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 4:13:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro 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. Many are members of other organizations. GOA, SFA, JPFO, etc. If anyone is interested in an excellent book (IMO) which describes the American gun culture read Unintended Consequences, John Ross. There is a fictional story interwoven, but the description of the culture is quite interesting.

BamaD -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 4:15:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne 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 If someone doesn't want you to carry in their home that would be an indisputable right. Just like if they don't want you to drink smoke or run around naked. You comply or you don't go there not even need to a matter of law, just common curtesy

Musicmystery -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 8:01:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mtcouple 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. If you're going to read it in the context it was written: they didn't trust the masses they didn't even trust them to vote *Madison warned in FP#63 about the dangers of personal liberty exceeding regulation. Save the mind-reading for discussions with Miss Cleo.

mtcouple -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 8:54:41 PM)
And your point is? Does any of that change the fact that our founding fathers were quite explicit that the second amendment is a personal right, and should never be taken as a reason to restrict the rights of the people to arm themselves? Or that the supreme court has affirmed this as well, on several occasions? I don't need a mind reader to know what the true meaning of the 2nd amendment is. It was very explicit when it was written, and according to the supreme court, that hasn't changed.

Musicmystery -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 9:49:53 PM)
quote: Does any of that change the fact that our founding fathers were quite explicit that the second amendment is a personal right You didn't read what I wrote. You didn't read what the Second Amendment says either.

Real0ne -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 9:57:34 PM)
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? so you dont understand statutory construction either I see. In heller the supreme court said loud and clear that the right is individual. didnt understand that either apparently. what do you understand except your unfounded agenfda

BamaD -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 10:01:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne 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? so you dont understand statutory construction either I see. In heller the supreme court said loud and clear that the right is individual. didnt understand that either apparently. what do you understand except your unfounded agenfda The important phrase is of the people in the constitution that always refferes to an individual. not a group right.

Musicmystery -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 10:05:26 PM)
LOL! Swim! Swim! Faster! Swim!

Real0ne -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/25/2012 10:09:42 PM)
that is not correct. people refer to the group it means community it was gubafia insurance no monarchs would be born in the states. It created the democracy where as a club member 51% can vote to fuck your wife on friday nite. the question is if the individuals are not sovereirn then how can the group be sovereign since in law power flows downhill. Thre have been several court rulings however stating that the people are sovereign, however the state will overrule you everytime when they tell you to fuck off that you cannot sue them because THEY are the ultimate sovereign. then who the fuck appointed them? LOL The so called founders had no authority to create the present constitution, and had no authority to use the name of the people in it. Our rights are antecedent to any constitution and the only reason we have constituions at all is to hold the fucking gubafia back but since they own the courts good luck with that. Now inso far as your rights are concerned the document you take to court is the declaration of independence. that is where your individual rights of man (outside the citizen prison state) are.

mnottertail -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/26/2012 7:27:49 AM)
asdlkfasdflk;asdflkasdflk;asdflk;asdflkjasdflkj;asdflkasdflkasdflk;asdflkasdflkasdflkasdflkasdflkasdfjl. same shit, different day. The topic, btw, is gun control.

Real0ne -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/26/2012 8:35:08 AM)
brain overload again? Have you taken your meds today? [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/20120115IMG_9158w5.jpg[/image]

mnottertail -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/26/2012 8:52:26 AM)
we have exhausted all your knowledge, already?

Thaz -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/27/2012 3:25:06 AM)
It IS possible to train for circumstances not wildly dissimmilar to those that occured at this tragic and horrible event. I have done so. It took years to be effective in CQB and took very regular practise to maintain that. I'd spend roughly 20 hours a month in the CQB Killing house training with a varity of handguns and longarms both as 'white hat' and as 'black' to maintain that edge over and above normal range time. I've met people who were dedicated full time to it and been trained by them, including arguably one of the worlds foremost experts on hostage rescue and close in fighting. Ironically that time as a 'black hat' would have been better training for being armed and in the crowd on that particular day. Would I have any level of confidence in being able to take down someone heavily armed and armoured in dark and smoke and chaos? Well I did in very realistic training on many occasions. And on many more occasions I didnt. This is not a situation where you are liable to get a clean shot easily and the odds are stacked against you, I've seen those same world class professionals catch a bad break and loose a training fight and it certainly happens for real. And your average firearm carrying member of the public would have done much less well than I would have back then. Would I want someone else also shooting back that I hadnt trained with? Hell No. It would be a blood bath. But yes, if I was there and carrying one of my 1911's or variants I would have tried. Its several years since I last spent time getting tear gassed, flash banged and trying to shoot back so I would have probably failed and died trying. Would I much prefer that the lunatic had been picked up and treated before he went postal or screened out from being able to buy firearms? HELL YES! It is entirely possible to be pro guns and pro gun control folks.

Musicmystery -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/27/2012 5:59:26 AM)
quote: It IS possible to train for circumstances not wildly dissimmilar to those that occured at this tragic and horrible event. Of course it's possible. It's not the norm. I agree that guns and sensible regulation are compatible. But that's not the position of the gun lobby.

Thaz -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/27/2012 6:31:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: It IS possible to train for circumstances not wildly dissimmilar to those that occured at this tragic and horrible event. Of course it's possible. It's not the norm. I agree that guns and sensible regulation are compatible. But that's not the position of the gun lobby. Indeed. Wider transparancy of lobbying and political funding (and I refer here to both the US and UK models of democracy) might be of some assistance.

Real0ne -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/27/2012 6:37:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: mtcouple 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. If you're going to read it in the context it was written: they didn't trust the masses they didn't even trust them to vote Madison warned in FP#63 about the dangers of personal liberty exceeding regulation. Save the mind-reading for discussions with Miss Cleo. Oh so the constitution REALLY was for THE GOVERNMENTS RIGHTS then eh? That must be who the People are in that document since it does not apply to the people quote:* "The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489 "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491 WTG King George!

Musicmystery -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/27/2012 6:46:52 AM)
peo·ple [pee-puhl] --a GROUP noun 1. persons indefinitely or collectively; persons in general: to find it easy to talk to people; What will people think? 2. persons, whether men, women, or children, considered as numerable individuals forming a group: Twenty people volunteered to help. 3. human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings. 4. the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like: the people of Australia; the Jewish people. 5. the persons of any particular group, company, or number (sometimes used in combination): the people of a parish; educated people; salespeople.

Real0ne -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/27/2012 6:50:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Does any of that change the fact that our founding fathers were quite explicit that the second amendment is a personal right You didn't read what I wrote. You didn't read what the Second Amendment says either. quote: I don't need a mind reader to know what the true meaning of the 2nd amendment is. It was very explicit whe you dont get it King George. The supreme court stated that the right to own and bear is NOT a COLLECTIVE right. WTF is your problem that you continue insisting it is a corporate privilege?

mnottertail -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/27/2012 6:52:54 AM)
The supreme court stated that the right to own and bear is NOT a COLLECTIVE right. Cite the case with that exact language cuz you are a corporate flunky.

Moonhead -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/27/2012 6:55:05 AM)
You do know that's just asking for a GIF of some obscure gilded age court judgement with a few bits that are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand picked out in highlighter pen?

Page: << < prev 24 25 [26] 27 28 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625