the day" so that you can protect yourself from an evil government in an effective way? That's what they intended, isn't it?
Posted by Brass on 07-26-12 04:33 PM:
Quote from Tsing Tao:
I thought they were semi-automatic, not automatic.
If you refer to my few preceding posts, you will note that I referred to both automatic and semi-automatic weapons in the general discussion about weapon ownership, and that I don't think either should be in civilian hands for the simple reason that they are not needed to protect one's home, or for that level-playing-field "sport," hunting. In any event, I understand that one of the perp's weapons was capable of firing a hundred rounds in one minute. And you will note that "semi-automatic" has something of an "automatic" nature to it by definition.
Posted by Tsing Tao on 07-26-12 05:04 PM:
Quote from Brass:
If you refer to my few preceding posts, you will note that I referred to both automatic and semi-automatic weapons in the general discussion about weapon ownership, and that I don't think either should be in civilian hands for the simple reason that they are not needed to protect one's home, or for that level-playing-field "sport," hunting. In any event, I understand that one of the perp's weapons was capable of firing a hundred rounds in one minute. And you will note that "semi-automatic" has something of an "automatic" nature to it by definition.
So just so I understand your point, and I apologize if you're repeating yourself. You think that semi-automatic and automatic weapons should not be in the hands of civilians for the reason that they are not needed to protect one's home.
Ok, your opinion is noted. I would agree that automatic weapons are not needed to protect one's home. But semi-automatic weapons are just about everything I can think of in the world of firearms except maybe a shotgun or bolt-action rifle. So you're really saying guns should not be in the hands of civilians, right?
Or do you agree with shotguns for home defense?
Posted by Brass on 07-26-12 05:45 PM:
Quote from Tsing Tao:
...Ok, your opinion is noted. I would agree that automatic weapons are not needed to protect one's home. But semi-automatic weapons are just about everything I can think of in the world of firearms except maybe a shotgun or bolt-action rifle. So you're really saying guns should not be in the hands of civilians, right?
Or do you agree with shotguns for home defense?
There are revolvers, as well. I don't think they're semi-automatic. You know I'm anti-gun, so my opinion will register on the more extreme side of control. I'm not suggesting it will ever go that way, that's just my view of how it ought to be. However, in my eyes, to the extent that some semi-automatic weaponry can be modified to full auto, it's an outlier event just waiting to happen.
I'm still waiting to hear from achilles, who seems to think that the Second Amendment necessarily only refers to hand guns and rifles in its use of the word "arms." As I noted earlier, along with a link to a proper definition, "arms" is an all-inclusive term and is not limited to hand guns and rifles. Surely he's heard of the term "arm's race," and I doubt he thinks it means a bunch of guys seeing how fast they can run while carrying rifles and pistols.
And, in his defense of the validity of the Second Amendment in the present day, achilles appears to not yet have had time to address another post I wrote yesterday:
Quote from Brass:
Since these guns are approved by the Second Amendment to protect yourself from the government, and the government NOW has stuff to make your weapons look like pop guns, how are you going to protect yourself from the government in the manner that the framers of the Constitution had intended? Does not the spirit of this outdated law, assuming you need to protect yourself from the government, imply that you should have the same "weapons of the day" so that you can protect yourself from an evil government in an effective way? That's what they intended, isn't it?
So as I imagine you can infer, it would appear that the spirit of the Second Amendment has run its course and is now little more than a relic of the past used as an excuse for people who actually want guns for other reasons than those actually intended by the Amendment. With any luck, achilles will find a moment to collect and share his thoughts.
Posted by PiggyBank on 07-26-12 05:59 PM:
Quote from Brass:
Since these guns are approved by the Second Amendment to protect yourself from the government, and the government NOW has stuff to make your weapons look like pop guns, how are you going to protect yourself from the government in the manner that the framers of the Constitution had intended? Does not the spirit of this outdated law, assuming you need to protect yourself from the government, imply that you should have the same "weapons of the day" so that you can protect yourself from an evil government in an effective way? That's what they intended, isn't it?
You don't need the same weapons. the whole point is having a means to fight back. Firearms make all men equal. Let's just say our leadership decided to get all totalitarian on us, what are they going to do? Are they gonna use military fighters and tanks to kill there own people and destroy infrastructure? Nothing would be accomplished except total destruction. Nope, they are will go door to door like we do/did in Iraq/Afghanistan. We could have never set a boot on the ground in either country and just bombed them to dust and we would eventually have gotten everyone we wanted to.. but no one would accept that. So our troops have to risk their lives fighting on the ground against armed guys. they are just guys with guns and they have stuck around for a decade. Get it?
By the way, the military is sworn to uphold the Constitution, there is no doubt that the founders intended for the population to be armed. the point being confiscation will never happen in the USA without bloodshed. Remember, we already had a civil war.
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
-- James Madison, The Federalist Papers
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."
-- Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840
Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.
-- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.
Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. [...] To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.
-- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment
Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788
"The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788
That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms...
-- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
-- Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942
The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
-- Henry St. George Tucker (in Blackstone's Commentaries)
Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.
-- Edward Abbey, "Abbey's Road", 1979
Every American would sleep in uncontested peace at night with a full auto at their bedside.
-- me, 2012
The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.
-- Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5
read the rest, it is damn hard to miss the underlying concept. http://catb.org/~esr/fortunes/rkba.html
Posted by Brass on 07-26-12 06:04 PM:
Quote from PiggyBank:
...Firearms make all men equal...
Unequal firearms necessarily make them unequal, all else being equal.
Posted by PiggyBank on 07-26-12 06:28 PM:
Quote from Brass:
Unequal firearms necessarily make them unequal, all else being equal.
Guess you didn't have time to read the whole post. I'll try to make this short.. if every private citizen is armed the only way to disarm them would be to wage war, instead of conquest you would have annihilation. What would be gained? Who would support that?
I would stake my life, literally, on the military, at least partially, not backing the wannabe dictator(s) the day confiscation was ordered. The second amendment is LAW.
Posted by Brass on 07-26-12 06:39 PM:
You really believe a First World nation, and the world's remaining super power, with fully democratic elections to choose its leaders, will come looking for you under a dictatorial regime?
http://www.answers.com/topic/paranoid-schizophrenia
I trust your canned bean stores are sufficient for the inevitable.
Posted by murray t turtle on 07-26-12 06:40 PM:
Quote from futurecurrents:
===========
Derivatives currents;
great NRA ad, LOL On a more serious note;I am NRA life, JPFO helper.{Jews For Possession of Fireqarms Ownership}
But i dont go to Safeway Store.
My eyes dont look goofy like that cartoon also. But good question on ammo volume My banker Dad[not JPM, not C, not BAC,, not LEH, he was a community banker... bought shotgun shells by the case-Amen.
Thank God & his son Jesus, we still can buy single shot muzzloaders, thru the mail. Thats how we won in 1776. I like Leupold scope 2X7 & semi auto 30-06, 12 guage remington myself...__________________
murray t turtle,nickname,not an alias
Posted by PiggyBank on 07-26-12 07:08 PM:
Quote from Brass:
You really believe a First World nation, and the world's remaining super power, with fully democratic elections to choose its leaders, will come looking for you under a dictatorial regime?
http://www.answers.com/topic/paranoid-schizophrenia
I trust your canned bean stores are sufficient for the inevitable.
No I think they will be like.. barack obama, and Bush to a degree. Slow erosion of freedom through redistribution of wealth agenda, increased federal control over the individual in the name of public 'good'. Like health insurance mandates, NYC's ban on big softdrinks (lol), patriot act, fucking over the debt holders at GM etc., unsustainable entitlement programs, and lets not forget increased gun regulation. But if they push too far, they might just get pushed back.. by armed citizens.
A timeless piece of wisdom = the second amendment of the US Constitution. Armed individuals are safe individuals.
Most of those quotes were written by the founding fathers, guess they were all paranoid schizos as well. Just more nonsense from you, but I expect nothing more.
Posted by Brass on 07-26-12 07:14 PM:
Quote from PiggyBank:
No I think they will be like.. barack obama, and Bush to a degree. Slow erosion of freedom through redistribution of wealth agenda, increased federal control over the individual in the name of public 'good'. Like health insurance mandates, NYC's ban on big softdrinks (lol), patriot act, fucking over the debt holders at GM etc., unsustainable entitlement programs, and lets not forget increased gun regulation. But if they push too far, they might just get pushed back.. by armed citizens...
Really? So what are you going to do, go out into the streets with your gun? Wait to ambush them when they break down your door? Is that it?
Posted by Brass on 07-26-12 07:17 PM:
Quote from PiggyBank:
...Most of those quotes were written by the founding fathers, guess they were all paranoid schizos as well. Just more nonsense from you, but I expect nothing more.
That was at a time when the US was an experiment in the frontier rather than the leading First World country that it is today. That was then. This is now. Context. And just so you don't think these gents were infallible, the original Constitution permitted slavery, what with assigning fractional worth to certain people. Try to get your head out of your...past.
Posted by PiggyBank on 07-26-12 07:35 PM:
Quote from Brass:
That was at a time when the US was an experiment in the frontier rather than a First World country. That was then. This is now. Context. And just so you don't think these gents were infallible, the original Constitution permitted slavery, what with assigning fractional worth to certain people. Try to get your head out of your...past.
Those gents were the founders of the country, and the Constitution that they wrote is the supreme law here. I don't think they were infallible but their experiment was undoubtedly a success. It was based mostly on the liberty of the individual, and it worked better than everything else, which is why America achieved its present status. Now we have mostly abandoned those ways and the country is going downhill. So in full context, their society was better than those of the European Monarchs of the past.. and the European socialists of the present.
Posted by Lucrum on 07-29-12 06:21 PM:
Quote from futurecurrents:
No, that it's time to stand up to the gun nuts and demand common sense regulations on guns.
We already have common sense regulations on guns in addition to many many absolutely stupid even worthless gun regulations.
Posted by Lucrum on 07-29-12 06:27 PM:
Quote from bigarrow:
....And making guns harder to get for people like Holmes is more gun control.
Like a background check? Whats a background check going to turn up on a college student with no criminal history? Maybe you think Holmes would have admitted on his application that he plans a mass shooting?
Posted by RCG Trader on 07-29-12 06:31 PM:
Quote from Lucrum:
Like a background check? Whats a background check going to turn up on a college student with no criminal history? Maybe you think Holmes would have admitted on his application that he plans a mass shooting?
No, like maybe going after those people that make these kinds of weapons available on the streets.
Posted by Lucrum on 07-29-12 06:38 PM:
Quote from achilles28:
We need more guns, not less. Whether you liberals agree with it or not, it's our 2nd Amendment Right to keep and bear arms. The entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment was written as the final and last check on tyrannical Government. It ain't for hunting, folks.
AND the 2nd amendment guarantees this right (not privilege) ,"shall not be infringed."
Posted by Lucrum on 07-29-12 06:39 PM:
Quote from RCG Trader:
No, like maybe going after those people that make these kinds of weapons available on the streets.
Like Eric Holder and the BATF?
What "kinds" of weapons aren't supposed to be available "on the streets"?
Posted by Max E. Pad on 07-29-12 06:43 PM:
LOL yeah im sure Obama will get right on that......
Quote from Lucrum:
Like Eric Holder and the ATF?
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-29-12 06:50 PM:
Quote from Lucrum:
Like Eric Holder and the BATF?
What "kinds" of weapons aren't supposed to be available "on the streets"?
Welcome back Luke!
Let me get you caught up here. Ron thinks there is a conspiracy in which the federal government intentionally is dealing guns into black neighborhoods so they will all shoot themselves. Why? Well, obviously because the government hates black people of course. LOL.
He also believes the government intentionally created the AIDS virus to inject into the black community. You know, because they hate black people.
Of course what I don't understand is since most the people in government ARE black and at least half are democrats, why is Ron supporting a democratic party and government that wants to kill his own people? LOL. Deep thoughts I know.
Of course this doesn't explain all the guns in the Latino community. Or all the guns in the white militia movement. But hey, who said conspiracy theories are suppose to make sense!__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by Lucrum on 07-29-12 06:54 PM:
Quote from Brass:
There are revolvers, as well. I don't think they're semi-automatic....
They're not, but some in the right hands can be fired just as quickly as a semi auto. I've seen it. So is it the rate of fire or magazine capacity that has you pissing your pinko panties Gabby?
Posted by Lucrum on 07-29-12 06:58 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
Welcome back Luke!
Let me get you caught up here. Ron thinks there is a conspiracy in which the federal government intentionally is dealing guns into black neighborhoods so they will all shoot themselves. Why? Well, obviously because the government hates black people of course. LOL.
He also believes the government intentionally created the AIDS virus to inject into the black community. You know, because they hate black people.
Of course what I don't understand is since most the people in government ARE black and at least half are democrats, why is Ron supporting a democratic party and government that wants to kill his own people? LOL. Deep thoughts I know.
Of course this doesn't explain all the guns in the Latino community. Or all the guns in the white militia movement. But hey, who said conspiracy theories are suppose to make sense!
A liar and a conspiracy nut? Or maybe it's his inherent compulsive lying and dishonesty that won't let him acknowledge the black communities problems are their own fault, along with the democraps he so vehemently supports?
Posted by Max E. Pad on 07-29-12 06:59 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
Of course this doesn't explain all the guns in the Latino community. Or all the guns in the white militia movement. But hey, who said conspiracy theories are suppose to make sense!
It also doesnt explain the overall violence in the black communities, i mean id like to think that if the government just showed up on my street one day with a crate full of guns,that my neighbors and i would be able resist the temptation to just open fire on each other for no reason....
Posted by RCG Trader on 07-29-12 07:01 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
Welcome back Luke!
Let me get you caught up here. Ron thinks there is a conspiracy in which the federal government intentionally is dealing guns into black neighborhoods so they will all shoot themselves. Why? Well, obviously because the government hates black people of course. LOL.
He also believes the government intentionally created the AIDS virus to inject into the black community. You know, because they hate black people.
Of course what I don't understand is since most the people in government ARE black and at least half are democrats, why is Ron supporting a democratic party and government that wants to kill his own people? LOL. Deep thoughts I know.
Of course this doesn't explain all the guns in the Latino community. Or all the guns in the white militia movement. But hey, who said conspiracy theories are suppose to make sense!
Thank you John for finally outing yourself as the right wing conspiracy nut that you are. I am thankful that I was warned and decided to investigate.
Keep drawing those lines upstairs, John, maybe you will actually be profitable one of these days.
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-29-12 07:02 PM:
Quote from RCG Trader:
Thank you John for finally outing yourself as the right wing conspiracy nut that you are. I am thankful that I was warned and decided to investigate.
Keep drawing those lines upstairs, John, maybe you will actually be profitable one of these days.
Ron, these are YOUR conspiracy theories, not mine. I don't believe in ANY conspiracies on the right or the left. You have gone into great detail explaining yours. I'm just re-quoting you. Nice try Ron.__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by RCG Trader on 07-29-12 07:07 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
Ron, these are YOUR conspiracy theories, not mine. I don't believe in ANY conspiracies on the right or the left. You have gone into great detail explaining yours. I'm just re-quoting you. Nice try Ron.
I have said nothing about AIDS or the other shit you spew. You are simply delusional. This comes from excessive isolation. You need to get out more. Then you may find out Peoria is not a suburb of Chicago
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-29-12 07:13 PM:
Quote from RCG Trader:
I have said nothing about AIDS or the other shit you spew. You are simply delusional. This comes from excessive isolation. You need to get out more. Then you may find out Peoria is not a suburb of Chicago
Ron you went into details about how the CIA is trying to destroy the black community through guns and drugs. That is why you keep posting "and who is supplying them with guns" over and over. You believe in all this shit. As well as the new world order crap. You are a conspiracy nut. I don't believe in any of that crap. I believe in the lone gun man. I believe there wasn't shit in Roswell, NM in 1947, we landed on the moon and 9/11 was NOT an inside job. Believe me, the right has plenty of conspiracy theories as well. I don't believe in any of them. So calling me a conspiracy nut is, well, ridiculous.__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-29-12 07:14 PM:
Quote from RCG Trader:
I have said nothing about AIDS or the other shit you spew. You are simply delusional. This comes from excessive isolation. You need to get out more. Then you may find out Peoria is not a suburb of Chicago
You live in the sticks. I live in a city of 3 million people and "I" need to get out more? LOL.__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by Lucrum on 07-29-12 07:18 PM:
Quote from RCG Trader:
....This comes from excessive isolation....
You mean like being relegated to third shift in a small town hospital?
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-29-12 07:19 PM:
Quote from Lucrum:
You mean like being relegated to third shift in a small town hospital?
That's going to leave a mark. __________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by RCG Trader on 07-29-12 07:23 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
You live in the sticks. I live in a city of 3 million people and "I" need to get out more? LOL.
You thought that Peoria was a suburb of Chicago. Simply put, you do not know where the hell you live. What good is it to live in Chicago when you do not go anywhere?
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-29-12 07:27 PM:
Quote from RCG Trader:
You thought that Peoria was a suburb of Chicago. Simply put, you do not know where the hell you live. What good is it to live in Chicago when you do not go anywhere?
WTF would I ever go to Peoria? I go to NY, FL and CA when I want to travel, not Peoria. Come on Ron, even you are embarrassed you live in Peoria. LOL.__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by RCG Trader on 07-29-12 07:31 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
WTF would I ever go to Peoria? I go to NY, FL and CA when I want to travel, not Peoria. Come on Ron, even you are embarrassed you live in Peoria. LOL.
Again, you do not know the basic geography of your state. You need to get out more, might do your mental health some good.
Posted by Maverick74 on 07-29-12 07:33 PM:
Quote from RCG Trader:
Again, you do not know the basic geography of your state. You need to get out more, might do your mental health some good.
You didn't answer my question. Why would I EVER want to go to Peoria? You live in the sticks Ron. You can obfuscate all you want, but that is where you live. Keep trying to attack me with ad hominem, you still live in the sticks.__________________
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Rick Blaine
Posted by Lucrum on 07-29-12 07:34 PM:
Quote from Maverick74:
WTF would I ever go to Peoria? ....
I've been there many times, you're not missing anything.
Posted by Lucrum on 07-29-12 07:57 PM:
Quote from RCG Trader:
I have said nothing about AIDS or the other shit you spew. You are simply delusional...
Quote from RCG Trader:
07-24-12 01:44 AM
Part of the plan, dump a lot of guns and a lot of drugs into an economically depressed area and watch em kill each other. This is SOP around the globe.
Posted by Lucrum on 07-29-12 08:20 PM:
Quote from bigarrow:
...A sawed off shotgun is a gun by anyone's definition yet it's illegal to own today.
Not necessarily, it depends on the length. I own a legal sawed off shotgun.
Posted by Lucrum on 07-29-12 08:22 PM:
Quote from bigarrow:
... Almost everyone is for some gun control, the disagreement is the degree of gun control.
Myth: Most Americans favor gun control
Fact: Few “surveys” conducted in this country on the subject of gun control are unbiased. Professional survey designers have criticized both Harris and Gallup gun surveys for their construction – that the surveys have been designed to reach a desired conclusion.
Poll: Cause of Gun Volence
The way parents raise their children
45%
Popular culture
26%
Availability of guns
21%
Other
6%
No opinion
2%
Fact: Americans believe that parents and popular culture are more responsible for violence in America than firearms.
Fact: 52% of Americans in 2006 did not believe more gun control is needed.
Fact: Only 39% believe stricter gun control is needed, down from 43% in an earlier poll
Fact: A 1999 survey by CBS (hardly a pro gun organization) found these responses:
• Only 14% of Americans believe that gun control can prevent violence with guns.
• 56% of people said enforcement of existing laws is the better way to reduce violent crime than new gun control laws.
• Only 4% said gun control should be a top issue for the government.
Fact: A well-constructed survey by Time Magazine showed some interesting results. From 33,202 adult Americans surveyed in 1998:
Should the U.S. have stricter gun control laws?
Yes 6.73%
No 92.25%
Do you believe that allowing people to carry concealed weapons reduces crime?
Yes 92.22%
No 7.76%
Do you believe that U.S. cities should sue gun manufacturers to recoup money spent dealing with gun-related crime?
Yes 1.96%
No 98.01%
How would you rate the effectiveness of the Brady Bill and the “assault weapons” ban in preventing the illegal use and distribution of guns?
0.52% Very effective
3.79% Somewhat effective
6.19% Somewhat ineffective
87.27% Not at all effective
2.23% Don't know
ADOLF HITLER
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”
Posted by Lucrum on 07-29-12 08:39 PM:
Quote from Brass:
Really? You mean they didn't envision nukes, chemical weapons and cluster bombs in the future? Otherwise they would have included it? Because, after all, these are the weapons of the day that the government possesses. How are you going to "protect" yourself from these weapons in order to keep the government in line?
You think the government will nuke it's own country?
Despite our massive technological advantage in Vietnam, we still lost the war.
Same situation with the Soviets in Afghanistan.
You "argument" is without merit and is not corroborated by history.
Posted by Spike Trader on 07-29-12 08:47 PM:
Quote from Lucrum:
Fact: 52% of Americans in 2006 did not believe more gun control is needed.
So why do you keep calling the 50+ % of people who voted for Obama '' sheeple'' . . huh ?
Posted by Lucrum on 07-29-12 08:54 PM:
Quote from Brass:
...Meanwhile, the automatic nature of the weapons had no bearing on the outlying nature of the carnage, right?
RIGHT!
Myth: High capacity guns lead to more deadly shootings
Fact: Much of this myth comes from the fact that the general availability of high-capacity handguns briefly preceded the rise in the crack cocaine trade, which brought a new kind of violence in local drug wars.
Fact: The number of shots fired by criminals has not changed significantly even with the increased capacity of handguns and other firearms. Indeed, the number of shots from revolvers (all with a 6-8 round capacity) and semi-automatics were about the same – 2.04 vs. 2.53.409 In a crime or gun battle, there is seldom time or need to shoot more.
Fact: Fatal criminal shootings declined from 4.3% to 3.3% from 1974 through 1995, when ownership of semi-automatics and large capacity handguns were rising at their fastest rate.410 Fatal shootings of police officers declined sharply from 1988 through 1993.
Fact: Drug dealers tend to be “more deliberate in their efforts to kill their victims by shooting them multiple times.”
Posted by Lucrum on 07-29-12 08:58 PM:
Quote from Spiker:
So why do you keep calling the 50+ % of people who voted for Obama '' sheeple'' . . huh ?
Because I'm referring to the OTHER 50%, you moron.
Posted by Eight on 07-29-12 09:49 PM:
It's just election year, right? Lots of pols posing as anti-gun nuts to grab a few votes later on.. I do worry though, the government that is big enough to give us everything is big enough to take away everything according to TJ and I believe that is the plan. The first part is done and the second part is halfway done already maybe...
Posted by futurecurrents on 07-29-12 09:52 PM:
Quote from Eight:
It's just election year, right? Lots of pols posing as anti-gun nuts to grab a few votes later on.. I do worry though, the government that is big enough to give us everything is big enough to take away everything according to TJ and I believe that is the plan. The first part is done and the second part is halfway done already maybe...
Yes, and pigs fly and they're plotting to bomb us.__________________
The future chaos is determined by the current chaos, in a chaotic manner.
Posted by Lucrum on 07-29-12 10:54 PM:
Quote from futurecurrents:
Yes, and pigs fly and they're plotting to bomb us.
Are you blowing your gay brother as you type this?
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:04 AM.