RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives?

RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Yachtie -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 8:27:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: This is what the NRA is trying to The NRA has nothing to do with defending the Second Amendment. The NRA has nothing to do with sensible gun ownership. The NRA is about opposing ANY firearm restriction whatsoever What part of ... shall not be infringed do you not comprehend? What part of "a well-regulated militia" do you not comprehend? Back to that are you? Face it. You just want guns outlawed. By whatever means your ends are justified.

Musicmystery -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 8:30:02 AM)
You start it, now I'm "back to it." Revisiting grade school is so much fun. [8\|] Yep. That's it, Sparky. I want all the guns outlawed, melted in a big pile, all the owners executed, criminals allowed to go anywhere they wish, and for America to become an Islamic state. Did I leave anything out? Get back to me when this resembles a discussion.

Yachtie -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 8:32:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery You start it, now I'm "back to it." Revisiting grade school is so much fun. [8\|] Yep. That's it, Sparky. I want all the guns outlawed, melted in a big pile, all the owners executed, criminals allowed to go anywhere they wish, and for America to become an Islamic state. Did I leave anything out? Get back to me when this resembles a discussion. There is no rational discussion with people such as you. That is what the pro-gun side understands.

Musicmystery -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 8:34:02 AM)
Uh-huh. Not when you spend all your time inventing my positions. What other outcome would you expect? I'm not needed when you're covering both sides in your own version.

Nosathro -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 8:38:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: This is what the NRA is trying to The NRA has nothing to do with defending the Second Amendment. The NRA has nothing to do with sensible gun ownership. The NRA is about opposing ANY firearm restriction whatsoever and promoting guns in places they otherwise aren't, in both cases to promote increased gun and ammo sales. People complain about corporate influence, but remain blissfully blind to direct NRA manipulation. They consistently use the threat where there isn't one to create stockpiling. Used to be 1 in 2 Americans owned a gun. Now one in three does, but total guns is way up. It's about selling guns and ammo, as much as possible, and to do that, they need threats--including allowing armed people to invade your own property, so that you'll need defense. NRA has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, really??[:D] http://www.nraila.org/

Musicmystery -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 8:44:04 AM)
quote: NRA has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, really? Kinda like Reagan and Bush were about fiscal responsibility.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 8:58:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam It is the comercial aspect. As for a car being property, there is a difference between personal property, (car for example and typically portable) and real property (land which is not portable). I still make no distinction between residential and commercial property. If someone wishes to carry and doesnt like the fact that a property owner wishes to disallow firearms, they can shop or work someplace else. Isn't that what the Far Right conservatives say when supporting an employers so called right to not supply health care or something similar? "You don't like it, go work for someone else" is what they say. Then, they turn right around and say "You don't have a right to say what does and does not occur on your own property" Owning a firearm is a second amendment right. Carrying it is a privelege. If it weren't, a permit wouldn't be required. Are you not pointing to one right of exclusion while, on the other hand, often decrying other exclusion(s) on the other? Now, I'm just going to use your own tactics against you here. Under your rubric here, one can exclude based upon race, sex, or religion within a commercial venue, you stating I still make no distinction between residential and commercial property. Owning a firearm is a second amendment right. Carrying it is a privelege. If it weren't, a permit wouldn't be required. How so? People carried well prior to any establishment of such as privilege. Please justify your statement in light of Vermont. As per the civil rights act of '68, you can only exclude based on sex, race and religion in residential properties of 4 or fewer units or religious institutions. As for carrying being a privelege, Ive never been to Vermont so what are you speaking of. I'm licensed. I haven't gone armed in public since I quit working in garden spots such as Overtown and Liberty City a couple of decades ago. If someone says "no guns" on their property, that is their right to decide what does and does not happen on their property. My example of health care vs carry 'rights' was to show the hypocricy of the so called "Conservatives". Whatever happened to minimal government interference in business? (this USED to be a conservative value) It seems that the Right only touts noninterference in business when it serves their purpose these days. How can these people claim to follow those values when they wish to violate the property rights of business owners? Yes, carrying is a privelege as it can be revoked for relatively minor offenses or in some cases, things that are not even illegal. For instance, here in TN, if you enter an alcohol treatment program even voluntarily, you can lose your permit for CC. You may still own firearms at home but you cant carry concealed.

Yachtie -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 9:21:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam As per the civil rights act of '68, you can only exclude based on sex, race and religion in residential properties of 4 or fewer units or religious institutions. Such property is commercial in nature to its whole, notwithstanding the private residential aspect to each separate unit.

Real0ne -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 9:28:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery You start it, now I'm "back to it." Revisiting grade school is so much fun. [8\|] Yep. That's it, Sparky. I want all the guns outlawed, melted in a big pile, all the owners executed, criminals allowed to go anywhere they wish, and for America to become an Islamic state. Did I leave anything out? Get back to me when this resembles a discussion. amputation of all arms and legs to insure no person can injure another

Real0ne -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 9:34:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam As per the civil rights act of '68, you can only exclude based on sex, race and religion in residential properties of 4 or fewer units or religious institutions. Such property is commercial in nature to its whole, notwithstanding the private residential aspect to each separate unit. residential is quasi commercial too. Even domicile Doesnt matter where you go in this fucking english law there is no remedy, no choice but to bed over and take it. Just like pre revolution they made their umbrella and by "prescription" and because they claim tpo be sovereign, (which they are not since entering into commerce) make presumptions in law in favor of the gubafia many of which "technically" are in violation of strict due process procedure. res = thing ident = identified the gubafia creates an interest by creating a "title".... Deram Records Producer: Tony Clarke Cover painting: Phil Travers In The Beginning (Graeme Edge) First Man: I think, I think I am, therefore I am, I think. Establishment: Of course you are my bright little star, I've miles And miles Of files Pretty files of your forefather's fruit and now to suit our great computer, You're magnetic ink. First Man: I'm more than that, I know I am, at least, I think I must be. Inner Man: There you go man, keep as cool as you can. Face piles And piles Of trials With smiles. It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave And keep on thinking free. they even sing about it but no one listens to the music any more than they get what many movies are trying to convey

Hillwilliam -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 10:26:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam As per the civil rights act of '68, you can only exclude based on sex, race and religion in residential properties of 4 or fewer units or religious institutions. Such property is commercial in nature to its whole, notwithstanding the private residential aspect to each separate unit. 4 or fewer units is considered SFR private residential. this makes an interesting investment opportunity for some folks. Purchase a 4-plex, live in one unit. As it doesnt come under non discrimination laws, you can pick your tenants and the coolest part is that if you use it as your primary residence for at least 2 years, you can sell it and any profit is not subject to Cap Gains because its just like selling your own home.

mtcouple -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 1:00:08 PM)
[/quote] My lack of knowledge of her ability, OR LACK THEREOF...given the odds, means that yes, it fucking sucks that she lost loved ones but the odds have it that there is a good chance, if she'd been shooting back, more innocent people might also have died. [/quote] Given what odds? The ones you made up? I could say that odds are if she had her gun, a lot more people would have survived, and my version has just as much to back it up as yours does. Ms Hupp knows a whole lot more about her level of training than you do. She was there, and saw what opportunity she had to stop the shooting. If she says that she could have stopped the shooting, I'm going to take her word over someone who knows absolutely nothing about Ms Hupp. I have considered getting my CC license. However, I know that currently, I have neither the time nor money to get the training that I would need to comfortably take on that responsibility. I could easily get the training that you are required by law to take, but in my opinion, that is not enough. Eventually, I will get that training, and get the license.

mtcouple -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 1:11:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery What part of "a well-regulated militia" do you not comprehend? Maybe you would be best not to comment on concepts that you yourself are completely lost on. You have to read the constitution according to the language of the time it was written, when "well regulated" and "militia" had very different meanings than they do today. Try changing out the term "a well regulated militia" with "a practiced and prepared armed populace" for a modern day translation. Jefferson and Madison both wrote in depth about the 2nd amendment stating that it was a personal right, and that it should never be construed to allow the government to take our guns away. The supreme court, on a number of occasions, several recently, have affirmed that the 2nd is a personal right, not a call for a national guard.

mtcouple -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 1:15:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery The NRA has nothing to do with defending the Second Amendment. The NRA has nothing to do with sensible gun ownership. The NRA is all about sensible gun ownership. What they are not for however, is sensible gun ownership as defined by the brady campaign, like it seems that you would prefer.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 1:27:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mtcouple quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery The NRA has nothing to do with defending the Second Amendment. The NRA has nothing to do with sensible gun ownership. The NRA is all about sensible gun ownership. What they are not for however, is sensible gun ownership as defined by the brady campaign, like it seems that you would prefer. Yaknow, the vast majority of the time they are but occasionally, they get a little crazy. I refer to my example of them wanting to trample property rights in order to further the concealed carry privelege. Here in TN, the Republicans who support them wholeheartedly 99% of the time have told them "that's too far". The response from the NRA is to begin heavily funding challengers in the primaries. the problem with that strategy is that when you defeat an incumbent in the primary, you make that seat vulnerable to the 'other party'. It could backfire on them. It's like "You only support us 99% of the time so we want to get rid of you".

DomKen -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 2:11:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Anyone can keep a firearm they own legally in their vehicle. You don't need a concaled carry permit for that. That depends on where the vehicle is located, Ken. If the vehicle is on private property (say a parking lot of a business) the owner or tenant of the property can prohibit firearms if he or she wishes. This is what the NRA is trying to kill. I feeL that property rights supercede right to carry so they can go pound sand. One of the most basic property rights is "Right of Exclusion". Are you sure? I've been assured numerous times that a cased firearm in the trunk is alwys legal.

Nosathro -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 3:42:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mtcouple quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery The NRA has nothing to do with defending the Second Amendment. The NRA has nothing to do with sensible gun ownership. The NRA is all about sensible gun ownership. What they are not for however, is sensible gun ownership as defined by the brady campaign, like it seems that you would prefer. What I find interesting about the NRA is that it boost a 4 million membership, now the 2010 census showed we have some 310 million people in the US making NRA members about 1.7% Yet on recent report shows some 47% of the adult population own firearms, that is about 115 million. So is it safe to say the the NRA membership the sensible gun owners and the other are not? I'll admit my math is not very good. http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

BamaD -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 3:42:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Norway, not Sweden. And that was the first incident they've had there for a long time, so the gun control works more often than it doesn't. That is in no way reflective of any proof of gun control working except your saying so. The way you put it, if gun control actually worked that incident would not have happened. That was a strawman you made - gun control works so well Norway has had only one. How's that a strawman? You can name another incident in Norway, can you? One incident is a lot better than the incident every couple of years you people have instead, which suggests that tooling up the population is less effective in stopping this sort of thing than gun control is. 5x12=60 1x77=77

OsideGirl -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 3:54:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Anyone can keep a firearm they own legally in their vehicle. You don't need a concaled carry permit for that. That depends on where the vehicle is located, Ken. If the vehicle is on private property (say a parking lot of a business) the owner or tenant of the property can prohibit firearms if he or she wishes. This is what the NRA is trying to kill. I feeL that property rights supercede right to carry so they can go pound sand. One of the most basic property rights is "Right of Exclusion". Are you sure? I've been assured numerous times that a cased firearm in the trunk is alwys legal. I know in CA, it can be in the trunk in a locked container. The exception is a school zone. But, private property can ban weapons as long as it's posted.

BamaD -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 4:07:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail While it is not illegal to keep a gun in your car in any state I know of, in most of them there are specific rules about that. I am willing to bet that in over half the states you may not have it loaded, you may not have both ammo and gun within reach of the drivers compartment simultaneously, and I believe in the states you can, it has to be clearly visible from the outside, like the gun rack, unless you (even the states that forbid it) have a concealed carry. And in most of the states allowing concealed carry, lets just say you throw it in the cubby and forget it and then drive drunk....you got a gun beef as well as a DUI all hooked up. There are a couple of states in the south that treat your car the same as your home. Ga for example and there it must be kept in the glove box or console. You can't take it out of the car. And as for being caught dui with a loaded gun in the car God help you. Drunk drivers don't have the sense to be allowed to drive or to have a gun, knives, matches or anything else they can hurt people with. On the whole you have a good point. God Iwish I could type

Page: << < prev 23 24 [25] 26 27 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875