quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

If now-illegal guns were to be put into the same category of heinous criminality and acted upon by law enforcement agencies accordingly, the problem could be solved without too much delay - no?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Embrace what? Your misunderstanding?

I see. When someone else cites Scripture, it's a "misunderstanding."

Pius IX felt the same way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chastityDom1

instead of posting stupid icons you could try to answer the fucking question

"evolution, really? isn't there some internet thing about bringing Hitler to the table? "

"Are the gun totting citizens of America going to bring the government down?

Yes or no ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

And before you start going on about artillery, fighter aircraft and heavy machine guns,

quote:

Oh! Well that changes everything

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

And before you start going on about artillery, fighter aircraft and heavy machine guns,

Except for fighter aircraft, I doubt Chastity has ever heard of Knob Creek![:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

God said guns were fine in the Bible.

I don't think anyone said that. Nosathro implied it by asking "where?" But a "God given" right denotes a right that is inherent, intrinsic to being a human being. It is axiomatic that persons have a right to defend themselves. The burden here falls upon those who would argue that persons do not have a right to defend themselves or, just as effectively, that they do not have a right to an adequate means to defend themselves.


K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: chastityDom1

instead of posting stupid icons you could try to answer the fucking question

"evolution, really? isn't there some internet thing about bringing Hitler to the table? "

"Are the gun totting citizens of America going to bring the government down?

Yes or no ?

As for the first question I don't have a clue what you're talking about.

On question 2, I would have to say, not unless we have to. And before you start going on about artillery, fighter aircraft and heavy machine guns, I'm going to take a great leap forward and predict the military will be on the side of the people against an oppressive government. Not only that but by retaining the right to bear arms its highly unlikely we will ever need it for that which it was intended for.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I understand that pro gun claim it their God given right, I just trying to find out when God announced that policy

Book of Ruth
One of her missions was getting the King, not to protect the Jews, but to allow them the weapons to do it themselves.
The modern equivalent would be not swords but ... wait for it.... Firearms.

Not so sure about Ruth.

Nehemiah 4:17-18
Luke 22:36
Psalms 144:1
Judges 5:8
1 Samuel 25:13
Exodus 22:2

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: thezeppo

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

No we see disgusting and perverted as resorting to name calling rather than honest debate

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

On the other hand here I am free to point out that you are a reprehensible excuse for a human being with the analytical skills of my dog and a level of arrogance virtually unparalleled and totally unjustified.

This was funny yesterday when I was drunk, and its still funny now I'm hungover. Without even getting into you calling someone else arrogant after using the royal 'we' to extrapolate your first statement across America, these two posts were less than an hour apart! What a gobshite you are [;)]


Slightly more on topic, when I hear of a gun-related tragedy in the United States my instinctive reaction is 'why do they all have to have guns?' I don't personally like them and I don't really get it when posters argue that more guns should be introduced in the wake of a tragedy. I've come to understand that there is a cultural divide in this regard and that it would be unfair to judge one side by the standards of the other. I've also come around to the idea that I'm a hypocrite if I argue that there should be tighter gun control or a ban on guns in the wake of tragic events. Its not a perfect analogy but if someone were to play Grand Theft Auto for 24 hours straight and then drive their car into a group of people I would still fully expect to be able to keep my copy of the game. I don't think people like MasterCaneman and DaddySatyr should have their guns taken away because someone else miles away committed an atrocity. I suppose I'm coming around to the personal responsibility argument - with the proviso that anyone whose gun is used to commit murder should be tried for the same crime, if they aren't already.

In the first post I was not using the royal we.
That was the we as in those of us who think we are being talked down to think so because.
I used we because I was speaking for a group.
The second post was because he had spent 6 pages insulting me on a moderated thread and has a history of doing so until I respond in kind.
Then he denies being the person who reports me for doing so.
I was catching up in one post for the better part of a week of abusive posts from him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin



And before you start going on about artillery, fighter aircraft and heavy machine guns, I'm going to take a great leap forward and predict the military will be on the side of the people against an oppressive government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin



And before you start going on about artillery, fighter aircraft and heavy machine guns, I'm going to take a great leap forward and predict the military will be on the side of the people against an oppressive government.

I completely agree that the military will be on the side of the people and would never kill hundreds or thousands of their own people so that kind of blows the overthrowing the evil government with a militia argument out of the water doesn't it?

And if the military did turn on it's people and the people did try to resist I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to what the death toll would be, so that's never going to happen either.

That bit of the 2nd isn't doing too well is it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

God said guns were fine in the Bible.

Sad to say, there are parts of my beloved country where that actually passes muster as an argument.

No but various portions of the Bible do validate self defense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

If now-illegal guns were to be put into the same category of heinous criminality and acted upon by law enforcement agencies accordingly, the problem could be solved without too much delay - no?

When it comes to tough laws against felony possession of firearms and violent crime, we already have them. Not that gun owners would object to making them tougher. But in a sorry tale, repeated all over the country, we don't fucking enforce the ones we already have. Criminals are routinely allowed to plead to lesser offenses that put them back on the streets in short order.

Dozens of federal agents from around the country set up shop in the St. Louis area over the last four months, working undercover... [they] netted more than 200 arrests, charges against 159 defendants, and the seizure of 267 guns and several pounds of drugs... Of those charged, 78 percent were already convicted felons, officials said, who had amassed more than 500 previous convictions between them. ~St. Louis Post-Dispatch 

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thezeppo

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: thezeppo

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

No we see disgusting and perverted as resorting to name calling rather than honest debate

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

On the other hand here I am free to point out that you are a reprehensible excuse for a human being with the analytical skills of my dog and a level of arrogance virtually unparalleled and totally unjustified.

This was funny yesterday when I was drunk, and its still funny now I'm hungover. Without even getting into you calling someone else arrogant after using the royal 'we' to extrapolate your first statement across America, these two posts were less than an hour apart! What a gobshite you are [;)]


Slightly more on topic, when I hear of a gun-related tragedy in the United States my instinctive reaction is 'why do they all have to have guns?' I don't personally like them and I don't really get it when posters argue that more guns should be introduced in the wake of a tragedy. I've come to understand that there is a cultural divide in this regard and that it would be unfair to judge one side by the standards of the other. I've also come around to the idea that I'm a hypocrite if I argue that there should be tighter gun control or a ban on guns in the wake of tragic events. Its not a perfect analogy but if someone were to play Grand Theft Auto for 24 hours straight and then drive their car into a group of people I would still fully expect to be able to keep my copy of the game. I don't think people like MasterCaneman and DaddySatyr should have their guns taken away because someone else miles away committed an atrocity. I suppose I'm coming around to the personal responsibility argument - with the proviso that anyone whose gun is used to commit murder should be tried for the same crime, if they aren't already.

In the first post I was not using the royal we.
That was the we as in those of us who think we are being talked down to think so because.
I used we because I was speaking for a group.
The second post was because he had spent 6 pages insulting me on a moderated thread and has a history of doing so until I respond in kind.
Then he denies being the person who reports me for doing so.
I was catching up in one post for the better part of a week of abusive posts from him.

I'm not a natural name caller, I've genuinely felt guilty about this and the resulting argument. One day I will learn to keep my big kazoo shut. Sorry about the gobshite comment Bama

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

God said guns were fine in the Bible.

I don't think anyone said that. Nosathro implied it by asking "where?" But a "God given" right denotes a right that is inherent, intrinsic to being a human being. It is axiomatic that persons have a right to defend themselves. The burden here falls upon those who would argue that persons do not have a right to defend themselves or, just as effectively, that they do not have a right to an adequate means to defend themselves.


K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Between 1987 and 1990, a study found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period). This equated to two times out of 1,000 criminal incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this period, including criminal incidents where no guns were involved at all. For violent crimes, assault, robbery, and rape, guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense.
McDowall, David, Brian Wiersema (1994). "The Incidence of Defensive Firearm Use by US Crime Victims, 1987 through 1990".

The argument that guns are needed to adequately defend ourselves does not hold true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Between 1987 and 1990, a study found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period). This equated to two times out of 1,000 criminal incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this period, including criminal incidents where no guns were involved at all. For violent crimes, assault, robbery, and rape, guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense.
McDowall, David, Brian Wiersema (1994). "The Incidence of Defensive Firearm Use by US Crime Victims, 1987 through 1990".

The argument that guns are needed to adequately defend ourselves does not hold true.

You're seemingly implying that the other than .83% of the time criminals were actively defended against by other means. How you come to your (bolded) statement I haven't a clue.

Do you?[8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

And don't try to use Lott's or Kleck's study both have been debunked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

And don't try to use Lott's or Kleck's study both have been debunked.

Really? When? By whom?